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
Here's what Paolo writes: 'Can't Be Evil' NFT license – A tentative NFT worldwide license standard by Paolo Maria Gangi Can't Be Evil. Let alone was it clear how to protect the IP rights in the artwork linked to it. Universal license - a set of NFT CC licenses under the name 'Can’t Be Evil'.
This Kat is pleased to host the following guest contribution from Katfriend Lilliana Swainson (student in the Faculty of Law, Bond University) to provide a summary of the recent Australian case on the subject of copycat products, Hampton Holdings IP Pty Ltd v Aldi Foods Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 1452.
million for legislation protecting indigenous intellectual property (IP). Other indigenous artists have also spoken about instances where their culture and IP have been appropriated for profit. This kind of uncertainty in the law has led to many indigenous artists asking for greater legal support for IP.
In this video, we will also examine the legal strategies each project got right on trademark registration and copyright licensing. Your NFT drop will license your copyright-protected digital asset (i.e., What Rights Are Licensed To Purchasers Buying NFTS? When you buy the Bored Ape NFT, you receive a license to the image.
Banksy's Laugh Now But One Day We’ll Be In Charge A while ago The IPKat reported [ here and here ] on a string of cancellations of elusive artist Banksy ’s EU trade mark (EUTM) registrations relating to some of their best-known artworks. The reason?
In this part 1, we tackle the first of three questions regarding the legal copyright landscape from an NFT purchaser’s perspective, as the extent to which the IP framework applies to NFTs remains uncertain. For instance, CrypToadz is a prominent CC0 NFT project wherein the artwork related to the NFT is in the public domain.
I first wrote about this case back in March , when Atari filed a complaint accusing State Farm and its advertising partners of improperly appropriating artwork from Atari’s 1983 arcade game “Crystal Castles” for a 6-second online video advertisement. Conversely, in Ringgold v.
It’s December and time for what is now an annual ritual for this Africa Correspondent – The Africa IP Highlights! The Africa IP Highlights is an initiative of this Kat and is a series of posts put together to highlight some of the key developments in IP in Africa each year.
Understanding the extent of a company’s IP holdings usually starts with what’s known to the company, such as all registered copyrights, trademarks, or patents, domestic and foreign. After compiling a list of those IP assets, the next step would be to review what the company is using and compare that to the list of registered or pending IP.
As a means of cryptographically proving ownership on the blockchain, each NFT has a unique hash, distinguishing it from other copies, as opposed to the non-exclusive license to access the copyrighted material obtained when purchasing an e-book. The preferred form of regulation in the NFT sector is code rather than copyright law.
In one notable case, an NFT buyer of a famous digital artwork assumed they had purchased full copyright rights, only to find they could not legally reproduce or profit from the art without the creator’s consent. Written by Vriti Singhvee, Intern @ intepat IP The post COPYRIGHT IN METAVERSE appeared first on Intepat IP.
Digital assets can be protected by IP and have always been capable of being licensed or assigned via a contract, or protected as a trade mark. For example, the owners of the famous “ Grumpy Cat ” meme licensed the use of the name, image and likeness of the cat – and successfully enforced these rights.
Dirk Visser of Leiden University moderated this discussion on non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”) and intellectual property (“IP”), which featured three speakers— Richard Lehv , Alexandra Giannopoulou , and Andres Guadamuz —who discussed different aspects of NFTs through their individual presentations. Dr. Andres Guadamuz. SuperRare).
(DDI) acted with willful blindness in submitting a fifth Takedown Notice to Amazon asking that auto stickers it alleged infringed its licensedartwork be removed from the site. began selling a sticker that DDI alleged infringed the licensed copyright. In 2018, Alper Automotive, Inc.
The IPKat is pleased to host the guest contribution below by Katfriend Paolo Maria Gangi (Studio Gangi) on a very recent development concerning NFTs and IP. NFTs – still subject to “old” IP law An NFT is a non-fungible (i.e. A digital file (an artwork, a song, etc.), remain fully applicable to NFTs.
For that, you’d need an assignment or license from the owner of the underlying copyright. The same rule applies to digital artworks sold as NFTs. The TMNTNFT group even obtained a letter from an IP lawyer in France, who attested to the legitimacy of the project. Statement of TMNTNFT’s IP lawyer, March 31, 2022.
Is it a proper copyright ownership or an assigned license? In almost every model studied, ownership of outputs was assigned to the user, but in many cases, an extensive license was also granted back to the model provider for coexisting use of the outputs. If output works infringe copyright, who is responsible (e.g. user, service)?
Goldsmith, the Court upheld a ruling that Andy Warhol’s reworkings of Lynn Goldsmith’s photograph of the artist Prince into highly stylized silkscreens and drawings were not transformative, and thus were unfair, at least when images of the artworks were licensed to illustrate articles about Prince. In Jack Daniel’s v.
Orton’s likeness was licensed through defendant WWE to defendant Take-Two Interactive Software, a video game publisher. Tattoo artists currently benefit greatly from lax copyright enforcement – popular subject matter for tattoos includes famous artworks, celebrity portraits, and quotes from books and movies. megastar Randy Orton.
Collective Ownership Over Cultural Artwork. Canadian courts have not yet grappled with the issue of collective ownership of Indigenous artwork. However, the wrestler had licensed their likeness to WWE, who in turn licensed it to Take-Two. Their application was granted in 1997. Going Forward. Going Forward.
Much like Redbubble, Pixels also has a hand in advertising infringing work, allowing users to search for DeYoung artwork and providing a link to view “all Derek DeYoung products,” despite the fact that many of those products originated from unlicensed third parties. ” UGH.
