Kalantari v. NITV, Inc., 352 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2003)

Ed. Note: if you’re new to TURBOFAC, please take note that the text string filtration function generally shouldn’t be used for terms such as “ordinarily resident,” “causing” or “new debt”. For research on the meaning of words and phrases such as those, i.e. terms central to the key legal issues in sanctions law that appear on a cross-programmatic basis, you’re typically better off locating and checking the appropriate box in the “Key Legal Issues” search category, which will limit the results to those that have been manually assessed as being relevant for the interpretation of the terms at issue.

Try typing your search term (“ordinarily resident,” “new debt,” or something else) in the “Find a Search Filter” box at the top of the page, and the corresponding “Key Legal Issues” check box will pop up instantly, if one exists. Once you check the box (e.g. “new debt,” with ~55 results), you can always use the text string filtration function to further refine your search (e.g. by typing “invoice” and narrowing the ~55 results to ~10).

Note in addition that the same applies to text string searches such as “14071” (if you’re looking for items related to EO 14071). By typing “14071” in the “Find a Search Filter” field up top, you will be able to instantly narrow the results down to items manually assessed as relating to EO 14071. Ditto terms such as “515.204” or “Iran General License G” (try the “Discrete Legal Provision” search category). Please contact [email protected] or [email protected] with any questions on search results and efficiency.

Please click "Apply Text String Filters" again after clicking the "Close" button immediately below.

TURBOFAC Commentary (414 words)

Notes:

1) In a case not involving OFAC (either as party or amicus), the 9th Circuit held that, with respect to a film legally imported from Iran in accordance with the informational materials exemption (560.210(c)), the subsequent assignment of the copyright of the film was a transaction "ordinarily incident" (560.405) to the initial copyrighting of the film expressly authorized by the general license at 560.509. This case is notable for the following reasons:

i) the are still silent on the question presented in the case, but OFAC does not appear to have made any statement signaling disapproval with the decision;

ii) The case is of cross-programmatic relevance se with respect to regulations have similar copyright-related general licenses [1]

iii) This is a...

Welcome!

Welcome!

Kalantari v. NITV, Inc., 352 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2003)

TURBOFAC Commentary (414 words)