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
The creation of AR experiences may involve acts of reproduction and communication to the public that have potential copyright implications. AR can concern two categories of cultural goods – those that are in the publicdomain and those embedding a copyrighted work of art. . (i) i) Publicdomain works.
Protection under copyright usually lasts for the entire life of the owner along with a supplementary time frame, after which the work becomes within the publicdomain and is allowed to be openly utilised by anybody.
Karp agrees that (c) is not like land, which preexisted the publicdomain and was acquired and distributed by gov’t. (c) c) does grant authors “rights in something he created” and that “already belong to him” at common law and is taken after a few short years from him and his heirs. Natural or moralright to own fruit of labors.
This is a book review of “ Harmonizing Intellectual Property Law for a Trans-Atlantic Knowledge Economy ”, edited by Péter Mezei, Hannibal Travis, and Anett Pogácsás. Giulia Dore emphasizes the differing treatments of moralrights between civil law and common law countries, cautioning against harmonization that overlooks these distinctions.
This Kat is pleased to review the “ Overlapping Intellectual Property rights ”, edited by Neil Wilkof [full disclosure: a member of the IPKat team], Shamnad Basheer, and Irene Calboli (OUP, 2023, 864 pp.). The volume is a beautiful testimony to the work of late Shamnad Basheer, who co-edited the first edition.
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