This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
SSPL was incorporated in 2004. Under Section 2(c) of The Copyright Act of 1957 , the label is an original artisticwork. When SSPL was incorporated in 2004, SK Oil Industries had assigned it the label’s copyright. When SSPL was incorporated in 2004, SK Oil Industries had assigned it the label’s copyright.
is it the actual user of the photograph under a licence arrangement or the licensor or both); the author of a photograph as an artisticwork; whether passing off applies to images/photographs; and what to establish to succeed in a claim for passing off relating to image rights. VMNL) or both that person and their licensee (i.e.
Not all marketing of artisticworks is noncommercial speech. So, were Sony’s statements, “a brand new album from the greatest artist of all time” with “9 previously unreleased vocal tracks performed by Michael Jackson,” commercial speech? 4th 135 (2004); cf. citing Hustler v. Falwell and Mattel v. citing Rezec v.
Read Tejaswini’s post on the recent DHC order concerning these two liquor brands. They filed a suit alleging copyright and trademark infringement against the defendant after discovering that they were selling household products under the name, ‘SUFIYAMA’, using a similar trade dress and artisticwork. Defendant no.
The law doesn’t specify 3D or 2D characters as copyrightable, but they can be covered under artisticworks as per Section 13 of the Copyright Act. To identify such fictional works, we generally rely upon two tests Character Delineation Test [10] and Story being told Test. [11] 10] Nichols v Universal Pictures Co, 45 F.2d
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content