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.
Unique expertise on code too; code is different from photos, music, videos; some of the most valuable code on GitHub is licensed openly. Remediation not removal is often the goal—changes to the code rather than removing often resolves the problem, e.g. addressing violation of open source license by adding attribution etc.
Cariou is still arguably good law w/the exception of the relevance of artist’s intent. A: but the holding is specific that this is only about licensing in commercial markets. A: scope of QP, since Warhol is only factor one and decided as only licensing uses. Other solutions: statutory license for sampling.
Moderator: Pamela Samuelson, Berkeley Law School From Notice-and-Takedown to Content Licensing and Filtering: How the Absence of UGC Monetization Rules Impacts Fundamental Rights João Quintais, University of Amsterdam with Martin Senftleben, University of Amsterdam Human rights impact of the new rules. That has a human rights impact.
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