Remove 2016 Remove Fair Use Remove Personality Rights
article thumbnail

SpicyIP Weekly Review (July 29-August 4)

SpicyIP

Tejas Misra explains why and how these seemingly innocuous posts may infringe on the shooter’s personality rights. The respondent was using the mark ‘MAMU ROSE’ since 2016 as mentioned in their application, however evidence for the same was not provided.

article thumbnail

The clash of artistic rights: Warhol, Goldsmith, and the boundaries of copyright in Brazil and in the U.S.

Kluwer Copyright Blog

In 2016, Condé Nast acquired a license from the Warhol Foundation to use the Prince Series as illustrations for a new magazine. In the United States, the Copyright Act outlines the concept of fair use – situations where usage does not require authorization. O fair use no direito autoral. Revista Forense.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Journey Through “Novembers” on SpicyIP (2005 – Present)

SpicyIP

He also discussed the ‘license of rights’ system for GM patents in light of “Licensing and Formats for GM Technology Agreements Guidelines, 2016” (see also ). While there has always existed an arguable case for personality rights in India, the winning stakes have gotten higher and clearer over the years.

article thumbnail

BALANCING PUBLIC INTEREST AND CORPORATE RIGHTS: LESSONS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD V. RAMESHWARI PHOTOCOPY SERVICE CASE

Intepat

While copyright is distinct from other forms of intellectual property by focusing on personal rights, its primary role is to manage and protect knowledge. In this pivotal case, the court reinforced the educational rights of students, striking a crucial balance against the excessive commercial exploitation of copyright by publishers.

article thumbnail

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2023

SpicyIP

[Delhi High Court] On September 20, the Delhi High Court granted relief to film actor Anil Kapoor against the unauthorised use of his image, name, voice, and other traits of his persona for monetary gain, reinforcing his personality rights. The Division Bench comprised of Justices Najmi Waziri and Vikas Mahajan.

IP 124