Remove 2013 Remove Fair Use Remove Licensing
article thumbnail

3 Count: Hey Mickey!

Plagiarism Today

The case dates back to 2013 when Basil filed a notice of copyright termination on the album and her song. 2: Delhi HC Seeks Expert Help on Whether Event Firms Need License to Play Music at Weddings. The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

Music 246
article thumbnail

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

Copyright Lately

Five things to know about the Supreme Court’s new purpose-driven fair use opinion in Andy Warhol Foundation v. 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. Andy Warhol Foundation v.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Fourth Circuit Issues a Bummer Fair Use Ruling–Philpot v. IJR

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

In 2013, Philpot uploaded the photo to Wikimedia Commons, which is governed by the standard Creative Commons license requiring attribution. Philpot claims his standard photo licensing fee is $3,500, but reuses of the photo from Wikipedia Commons didn’t require any payment (just attribution). ” Market Effect.

Fair Use 105
article thumbnail

Fair Use for Documentaries in US Copyright Law: Brown v Netflix

Kluwer Copyright Blog

Chapman (‘plaintiffs’) collectively filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Netflix, Amazon, and Apple (‘defendants’), claiming that the defendants had directly and indirectly infringed their copyright over the song “ Fish Sticks n’ Tater Tots ” by using it in their documentary titled ‘Burlesque’ ( Brown v. Netflix , Inc. ).

Fair Use 105
article thumbnail

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

LexBlog IP

1] That decision shook the art world, as it seems to dramatically narrow the scope of the fair use doctrine, and raises doubts about the lawfulness of many existing works. [2] Vanity Fair , in turn, commissioned Warhol to make a silkscreen using Goldsmith’s photograph. He did just that.

article thumbnail

The Battle Over Poker NFTs

Plagiarism Today

” The case raises questions of fair use and whether the new paintings were transformative enough to be non-infringing or if they were simply derivative works. Prince appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which largely reversed that decision in April 2013. 3: The Andy Warhol Ruling. Bottom Line.

Fair Use 279
article thumbnail

What is Right of Publicity? Protect Your Name and Likeness. 2024 Update

Traverse Legal Blog

California’s statutory Right of Publicity “requires a plaintiff to prove all the elements of the common law action plus a knowing use by defendant as well as a direct connection between the alleged use and the commercial purpose.” 4th 677, 685 (2013). 3d 1268, 1273 n. 4 (9th Cir. Sony Music Entm’t, Inc. ,