JIPL Online
MARCH 15, 2021
The Conan Doyle estate, heirs to the author of the works about the famed detective Sherlock Holmes, alleged that Netflix infringed on the character Sherlock Holmes in its portrayal of Sherlock Holmes in the 2020 movie “Enola Holmes.” [2] 5] Netflix and the estate quickly settled. [6]. 5] Netflix and the estate quickly settled. [6].
JIPEL Copyright Blog
MARCH 9, 2022
From July 2017 to April 2018, the Art Gallery of Ontario (the “AGO”) staged an exhibition titled “ ReBlink ,” which urged visitors to “[t]ake a second look… with a modern lens:”. addition of written or pictorial elements) of a work not in the public domain and/or where the creator is still alive.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
The IPKat
JANUARY 5, 2023
holding that the character of Zorro had fallen in the public domain. In 2017, the Italian Supreme Court rendered a first judgment, holding that Zorro would be still protected by copyright, as the 70-year post mortem auctoris term available under Italian law should also apply to foreign (in this case: American) authors.
LexBlog IP
FEBRUARY 28, 2022
In 2017, the Warhol Foundation sued Goldsmith and her agency for a declaratory judgment that the Prince Series works are non-infringing or, in the alternative, that they constitute a fair use of the Prince Photograph. It found that all four fair use factors weighed against fair use. [12] Goldsmith , 11 F.4th Bridgeman Art Libr.,
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
JUNE 20, 2023
Legal Background: Copyright and Derivative Works Copyright law protects original works of authorship, including “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works,” 17 U.S.C. For obvious reasons, the copyright in a photograph does not include the right to publicly perform the copyrighted work.
Copyright Lately
OCTOBER 25, 2021
2017), raised an interesting example of “copyright estoppel” or, as the Ninth Circuit called it in the “Jersey Boys” lawsuit I recently discussed, the “Asserted Truths Doctrine.” By representing that a work is factual in nature, an author is prevented from later claiming that the work is fictional (and therefore protected by copyright).
LexBlog IP
JANUARY 10, 2024
is] that works produced for the U.S. Government by its officers and employees should not be subject to copyright” and fall “in the public domain.” . “The basic premise of [S]ection 105.[is] ” H.R. 94-1476 at 58 (1976); see also Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 140 S. 1498, 1509-10 (2020).
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
98 
Let's personalize your content