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
Walking Mountain (affectionately known as the “Barbie in a Blender” case) noted that “every court to address the issue whether a defendant’s work qualifies as a parody has treated this question as one of law to be decided by the court.” Defining the scope of Viacom’s trademark rights more explicitly might not change the outcome.
Cariou is still arguably good law w/the exception of the relevance of artist’s intent. The majority says that limiting doctrines account for Kagan’s examples—which involved use of expression—as well as the dissent’s own copying and the Court’s too. Court chose to rule quite narrowly in part b/c of concessions during litigation.
Organization for Transformative Works, Rebecca Tushnet: The Organization for Transformative Works (“OTW”) is a nonprofit established to protect and defend fans and fanworks from commercial exploitation and legal challenge. This is a space to monitor but perhaps law doesn’t have all that much to say.
Amazon went into users’ Kindles and removed copies of Orwell’s 1984. They’re making failure to monitor repeat infringers into its own independent basis of liability—so it’s not really a DMCA case, but a conflation of common law and DMCA theories of liability. Right of possession: They can break devices remotely. Property v.
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