Remove Artistic Work Remove Fair Use Remove Reference
article thumbnail

Fair Use for Documentaries in US Copyright Law: Brown v Netflix

Kluwer Copyright Blog

Chapman (‘plaintiffs’) collectively filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Netflix, Amazon, and Apple (‘defendants’), claiming that the defendants had directly and indirectly infringed their copyright over the song “ Fish Sticks n’ Tater Tots ” by using it in their documentary titled ‘Burlesque’ ( Brown v. Netflix , Inc. ).

Fair Use 105
article thumbnail

U.S. Supreme Court Vindicates Photographer But Destabilizes Fair Use — Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

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. This has important implications for the doctrine of fair use.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Fonts & Typefaces: Are they Copyrightable? 

SpicyIP

Typeface’ refers to the particular design of letters, numbers, marks and symbols. What we colloquially refer to as ‘font’ is actually the typeface as font changes with the size, italic, bold, and style. Therefore, for the purpose of this post, I will be using the word, ‘font’ to mean both fonts and typefaces.

Copyright 126
article thumbnail

Trademark and Copyright Cases to Watch in 2023

The IP Law Blog

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Andy Warhol Foundation made fair use of a photo of the late artist Prince. In short, the matter at issue will address when a work is sufficiently transformative to qualify for fair use protection under the Copyright Act. Hetronic International.

article thumbnail

The Interplay of Personality Rights and Freedom of Expression- the Jackie Shroff’s Case’

IP and Legal Filings

With reference to the monetization through the YouTube video, the court stated that such humorous renditions, are not merely entertainment but also a source of livelihood for various content creators especially the youth. This usually applies in cases of news, parody, commentary, non-commercial use etc. Rajagopal v.

article thumbnail

Parody under the Copyright Law

IP and Legal Filings

Introduction The word ‘parody’ refers to work that uses humor as a means to critique, ridicule, or expose the flaws in existing work. A parody, by its nature, requires the audience to recognize the original work, and the way the work is critiqued or ridiculed. References Civic Chandran v/s C.

article thumbnail

Supreme Court Rules “That Dog Don’t Hunt”: Bad Spaniels Toy’s Use of JACK DANIELS Marks is a Poor Parody and Dilution Act Applies

Intellectual Property Law Blog

Jack Daniels argued the look-alike dog toy could confuse consumers and that its reference to “the Old No. The District Court also held that the fair use exclusion for parodies under the Lanham Act’s dilution provision did not apply where the use at issue does not serve as “a designation of source for the [alleged diluter’s] own goods.”

Fair Use 130