The decision affirms a previous ruling by the Second Circuit, which found that Warhol’s artwork shared the same commercial purpose as the original photograph taken by photographer Lynn Goldsmith. The Andy Warhol Foundation contended that the artworks were transformative and gave new meaning to Goldsmith’s photo.
1] However, this growth also brought an onslaught of new Intellectual Property (IP) issues. The issues pertaining to the rights of VTubers encompass rights to the design of the character, the privacy of the individual, licensing and taking inspiration from an existing character.
AI-generated art represents a fusion of human ingenuity in crafting algorithms and the machine’s ability to produce artworks autonomously. Mario Klingemann’s AI Artworks : Mario Klingemann, a well-known AI artist, has produced various AI-generated artworks. appeared first on Intepat IP.
It is a legal right that belongs to the originators of genuine artworks like literature, drama and music works, cinematographic films as well as sound records. This gives an artist exclusive rights for use, distribution or licensing the creation thus prohibiting others from abusing it without permission. What is Copyright?
Keep up with the ever changing world of IP with SpicyIPs Weekly Review! A quick glance at last week finding the real Burger King saga continues now at the Supreme Court, EDs involvement in the Shankar-Tamilnandan copyright case, right to health and compulsory licensing for rare disease medicine Risdiplam. vs Telegram Fz Llc & Ors.
Many aspiring artists have now started converting their physical and digital artworks into NFTs and putting it up for sale, with many making considerable profits. NFTs have sparked several discussions raising questions on how this would affect IP Rights and what ownership of artwork, especially digital copies of artwork entails.
This valuation allows IP to be recognized as an asset in corporate balance sheets, facilitates mergers and acquisitions, and informs licensing or transfer decisions. Traditionally, IP valuation has relied on methods like market-based, income-based, and cost-based approaches. Additionally, U.S.
Transfers of rights: How does the transfer of an NFT impact IP rights in the associated asset? Licensing of rights: How should IP rights in the associated asset be licensed in an NFT context? Or where the NFT creator also owns the IP in the underlying asset, and the asset is infringed by a third party?
Apart from revolutionizing the creative markets, the ability to obtain new artworks with an increasing marginalization of human contribution has inevitably tested the fitness of copyright legislations all over the world to deal with the so-called “artificial intelligence” (‘AI’). ChatGPT , Smodin ), to perform music (i.e., In 2019, the U.S.
Such offer can be made only on marketplaces/platforms for digital asset exchanges that are licensed by the SEC. However, the SEC has not yet permitted the trading of any category of NFTs on the licensed digital asset exchanges SEC Notification concerning Rules, Conditions and Procedures for Operating Digital Asset Business.
While you are getting your sequins ready for the NYE party, we bring some exciting IP news and opportunities to finish off the year. This week’s big IP news is the New York Times suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement, trademark dilution and other violations of existing laws. Microsoft Corp.,
This position was reiterated through several decisions, the most significant ruling for an export artwork was by the U.S. Now recent information has been disclosed that EUIPO turned down IP Protection of an AI-created music piece because it had no human input in the process of creating it. Copyright Office.
The corresponding DMCA takedown notice sent to GitHub requests “expeditious action to remove or disable access to the Genshin Impact Artwork as referenced above. However, for reasons that will become clear, we’ve blurred out a section depicting a character from Genshin Impact.
This ownership grants the holder exclusive rights to its distribution and reproduction, as well as the ability to license it and earn royalties. In a first-of-its-kind ruling, the AI painting tool “RAGHAV [10] ” was initially recognized as a co-author for the artwork “Suryast,” alongside its human creator, Ankit Sahni.
Restellini allgedly “offer[ed] his opinions as to whether or not artworks should be included in the planned catalogue raisonné” in “oral consultation” with WI employees, based on the information and materials “researched, collected, synthesized, analyzed and expressed by” the employees.
Understanding the extent of a company’s IP holdings usually starts with what’s known to the company, such as all registered copyrights, trademarks, or patents, domestic and foreign. After compiling a list of those IP assets, the next step would be to review what the company is using and compare that to the list of registered or pending IP.
To ensure you don’t miss out on interesting IP law developments reported on our other IP blogs, we will, on a regular basis, provide you with an overview of the most-read posts from each of our IP law blogs. Here are the most popular posts over the past few months.
These rights are applied in various ways and cover a lot of fundamental aspect of the game starting from soundtrack, to characters to the artwork in the gaming codes and many more. Apart from the IP infringement, there would also be a potential End-user license violation of such unauthorized use of the games.
To add additional complexity to the situation, under the Stable Diffusion license , Stability AI claims no rights in the outputs of the model as long as the user has complied with use restrictions designed to prevent the dissemination of harmful materials. How do you train AI tools?
And of course there are now regimes for managing orphan works: one in the UK based on licensing and another in the EU benefiting cultural heritage institutions through a copyright exception. This would include museum registrars, curators, archivists, contemporary art gallery managers, art agents, art dealers and artwork photographers.
This article delves into the ongoing debate around the issue of right of ownership of copyright by AI generators for their novel artwork. This is a major point of contention in the realm IP laws today whether or not AI can be given the said rights and protections under law.
3] The Court found that the Warhol Foundation’s licensing of the Orange Prince to Conde Nast did not have a sufficiently different purpose as the Goldsmith photograph because both were “portraits of Prince used in magazines to illustrate stories about Prince.” Goldsmith and, as a result, did not constitute fair use. [2]
3] The Court found that the Warhol Foundation’s licensing of the Orange Prince to Conde Nast did not have a sufficiently different purpose as the Goldsmith photograph because both were “portraits of Prince used in magazines to illustrate stories about Prince.” Goldsmith and, as a result, did not constitute fair use. [2]
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