Remove 2016 Remove Artwork Remove Licensing
article thumbnail

Understanding Copyright, Trademark and Halloween Costumes

Plagiarism Today

Wtf is a juice demon pic.twitter.com/OxYMWEuoCq — Eli Matthewson (@EliMatthewson) October 1, 2016. If the costume isn’t licensed, why is it not infringing regardless of the name change? In short, Juice Demon is Juice Demon because he can’t be Beetlejuice, not without a license. Why did the company do this?

Copyright 252
article thumbnail

Supreme Court Finds Warhol’s Commercial Licensing of “Orange Prince” to Vanity Fair Is Not Fair Use and Infringes Goldsmith’s Famed Rock Photo

Intellectual Property Law Blog

3] The Court found that the Warhol Foundation’s licensing of the Orange Prince to Conde Nast did not have a sufficiently different purpose as the Goldsmith photograph because both were “portraits of Prince used in magazines to illustrate stories about Prince.” [4] 13] AWF’s use was commercial because AWF licensed the artwork for a fee. [14]

Fair Use 130
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Eleventh Circuit Affirms Finding that Takedown Notice for Auto Stickers Violated DMCA

IP Watchdog

(DDI) acted with willful blindness in submitting a fifth Takedown Notice to Amazon asking that auto stickers it alleged infringed its licensed artwork be removed from the site. began selling a sticker that DDI alleged infringed the licensed copyright. In 2018, Alper Automotive, Inc.

Artwork 72
article thumbnail

Infographic | Copyright legal dispute

Olartemoure Blog

In 1984, Vanity Fair licensed one of her black-and-white studio portraits for $400 and commissioned Warhol to create a piece for a feature of Prince. He used a cropped photo based on one of Goldsmith’s images to create his artwork.

article thumbnail

How to Distinguish Transformative Fair Uses From Infringing Derivative Works?

Kluwer Copyright Blog

Vanity Fair magazine had commissioned Warhol’s artwork in 1984 to accompany an article about the singer’s rise to fame based on Goldsmith’s photograph under a one-time-use “artist reference” license between Vanity Fair and Goldsmith’s agent. However, such uses must be licensed or be held unfair.

article thumbnail

Protection of Nonfungible Tokens in Indonesia

IP and Legal Filings

11 of 2008, dated April 21, 2008, regarding Electronic Information and Transactions, as amended by Law No 19 of 2016, dated November 25, 2016.• 20 of 2016, dated December 1, 2016, regarding the Protection of Personal Data in Electronic Systems. Government Regulation No. MOCI Regulation No. 10 of 2021, dated May 21, 2021.

article thumbnail

No Free Use in the Purple Rain – U.S. Supreme Court Finds License of Andy Warhol’s “Orange Prince” Infringes Photographer’s Copyright

LexBlog IP

In 1984, Vanity Fair sought to license the photograph for an “artist reference” in a story about the musician. Goldsmith agreed to license a one-time use of the photograph with full attribution. AWF licensed the “Orange Prince” to Condé Nast for an article about Prince.