Remove 2003 Remove Fair Use Remove Licensing Remove Public Domain
article thumbnail

Prince, Prince, Prints: Will the Supreme Court Revisit Fair Use?

LexBlog IP

1] That decision shook the art world, as it seems to dramatically narrow the scope of the fair use doctrine, and raises doubts about the lawfulness of many existing works. [2] Vanity Fair , in turn, commissioned Warhol to make a silkscreen using Goldsmith’s photograph. He did just that.

article thumbnail

3 Count: Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic

Plagiarism Today

First off today, Massimo Capizza at the National Law Review reports that the Supreme Court of the United States has denied certiorari in a case over the 2003 Josh Groban song You Raise Me Up , leaving a circuit split in place over how to determine substantial similarity between two works. Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Time for the 12 O'Clock Boyz to go: court shuts down (c)/TM lawsuit against documentary & feature film about Baltimore bikers

43(B)log

Plaintiffs also alleged infringement of Monbo’s right of publicity, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Lanham Act and related Maryland trademark law. Monbo appeared as an actor in the 2001 and 2003 Documentaries, was interviewed in “[a]t least two” of the segments defendants used, and was not compensated for the use of his likeness.

article thumbnail

When you can't know a book by its title, and the law may even leave you confused

The IPKat

The Wikipedia entry begin as follows— For the 2003 novel, see The Miniaturist (Kunal Basu novel)." An international bestseller, it was the focus of a publishers' bidding war at the 2013 London Book Fair.[2] One should distinguish this from a situation where the book title is wholly descriptive, e.g., a book entitled "Patent Licensing".

Law 125
article thumbnail

A Preliminary Analysis of Trump’s Copyright Lawsuit Over Interview Recordings (Trump v. Simon & Schuster) (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Fifth, assuming Trump owns a valid copyright, did he grant an implied license to Woodward to publish transcripts of the interviews and/or the record­ings themselves? 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?

Copyright 121
article thumbnail

IPSC Opening Plenary Session

43(B)log

Prince finds fairness in many images when Prince didn’t care about other artists; Graham v. Prince rejects fair use when his stated intent was to have fun. Sexual pleasure: when mark is used to “titillate” or convey a message that sex is good, that doesn’t establish parody or commentary. Disdain as paradigmatic fair use.

IP 59