context: Assuming this distribution arrangement required a license for the Composition, there may be an issue of fact about whether Plaintiff knew, in light of the Album's release, that Defendant licensed the Composition to Montage Records without his permission. However, this lack of clarity does not defeat summary judgment.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 279 F.2d 100, 104-05
citation_a.parenthetical: affirming dismissal of estoppel defense in copyright action where trial court assumed that Plaintiff knew of infringing conduct and Defendant was ignorant of the true facts, but found no holding out or reliance
citation_a.sentence: See Lottie Joplin Thomas Trust, 456 F.Supp. at 535 (granting summary judgment for plaintiff on defendant’s estoppel defense “[ejven assuming that plaintiff was aware of the ... assignment from its inception”); see also Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100, 104-05 (9th Cir.1960) (affirming dismissal of estoppel defense in copyright action where trial court assumed that Plaintiff knew of infringing conduct and Defendant was ignorant of the true facts, but found no holding out or reliance).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 456 F.Supp. 535, 535
citation_b.parenthetical: granting summary judgment for plaintiff on defendant's estoppel defense "[ejven assuming that plaintiff was aware of the ... assignment from its inception"
citation_b.sentence: See Lottie Joplin Thomas Trust, 456 F.Supp. at 535 (granting summary judgment for plaintiff on defendant’s estoppel defense “[ejven assuming that plaintiff was aware of the ... assignment from its inception”); see also Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100, 104-05 (9th Cir.1960) (affirming dismissal of estoppel defense in copyright action where trial court assumed that Plaintiff knew of infringing conduct and Defendant was ignorant of the true facts, but found no holding out or reliance).