2006 Copying Public Domain 
Patently-O
APRIL 17, 2024
This case began back in 2006 when Crocs sued Double Diamond and others for patent infringement of Crocs’s design patents. Therefore, Dastar ‘s unaccredited copying did not constitute a false designation of origin actionable under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act. 1125(a)(1)(B) (Section 43 of the Lanham Act).
Copyright Lately
OCTOBER 25, 2021
As the story goes, they provided him with a copy of a few scenes from “Ghostbusters” in which the theme would appear. You can judge for yourself by downloading a copy of “Jap Herron” here. This prompted a lawsuit by Don Post Studios, which asserted that the Cinema Secrets mask was a copy of its own mask.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Kluwer Copyright Blog
DECEMBER 20, 2022
At the same time, however, Article 6 of the Term Directive ( Directive 2006/116/EC ) also states that “Member States may provide for the protection of other photographs” and thus leaves to each Member State’s own discretion the decision of whether to provide some protection to non-original photographs in addition to “original” ones.
SpicyIP
MAY 15, 2023
Other Posts World of Possibilities: Single Judge Bench of Delhi High Court Allows Use of Celebrity Information Available in Public Domain Delhi High Court specifies some contours of publicity rights in India! Deadline for the Applications: 11:59pm IST, 23rd June, 2023. to form a committee with Padma Shree awardees, Smt.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
JUNE 20, 2023
For example, when a sound recording of a musical work gets played on Spotify, both the owner of the copyright in the musical work and the owner of copyright in the sound recording (the derivative work) are entitled to royalties for the public performance. at 450) (Skipping commercials was not yet feasible, id. Nation Enterprises , 471 U.S.
IP and Legal Filings
JANUARY 22, 2024
The domain of copyright deals with the literary, musical, dramatic, and artistic works, and cinematograph films. Before the digital era, copyright protected tangible art or works, allowing authors to easily regulate usage, copies, and earnings.
LexBlog IP
FEBRUARY 28, 2022
Also in its amended opinion, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Google , the court placed newfound emphasis on the consideration of the “public benefits” the copying will likely produce as part of its analysis of the fourth fair use factor—the effect of the use on the market for the original. Goldsmith , 11 F.4th at 1197)). [20]
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
115 
Let's personalize your content