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
Mango, in turn, sustained in its defence that (i) as the rightful owner of the physical Paintings, it was entitled to display them in public, and that (ii) the creation of digital works (i.e. Therefore, the moralright of “disclosure” had already been exhausted. an exploitation that caused them no harm).
1 Another key right is the creation of derivative works, which includes adaptations or translations. 3 This action would violate the right to translate, which is a specific aspect of the broader right to create derivative works. Annemarie Bridy, Coding Creativity: Copyright and the Artificially Intelligent Author , 2012 Stan.
One of Mango's virtual fashion week runways ( Mango ) The Court's ruling Moralrights The Court began by examining the moralright of dissemination under Spanish law, and found that - seeing as the relevant works had already been displayed to the public at large - such rights had been exhausted, and there was no further infringement.
Certain sections like 2(qq) and 38, define a “performer” and specify whether a person’s personality falls under the definition of a performer, under which a performer’s right may be asserted, hence prohibiting the unapproved marketing of a performer’s work. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 (50) PTC 486 (Del). [9]
Following the 2012 revision to the copyrights Act, it was made clear that Internet activities were also covered by the copyright law. Parallel to this, Non-Fungible Tokens, often known as NFTs, have seen tremendous growth as more and more people enter the market.
x] In fact, on the contrary, memes can operate as a source of marketing and a way to garner interest in creative works in a funny, generationally relevant way. xi] There are countless articles and marketing studies directing corporations on how to market via memes to reach the maximum level of engagement. 511, 523 (2012).
Image from here Sweet Sound of Victory: Looking at the Calcutta HC’s Decisive Decision on Rights of Authors By Surabhi Katare In a major development, Calcutta High Court’s passed a landmark judgement on May 17, 2024, in safeguarding the copyrights of authors of music and literary work used in sound recordings.
The third defendant was licensed to produce and market the disputed foods and spices under its own name and at its own expense, paying a fixed fee to the plaintiff for each individual product sold. 7) CJEU, C-406/2010, ECLI:EU:C:2012:259, paragraph 33. Emphasis added.) 5) Supreme Court 484/2020. (6)
The Court reasoned that when the Act was amended in 2012 – internet broadcasting was not alien to India and if the Legislature intended Section 31D to apply to internet broadcasting, it would’ve done so by specifically amending the provision. Ltd and Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. Meticulous Market Research Pvt.
” The court ruled that the cricket player’s image rights were not violated since individuals have the right to conduct their business under their own name, as long as they do not engage in any activities that might cause confusion with another person’s business, and as long as they do so in good faith. Rajagopal v.
Criteria favoring a Brussels Effect are market size controlled by regulator—a lot of firms want to compete there; regulatory capacity/institutional expertise; stringent standards. Traditionally supported a highly segmented, explicitly territorial market approach by multinationals. YT had it since 2012; now only NGOs and gov’t agencies.
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