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
In the realm of intellectual property, copyright and moralrights play pivotal roles in safeguarding the interests of creators. While copyright primarily focuses on the economic rights associated with creative works, moralrights emphasize the personal and reputational interests of the creators.
Like most copyright systems, French copyright law does not leave much room for the freedom of authors of transformative graphic works (also called “derivativeworks”). Three interesting cases on derivativeworks, two involving Jeff Koons and one Tintin, have recently put French copyright law in the international spotlight (e.g.
It is somehow different from the right to make transformative derivativeworks (where the word “transformed” is used in Section 101 ) such as film adaptations of books, which clearly require copyright owner consent. Almost as interesting is the trademark/Lanham Act claim. This will be hard to defend.
Certain sections like 2(qq) and 38, define a “performer” and specify whether a person’s personality falls under the definition of a performer, under which a performer’s right may be asserted, hence prohibiting the unapproved marketing of a performer’s work. Ammini Amma and Ors.,
Further, derivative uses of copyrights do not threaten copyright enforceability or longevity. Trademark, another form of intellectual property, is threatened by genericide and derivative use because such uses may dispossess the rights holder of their entitlement. Zywicki & Thomas J. vii] Deidrè A. 511, 523 (2012).
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