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
First off today, Michael Kan at PC Magazine reports that India is enacting a new policy that, if enforced, would require virtual private network (VPN) providers to collect, store and turn over user data. Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday. 1: India Orders VPN Providers to Log and Hand Over Customer Data.
magazine between 1918 and 1962. The magazine itself was copyrighted, but the ads do not contain any copyright markings, so my understanding is that the ads would have entered into the public domain. It's true that the 1976 Copyright Act expressly requires that advertisements in magazines have separate copyrightnotices.
In order to train their technologies, should AI companies be allowed to use works under copyright protection without consent? Such uses, they argue, constitute copyright infringement. As in the present context, the initial concern of copyright holders was that their consent had not been acquired by Google prior to scanning their works.
My understanding is that all publicity photos taken back in the 1920s and 1930s were never copyrighted, therefore, in the public domain, especially if the photographer is unidentified. Is this legal for a company to suddenly do this? Louise Brooks has never had an active estate before. to the best of my knowledge.
The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that Trump owns the copyright in the sound recordings (or in the alternative, in his interview responses on the recordings), and that Trump is entitled to all or the lion’s share of the profits made from the sale of those recordings and transcripts, which the lawsuit (absurdly) values at almost $50 million.
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