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
1] And since, the creator, consumer and subject of the content are distinctly different-the potential lack of empathy or misapprehension by the consumers towards the subject, based on the creators potrayal, necessitate a discussion of the subjects privacy and personalityrights.
The development of Artificial Intelligence, from being able to create edited photos to now generating deepfake videos that cannot be distinguished from real videos, has created an imminent threat to intellectual property rights and personalityrights specifically. and includes both commercial and non-commercial aspects.
Recently, Bollywood Director Karan Johar [1] filed a case against the makers of “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar” for using his name in the title of their movie without permission, this lawsuit has sparked again the debate relating to personalityrights in India. Topps Chewing Gum Inc. [2] Rajagopal v.
As 2023 comes to an end, in line with our annual tradition, we take stock of the top IP developments that occurred this year. We have also included a list of other notable IP developments of 2023. The Court delineated instances like parody and satire where free speech in the context of well-known persons may be protected.
When AI relies on extensive datasets, questions around the ownership, control, and protection of both personal and IP-related data become critical. AI’s capacity to generate content, inventions, and insights from this data intensifies concerns, not only about ownership but also about copyright and trade secrets. Rajagopal v.
However, its specific emphasis on protecting certain elements of the whole scheme of copyrighted content, such as fictional characters and the distinctive personas they embody, has been a focal point, contributing substantially to the discourse surrounding the ever-expanding ambit of copyrightability as well as personalityrights.
This Kat is pleased to review the “ Overlapping Intellectual Property rights ”, edited by Neil Wilkof [full disclosure: a member of the IPKat team], Shamnad Basheer, and Irene Calboli (OUP, 2023, 864 pp.). Ochoa authors Chapter 9, which is devoted to the overlaps between copyright and the rights of publicity or personalityrights.
Recent court decisions have clarified the scope of copyright in film screenplays, personalityrights, and underlying works concerning content creation and licensing in broadcasting. The Draft Patents (Amendment Rules) 2023 can be accommodating of such technology-related patents in broadcasting. 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3046. [7]
Reconceptualizing Trademark Protection in the Digital Age: A Proposal for Reform in Response to Google Ads’ Policy- Part I Offering a critique of the 2023 DHC and Supreme Court decision in the Google Ad words cases, we are pleased to bring to our readers a two part guest post by Malak Sheth. Read on to know more. The Peppy Stores & Ors.
He did his LLM from Berkeley Law in 2023 specialising in IP and Tech law. Views expressed here are personal.] Dismantling the Defense: Why Common Justifications for Publicity Rights Fall Flat Prof. Unauthorized use for commercial gain violates these rights. [This three part post is authored by Akshat Agrawal.
T Series And Another vs M/S Dreamline Reality Movies on 22 February [Punjab and Haryana High Court] The case concerned the adaptation of late Jaswinder Kaurs biography into a cinematographic film and deals with interplay of copyright with personalityrights. This goes against the caveat in Strix v.
Highlights of the Week Bayh Dole-esque Guidelines Notified by Dept of Biotechnology Image from here Earlier this month, Dept of Biotech notified the DBT IP Guidelines for ownership and commercialization of IP arising from DBT funded research outcomes. Image Rights Alright—But Can They Trump Established Rights and Doctrines?
He did his LLM from Berkeley Law in 2023 specialising in IP and Tech law. “It Protects Them From Exploitation” The Claim : Capitalizing on celebrities’ identity subjects their personalityrights to potential abuse and jeopardizes their career and livelihood. His previous posts can be found here.
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