Remove 2013 Remove Copying Remove Derivative Work Remove Marketing
article thumbnail

Prof. Avichal Bhatnagar v. The CEO, Pralek Prakashan Pvt. Ltd : Taking a Look at The Conundrum Surrounding Copyright Protection vis-a-vis Accessibility for PwDs

SpicyIP

On a broad reading, there seems to be an obvious conflict of two areas of law, where the RPwD Act mandates fundamental access to all content but the Copyright Act grants the author the right to control how their works are copied.

article thumbnail

Prince, Prince, Prints: Will the Supreme Court Revisit Fair Use?

LexBlog IP

9] In reaching that determination, the court relied chiefly on the Second Circuit’s 2013 decision in Cariou v. Prince [10] (no relation), in which the Second Circuit rejected the premise that a secondary work must comment on the original to be sufficiently “transformative” to qualify as fair use.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Let’s Go Hazy: Making Sense of Fair Use After Warhol

Copyright Lately

Goldsmith (“ Warhol “) is that relatively rare fair use case in which both the original and follow-on works were more or less directly competing in the same market. More typically, two works aren’t market substitutes, which means that determining whether a secondary use is justified is more difficult.

article thumbnail

IT’S THE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT FOR ME: WHY CLAIMS AGAINST MEME CONTENT SHOULD NOT MATTER

JIPL Online

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).

article thumbnail

With Friends Like These: Copyright Implications Of Novelists Drawing Inspiration From The Real Lives They Cross

LexBlog IP

In Larson, Dorland claimed copyright in a 381-word letter posted to Facebook and further asserted that, therefore, each of the three versions of Larson’s The Kindest was a derivative work in which Dorland, therefore, owned the copyright because her letter and the later Larson works were substantially similar.

article thumbnail

WHAT, IN THE NAME OF GOD, …?: Intellectual Property Rights In Holy Names, Sacred Words, & Other Aspects of Creation

LexBlog IP

provid[es] an estimate of the fair market value of goods and services provided by religious organizations, and. market for religious publishing and products at $6.8 Secrecy Reasons : “Some religions use copyright law to keep their religions secret; some religions do not want to disclose their works to the general public.”