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
The Court of Appeal’s considerations The Court of Appeal adopted the 2 issues for determination submitted by the Appellant, which related to: appropriate defendant in photography-related copyrightinfringement cases and image rights cases (i.e. VMNL) or both that person and their licensee (i.e. VMNL and the Respondent in the appeal).
Case Summaries Abbott Healthcare Private Limited vs Vinsac Pharma on 17 February, 2025 (Delhi High Court) Abbott Healthcare sued two defendants for trademark and copyrightinfringement, claiming they deceptively copied its well-known LIMCEE Vitamin C tablets by selling LIMEECEE with similar packaging. Read the post for more details.
The lack of organisation and ambiguity make the protection problematic even if the work is copyrighted. According to section 13 (1)(a) of Copyright Act of 1957 copyright subsists in original literary, dramatic, musical and artisticworks. right to copyright will exist. Corel Corp.
The case began after Prince died in 2016, when Vanity Fair magazine’s parent company, Condé Nast, published a special commemorative magazine celebrating his life. The magazine credited Goldsmith for the “source photograph”: 1984 Article, which had two Lynn Goldsmith attributions. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. ,
Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s ruling that the reproduction of Andy Warhol’s Orange Prince on the cover of a magazine tribute was not a fair use of Lynn Goldsmith’s photo of the singer-songwriter Prince, on which the Warhol portrait was based. Goldsmith responded with a counterclaim of copyrightinfringement.
Following Prince’s sudden and untimely death in 2016, the Warhol Foundation, successor to the copyright in the Prince Series, licensed to Condé Nast one of the Prince Series images for use in a commemorative magazine titled The Genius of Prince , which featured on its cover the image from the Prince Series.
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