Cease and Desist Licensing Magazine Marketing 
Plagiarism Today
OCTOBER 13, 2022
In 1984, Lynn licensed one of her photographs of the musician Prince to be converted into a painting by Warhol for Vanity Fair magazine. The lawsuit indicates that this is not the first run in between the two parties, as EKB claims to have sent a cease and desist letter to the company in 2020.
IP Tech Blog
NOVEMBER 29, 2023
The twists and turns of the case have some fun details, including Plaintiff demanding $10 million from Netflix in a pre-filing cease and desist letter (Netflix declined to pay), but we will focus on the legal issues. The picture showing the tattoo was part of an 8-photo display that was on screen for approximately 2.2
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
LexBlog IP
NOVEMBER 29, 2023
The twists and turns of the case have some fun details, including Plaintiff demanding $10 million from Netflix in a pre-filing cease and desist letter (Netflix declined to pay), but we will focus on the legal issues. The picture showing the tattoo was part of an 8-photo display that was on screen for approximately 2.2 ” Blanch v.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
MAY 30, 2022
Judging from the Rusty Krab’s marketing efforts and social media promotion as detailed in Viacom’s complaint, the pop-up was far more focused on providing the backdrop for Instagram-worthy selfies than it was on producing edible food. The court then moves on to consider Viacom’s copyright infringement claim.
Intellectual Property Law Blog
JUNE 5, 2023
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.” [4] Goldsmith and, as a result, did not constitute fair use. [2]
LexBlog IP
JUNE 5, 2023
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.
LexBlog IP
MAY 26, 2023
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.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
197 
Let's personalize your content