Netzer v. Continuity Graphic Associates, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that equitable estoppel was not triggered where defendant told plaintiff \negative things\ would happen if he pursued his copyright claim
• concluding that placement of copyright notice that did not include plaintiffs name constituted “[a]n express assertion of sole authorship or ownership” sufficient to start the limitations period on a coauthorship claim
• stating that any “enrichment” of the defendants resulting from the exploitation of copyrighted work was “unjust” only by reason of rights created by federal copyright law
• construing plaintiff's claim of ignorance as a claim of fraudulent concealment
• “isolated use” of plaintiffs name on “only one of 116 panels in a twenty-four page comic book” was “insufficient to establish liability”
• “An express assertion of sole authorship or ownership will start the copyright statute of limitations running”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).