This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In this post, I look at the question of the government’s copyrightownership in State Board textbooks, and its implications on access to knowledge and education. Government’s Role as Publisher and Copyright Owner. Image from here. Crucially, instead of taking a user rights-based approach, particularly to education, Section 3.4
According to the complaint, these separate entities are just one big data-sharing family, leveraging their combined resources in non-standard ways such as Microsoft sharing hardware and cloud infrastructure resources in exchange for an ownership interest in OpenAI. Complaint at 31. Not all was lost, however. Corelogic, Inc. ,
It took eight months, but the ownership question of the photographs has been settled. However, it is not what I expected for the first case to be finally determined: Section 512(f) and an ownership dispute between former business partners. On June 4, 2018, Oppenheimer found his image on Prutton’s website. It seems like it did.
A company from Coral Gables, Florida applied for the Louise Brooks trademark in 2018. Publicity photos published after 1924 were rarely renewed (a requirement for works published before 1964) and they often did not include a copyrightnotice (a requirement for works published before March 1989). The story behind the trademark.
Lanham Act false advertising: The theory was that Meta misrepresented “the creation and ownership” of Logan’s photos. Dastar doesn’t clearly bar false advertising §43(a)(1)(B) claims in general, but it does bar the claim as pled here: “a copyright claim repackaged under a trademark statute.” SellPoolSuppliesOnline.com, LLC v.
Initially distributed in the United States without the copyrightnotice required under the 1909 Copyright Act, the films were effectively thrust into the U.S. public domain due to noncompliance with formalities like notice, registration, or renewal. public domain. public domain on January 1, 2025.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content