4 ms·
I don't have time to read the whole case (much like the authors of the article I suspect), but as a lawyer that whole claim about "using the doctrine of clean h
by vivekd 10y ago
I don't have time to read the whole case (much like the authors of the article I suspect), but as a lawyer that whole claim about "using the doctrine of clean hands to deny copyright" sounds fishy to me. Clean hands is an equitable doctrine based on case law (judge made law based on previous decisions), whereas copyright is statutory. You can't use case law and equity to avoid statutory law, that's one of the basis of our system where the legislature as elected by the people have supremacy over the laws.
I suspect what happened was the plaintiff in that case was violating another federal statute preventing the sale of obscene materials in interstate commerce and that's why they couldn't bring their copyright claim, because the were breaking the law and trying to get the court to give them the protection of the law at the same time.
- RichardCA 10y agoYou have to go back and review the case law from the 70's. The 1972 porn classic "Behind the Green Door" spawned a whole mess of litigation and set precedents that are still cited. That's where Mitchell Bros. Film Group v. Cinema Adult Theater came from.