Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Chicago Style Productions v. Chicago Sun Times

313 Ill. App. 3d 45 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Chicago Style Productions v. Chicago Sun Times

3 Citing cases

  1. Defined Space, Inc. v. Lakeshore East, LLC

    797 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Ill. 2011)   Cited 17 times
    Finding claims under Illinois statutes for consumer fraud and deceptive business and trade practices were preempted because “the rights asserted under Illinois state law in this case are not qualitatively different from the rights conferred under the Copyright Act”

    The defendants contend that the claims that DSI is bringing under state law are essentially the same claims as Count VI of the complaint, which alleges copyright infringement for the same underlying acts. The defendants argue that these claims are preempted pursuant to the reasoning of Natkin and Chicago Style Productions, Inc. v. Chicago Sun Times, Inc., 313 Ill.App.3d 45, 245 Ill.Dec. 847, 728 N.E.2d 1204 (2000).

  2. People v. Williams

    376 Ill. App. 3d 875 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007)   Cited 12 times
    Explaining two objectives of section 16-8

    Numerous courts, including this one, have construed section 301(a) as requiring the preemption of state statutory or common law claims where: (1) the works at issue are fixed in tangible form and fall within the "subject matter of copyright" as defined in section 102 of the Act (the subject matter prong); and (2) the legal or equitable rights granted under the state law are equivalent to the exclusive rights set forth in section 106 of the Act (the equivalency prong). Chicago Style Productions, Inc. v. Chicago Sun Times, Inc., 313 Ill.App.3d 45, 47, 245 Ill.Dec. 847, 728 N.E.2d 1204 (2000), citing Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Association, 805 F.2d 663 (7th Cir. 1986); Bilut v. Northwestern University, 296 Ill.App.3d 42, 52, 230 Ill.Dec. 161, 692 N.E.2d 1327 (1998); see also Crow v. Wainwright, 720 F.2d 1224, 1225-26 (11th Cir. 1983).

  3. ACT II Jewelry, LLC v. Wooten

    Case No. 15 C 6950 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 11, 2016)   Cited 5 times
    Finding that plain and unambiguous language of an incentive agreement superseded and terminated the employee's earlier confidentiality agreement

    Accordingly, Plaintiffs' ICFA claim is preempted by the Copyright Act. Accord Chicago Style Prods., Inc. v. Chicago Sun Times, Inc., 728 N.E.2d 1204, 1208 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). In light of this conclusion, the Court need not address Defendants' other arguments in favor of dismissal.