Tur v. YouTube Inc. « Copywrite

Disclaimer

Attorney Advertising. This blog is ATTORNEY ADVERTISING in those jurisdictions in which I am admitted to practice. It is not legal advice. If it were legal advice, it would be followed by a bill.

No Attorney Client Relationship. I provide this blog for general informational purposes only. I am an attorney and some of the information on this blog relates to legal topics, but no attorney client relationship is created when you use this blog. By using the blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and Keith Henning.

Not Legal Advice. The information contained in this site is for entertainment purposes only; it is not intended to constitute legal advice. The information on this blog is general only and limited to the instances discussed. I do not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, adequacy or timeliness of the information contained in this site, and users of information from this site do so at their own risk. This blog is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your state.

Email is Not Notice. . Email May Not Be Used to Provide Notice. Communications made through the blog's messaging system or email does not constitute legal notice.

Tur v. YouTube Inc.

Posted on 08/12/2006 by Keith Henning

This may be the first suit based on Grokster’s inducement standard. YouTube Hit With Copyright Infringement Suit

Robert Tur, the reporter who shot video coverage of the 1992 Los Angeles riots, claims YouTube site encouraged its users to circulate his video of police beating truck driver Reginald Denny during the ‘92 riots and for his overhead coverage of the 1994 police chase of O.J. Simpson in his white Bronco. Citing the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in MGM v. Grokster, he is asking for the court to enjoin YouTube from showing his work and for $150,000 per infingement. The LA riot video has been view more than 1000 times = $150mil. in requested damages.

Filed under: Infringment Cases