Plagiarism Today
JULY 28, 2021
The lawsuit alleges that the group is committing copyright infringement not only because they are making derivative works based upon their games, but because they are circumventing copyright protection tools. The 3 Count Logo was created by Justin Goff and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.
JIPL Online
MARCH 15, 2021
7] Before the court could decide if the subtitled version, a type of derivative work, could still be protected even if the underlying film on its own was available to be used by all, both parties settled. [8]. 14] Before lawyers got involved, pressure from the photographer resulted in the granting of a licensing fee. [15]
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
LexBlog IP
JUNE 27, 2022
Shosh and Yuval assert further that in January of 2018, they notified Paramount of their election to terminate those rights as of January of 2020. In other words, the termination period began May 18, 2018 and ends May 18, 2023 requiring a notice of termination effective January 2020 to be served in January 2018. 17 U.S.C. §
LexBlog IP
JUNE 27, 2022
Shosh and Yuval assert further that in January of 2018, they notified Paramount of their election to terminate those rights as of January of 2020. In other words, the termination period began May 18, 2018 and ends May 18, 2023 requiring a notice of termination effective January 2020 to be served in January 2018. 17 U.S.C. §
JIPL Online
NOVEMBER 1, 2021
Mods are beneficial for the video game industry, [3] but mods can threaten a company’s copyright exclusivity because of their status as derivative works. [4] Section 106 of the Copyright Act grants copyright holders an exclusive right to make or license derivative works based upon a previously copyrighted work. [11]
IP Intelligence
JUNE 7, 2023
Sy Damle, (2016-2018 General Counsel) testified that “the training of AI models will generally fall within the established bounds of fair use.” (S. At the time Goldsmith was also licensing her original photograph to several magazines that were also writing articles about Prince’s life and music. Damle introductory statement, Tr.
LexBlog IP
JULY 7, 2023
Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ holding that the Andy Warhol Foundation’s licensing of Warhol’s Orange Prince , a print based on a photograph of the late musician by defendant Lynn Goldsmith, did not constitute fair use of the Goldsmith photograph. [3] 2] A week later, the U.S. 3] Graham v.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
245 
Let's personalize your content