“ The court rejected that argument by reviewing similar copyright infringement actions, as well as legislative history, and stated:
We believe the most logical interpretation of the Copyright Act is to hold that a public performance or display includes each step in the process by which a protected work wends its way to its audience. Under that analysis, it is clear that PrimeTime’s uplink transmission of signals captured in the United States is a step in the process by which NFL’s protected work wends its way to a public audience. ”

“ A copyright registration is not a prerequisite to protection of live performances or broadcasts. See 17 U.S.C. § 411 (b) . [3] In short, to prevail in a copyright action, the plaintiff must “show ‘ownership’ of the material and ‘copying’ by the defendant. To establish ‘ownership,’ the plaintiff must prove that the material is original, that it can be copyrighted, and that he has complied with statutory formalities.” ”

“ Davis essentially attempts to make the same argument as PrimeTime by stating that he has an “affirmative defense” because he provides the “same audio webcast link freely distributed by ClearChannel.” Using the same approach, the court determines that the unauthorized “link” to the live webcasts that Davis provides on his website qualifies as a copied display or performance of SFX’s copyrightable material.
The court also determines that the link Davis provides on his website is not a “fair use” of copyright material as Davis asserts through his Answer. ”

“ Once the moving party has made an initial showing that there is no evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case, the party opposing the motion must come forward with competent summary judgment evidence of the existence of a genuine fact issue. ”

“ Davis, however, presents no evidence and gives no explanation showing how “SupercrossLIVE” distinguishes his goods from those of others. [5] In short, Davis has presented no evidence that “SupercrossLIVE” is distinctive, and he has not given this court evidence showing that he obtained trademark registration for “SupercrossLIVE.” [6] As a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Davis’s trademark infringement counter claims, he is not entitled to summary judgment on these claims. Accordingly, the court may not grant Defendant and Counter Claimant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. ”

“ The status report he provides states that his application is “ [n] ewly filed,” and “not yet assigned to an examining attorney.”
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105) . ”