Remove 2005 Remove Derivative Work Remove Designs
article thumbnail

The Much-Adapted “Peter Pan” (1904 – Forever )

Velocity of Content

Preface: I wanted to learn more about the concept (and applications) of “derivative works” and adaptations under copyright law, and I was searching for a useful example that might also be interesting for readers of Velocity of Content to read about. The basic litany up through 1953: “The Little White Bird” (1902 poetry collection).

article thumbnail

Jury Awards Damages to Tattoo Artist for Video-Game Depiction–Alexander v. WWE 2K (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Alexander claimed that Take-Two Interactive infringed the tattoo designs she inked on her client, professional wrestler Randy Orton, when the company produced and distributed a video game featuring a realistic in-game depiction of Orton. Also, see Q2 of my 2005 contracts law exam and the sample answer. Warner Bros.

Blogging 140
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

SpicyIP Weekly Review (August 28 – September 3)

SpicyIP

SpicyIP Tidbit: CGPDTM Calls for Comments and Suggestions on Different IP Manuals and Guidelines The office of the Controller General of Patents, Design and Trademarks (CGPDTM) is inviting comments from stakeholders to revamp the Patents, Designs, Trademarks, GI and Copyright Manuals and Guidelines. Deadline- October 15, 2023.

article thumbnail

Ninth Circuit Reaffirms the “Server Test” for Direct Infringement of the Public Display Right — Hunley v. Instagram, LLC (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

As a practical matter, the answer is certainly yes; an open system is built into the design of the internet. The problem arises because copyright law is written as an “opt-in” system (no copying without authorization), while the Internet is designed as an “opt-out” system (it allows copying unless it is prohibited). Supreme Court.

article thumbnail

Maybe Duct Tape Can’t Fix Everything: Slippery Standards As Copyright Goes Bananas

LexBlog IP

Warhol , at 1283-84 ] This paragraph asks the judge, or the art critic, to carry out their tasks, and consider the meaning of a work. But to do so without considering the work’s significance and without considering the subjective intent of the person creating the derivative work or the subjective impact of that work upon the viewer.