2002 Contracts Fair Use 
The IPKat
APRIL 4, 2024
The disproportionate remuneration stemmed from contracts entered into with dominant players, especially in the music industry, and this has over time been a major source of worry for the South African government. The MITT and CRC found the Copyright Act to be inadequate in addressing the issues.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
JANUARY 17, 2024
This case expands the canon of copyright protection for lawyer-drafted documents such as legal briefs and contracts. Even if the verbatim copying qualifies as putative infringement, many republications are likely to be covered by fair use. Copyright Protection for Legal Documents. See, e.g., White v. See also Prof.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
43(B)log
AUGUST 4, 2023
Partly in response to NJ’s 2002 law—once there’s a smart gun, manufacturers have to switch to it w/in 30 months, though NJ backed off and just required retailers to stock it, but still infuriated gun rights advocates who boycotted Colt and Smith & Wesson who then got out of the market entirely. The 1201 review illuminates the problem.
SpicyIP
DECEMBER 30, 2023
The Court interpreted the clause on ownership of work made during a contract of service (Section 17(c)) to not apply in situations where there is a contract between equals. The Court limited the scope of Section 17(c) to apply to contracts where the relationship between the parties is akin to that of an apprenticeship.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
AUGUST 16, 2024
However, it did involve an edge outcome (the presence of a unilateral amendment clause infected the whole contract) that hasn’t come up often since it was issued. But half of the cases come from the 2002-2011 era, though that percentage is shrinking. Contracts Meyer v. Blockbuster, Hamidi, Register.com, and Doe v.
Copyright Lately
DECEMBER 12, 2022
” The Court held that 2 Live Crew’s version qualified as a non-infringing fair use because it was a parody that sufficiently transformed the Orbison original. On March 8, 1994, The New York Times reported 2 Live Crew’s Supreme Court fair use victory. Lil’ Joe Makes a Deal.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
FEBRUARY 13, 2023
Sixth, assuming Woodward published copyrighted material without Trump’s authorization, was he permitted to do so, either as a fair use, or by the First Amendment? Absent consent, fair use, or a First Amendment defense, publishing the interviews without Trump’s consent is therefore a violation of his copyright.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
132 
Let's personalize your content