Remove 2016 Remove Copyright Infringement Remove Derivative Work
article thumbnail

3 Count: Swimsuit Edition

Plagiarism Today

1: ‘ Sports Illustrated’ Model Sues Twitter for $10 million, Accusing its Algorithm of Contributing to Copyright infringement. The latter is a photo editing company that was acquired by Twitter in 2016 and created the AI software that, according to Morton, creates unauthorized derivatives of her work.

Editing 180
article thumbnail

Copyright Parody Exception Denied Due to Defendant’s Discriminatory Use

TorrentFreak

Free Speech Has Limits A criminal copyright infringement trial that concluded in Finland this week also saw the defendant rely on a fair use-style parody defense. In 2022, Lokka faced Finland’s Supreme Court over videos of a 2016 protest published to his YouTube channel, to which Lokka added subtitles in various languages.

Copyright 141
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

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

JIPL Online

In particular, it explores why copyright of a meme’s underlying content does not matter in a normative sense. In this blog I argue that copyright protection of the content underlying memes does not matter because of the relative weakness of enforcement mechanisms for copyright infringement of this scale. 139 (2016). [ix]

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

Unbeknownst to Goldsmith, Warhol also created fifteen other works based on the photograph, including Orange Prince. In 2016, Vanity Fair licensed Orange Prince from AWF for the cover of their commemorative issue about Prince. Goldsmith was not paid or credited for this use.

Fair Use 130
article thumbnail

U.S. Supreme Court Vindicates Photographer But Destabilizes Fair Use — Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

As usual, readers who are already familiar with the case and/or with copyright law may skip the “Background” sections below (but don’t skip the commentary “The Road Not Taken”). Legal Background: Copyright and Derivative Works Copyright law protects original works of authorship, including “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works,” 17 U.S.C.

article thumbnail

Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith: The Supreme Court Revisits Transformative Fair Uses

Kluwer Copyright Blog

have grappled with how broadly or narrowly to interpret the concept of transformativeness when assessing fair use defenses to charges of copyright infringement. The Court in Campbell emphasized that transformative fair uses leave “breathing space” for next generation creations that build on the expression of pre-existing works.

article thumbnail

Prince Pop Art Not a Fair Use: SCOTUS Rules Against Warhol

LexBlog IP

The Supreme Court ruled on May 18 that Andy Warhol’s “Orange Prince” work of pop art was not a fair use when licensed to Condé Nast in 2016. Although this landmark copyright decision is hot off the presses, the facts date back to 1981 when the underlying photograph was first shot. § 107 ).