* Previously posted IPPIBlog.com

In an article published in the World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR) on September 25, 2017, it was reported that a copyright infringement claim made against Curtis Jackson (a.k.a. 50 Cent) and Starz[1] was recently dismissed by a U.S. District Court judge because the claimant, “…had not met the pleading burden of showing “ ‘more than a bare possibility that defendants had access…’ ” to the claimant’s manuscript.

As a private investigation firm, we, of course, cannot speak to the merits of any particular copyright infringement claim, but there are two common themes that come up time and time again whenever we are called in by a media-defendant to look into the claimant’s background: 1) The claimant has no significant production credits, and, 2) The claimant is broke.

Of course, being broke and having no significant production credits (at the time of the claim) does not automatically discredit one’s claim, but for media companies—often faced with having to defend itself against disingenuous claims—it could shed some light on what is truly motivating the claimant.

[1] Judge Dismisses Copyright Suit Against 50 Cent


Disclaimer: This blog is offered as a service to the professional IP community. While every effort has been made to check information in this blog, we provide no guarantees or warranties, express or implied, with regard to content provided in this blog. We disclaim any and all liability and responsibility for the qualification or accuracy of representations made by the contributors or for any disputes that may arise. It is the responsibility of the readers to independently investigate and verify the credentials of such person and the accuracy and validity of the information provided by them. This blog is provided for general information purposes only and is not intended to provide legal or other professional advice.