Technology & Marketing Law Blog

AUGUST 16, 2024

Copyright Copyright Basics (Copyright Office Circular 1) Note About Fair Use Cartoon Network v. Privacy Review: 16 C.F.R. Part 312, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act’s Regulations Overview of the E.U.’s s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and State Consumer Privacy Laws In re. Bright Data V.

Editing 101

Editing Law Social Media Contracts 101

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

AUGUST 2, 2021

I’ve now framed it as a note about California’s consumer privacy laws. US case, which overwrote most of my prior note on Nosal and Power Ventures. Note About Fair Use. Part 312, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act’s Regulations. Review: CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 [[link] and 16 C.F.R.

Editing 145

Editing Law Privacy Contracts 145

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

JULY 12, 2022

Note About Fair Use. Part 312, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act’s Regulations. s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and State Consumer Privacy Laws. Review: CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 [[link] and 16 C.F.R. Comparison of Trespass to Chattels Doctrines. Hamidi (Cal. Register.com v. Cartoon Network v.

Editing 141

Editing Law Social Media Privacy 141

43(B)log

DECEMBER 20, 2022

Nathan directed the allegedly infringing 2013 Documentary, which “tells the story of Pug, a thirteen-year-old child who wants to be a ‘12 O’Clock Boy,’ just like [he] has repeatedly watched in [the 2001 and 2003 Documentaries].” So too with plaintiffs’ 2003 Documentary. The similarities in setting, theme, etc.

Fair Use 52

Fair Use Trademark Copyright Editing 52

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

AUGUST 7, 2023

Copyright Copyright Basics (Copyright Office Circular 1) Note About Fair Use Cartoon Network v. Privacy Review: 16 C.F.R. Part 312, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act’s Regulations Overview of the E.U.’s s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and State Consumer Privacy Laws In re. Hamidi (Cal.

Editing 52

Editing Law Contracts Privacy 52

Patently-O

DECEMBER 12, 2021

The PTO’s asserted justification for this total ban on registration is “to protect the intellectual property right of privacy and publicity that a living person has in his/her identity.” [10] Is the PTO capable of applying First Amendment balancing tests such as transformative use or fair use in routine registration decisions?;

Registration 69

Registration Government Advertising Advertising 69

43(B)log

AUGUST 8, 2024

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

IP Fair Use Privacy Licensing 59