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
However, its specific emphasis on protecting certain elements of the whole scheme of copyrighted content, such as fictional characters and the distinctive personas they embody, has been a focal point, contributing substantially to the discourse surrounding the ever-expanding ambit of copyrightability as well as personalityrights.
The US copyright law of 1976 explicitly excludes the mechanical or utilitarian aspects of applied art from the definition of artistic craftmanship. As discussed above, section 2(c) of the Copyright Act which defines artistic work gives an illustrative definition. Shivam is a recent graduate of the Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi.
Part One: In this introductory part, the authors carefully laid out definitions and conceptual clarifications of the subject matter of IP. The authors succeeded in simplifying issues that seems typically complex especially for newcomers in the IP field: copyright authorship, ownership and protection.
Recent court decisions have clarified the scope of copyright in film screenplays, personalityrights, and underlying works concerning content creation and licensing in broadcasting. From DVDs to OTT, the entertainment domain has come a long way owing to rapid digitalization affecting creative authorship over their creations [1].
Challenges before SCt: (1) freedom of expression under Mexican constitution, contrary to due process and legal principle; (2) lack of definition of key terms did not provide legal certainty. Authors’ rights are designed to protect that intellectual and emotional bond. Result: DMCA-Plus approach to safe harbors.
In this case, the author of the original work retains ownership of the original, while the author of the derivative work holds rights to the creative additions they have made. Perhaps it is impossible to define such boundaries definitively, necessitating a case-by-case analysis. [3] A film based on a book serves as an example.
Introduction Personalityrights refer to a person’s ability to safeguard his or her identity in the context of a property or privacy right. Celebrities value these rights since their names, images, or even voices may be inappropriately used in commercials by various businesses to increase sales. Puttaswamy v.
Recently, Bollywood Director Karan Johar [1] filed a case against the makers of “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar” for using his name in the title of their movie without permission, this lawsuit has sparked again the debate relating to personalityrights in India. Topps Chewing Gum Inc. [2] Rajagopal v.
Serious Comparative Advertising: Broadening the Definition. She argues that the law should broaden the definition of serious comparative advertisement (where the owner of the mark advertises his product reference to his competitor’s product based on scientific study) by allowing multiple comparisons. Thematic Highlights.
[Delhi High Court] On May 23, the Delhi High Court passed an interesting jud gement on the issue of ownership of the copyright in a film screenplay and held that the copyright in the screenplay of the film ‘Nayak’, lay with Satyajit Ray and on his demise, with his son Sandip Ray and the Society for Preservation of Satyajit Ray Archives (SPSRA).
The petitioner contented that Jayalalithaa’s personalityrights and her family’s privacy rights should be protected and that the productions may be incorrect and misleading. In ‘congratulating’ newsmakers , advertisers open themselves up to accusations of unauthorizedly infringing on personalityrights.
NFTs are unique digital tokens that represent ownership of specific digital assets. NFTs are embedded with smart contracts—self-executing contracts written in code—that facilitate the transfer and verification of ownership. Secondly, there is a lot of confusion regarding the ownership and authorship of the work.
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