2003 Copying Designs Fair Use 
Patently-O
SEPTEMBER 17, 2023
This post will focus on another key issue from the case – the relevance of logos in design patent infringement analysis. Still, ornamental logos found on the accused product can still be relevant as visual distractors in the process of evaluating similarities and differences between the claimed design and accused design.
Patently-O
AUGUST 31, 2021
There apparently is no claim of copying of any lines of software, but instead it is copying of the functionality and use of the particular coding language. My understanding is that WPL designed its software so that its software would execute the same input-procedure used on SAS and produce an equivalent output.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright Lately
MAY 1, 2023
Within just over a month, a raft of barely-underground Discord servers like AI Hub have popped up to provide users with access to software—and step-by-step instructions—for creating new songs using hundreds of community-made AI models designed to mimic specific artists’ voices. No wonder I’m getting flashbacks to 2003.
43(B)log
FEBRUARY 22, 2021
US may apply unclean hands: Villa v. for women: a swimsuit with decorations attached; can get more elaborate with feathers and design elements. © attaches without registration and endures for much longer than design rights. Would also be interested in what the cultural norms are: are there anti-copying/divergence expectations?
43(B)log
DECEMBER 20, 2022
The 2001 Documentary “sold 50,000 copies in two weeks and revolutionized the Baltimore dirt-bike culture,” inspiring a sequel and plans to make a third film. Plaintiffs allegedly used the 12 O’Clock Boyz trademarks since 2001 and registered the marks in 2016. The similarities in setting, theme, etc.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
OCTOBER 19, 2021
Plaintiffs want and expect Google to copy and display their websites in Chrome browser and Search App, and acknowledge that Google has license to do so.” Citing a 2003 Ninth Circuit case, Kremen v. ” Wait, what? We need to know more about this license. It didn’t. That can’t possibly be right. Implications.
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.
70 
Let's personalize your content