Valente-Kritzer Video v. Callan Pinckney Callan Productions Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an intentional misrepresentation claim “is not substantially equivalent to a claim for copyright infringement”
• holding fraud claim was not 8 preempted because “misrepresentation is a necessary element of any fraud claim” and “[t]his is not 9 substantially equivalent to a claim for copyright infringement.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).