Kluwer Copyright Blog

FEBRUARY 8, 2023

Therefore, such AI-generated works are said to compete directly with human-authored works and thus might be capable of disturbing the market for low creativity works, which is where apparently many artists nowadays make a living.

Marketing 110

Marketing Marketing Copyright Copyright Law 110

IP and Legal Filings

MARCH 29, 2022

Intellectual Property” refers to mental creations such as inventions, literary and creative works, as well as symbols, names, and pictures utilised in business. With India being evolving globally, the scope of IPR is also gaining popularity and attention of people to secure their works. INTRODUCTION. Image Source: gettyimage].

Intellectual Property 52

Intellectual Property Intellectual Property Law Artistic Work IP 52

Kluwer Copyright Blog

JUNE 30, 2021

The court found that three out of four fair use factors i.e. the purpose and character of the use, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and the effect on the potential market, weighed in favor of fair use (with the remaining factor, i.e. the nature of the copyrighted work, being considered neutral and favoring neither party).

Fair Use 103

Fair Use Copyright Law Copyright Law 103

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

JUNE 20, 2023

or LGI) granted Condé Nast Publications a license to use one of her black-and-white photos of Prince as an “artist’s reference for an illustration … to be published in Vanity Fair November 1984 issue.” Condé Nast paid $400 for the license, which specified “No other usage right granted.” at 588, emphasis added).

Fair Use 96

Fair Use Derivative Work Blogging Licensing 96

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

JUNE 21, 2023

As noted by Professor Jake Linford , the examples used by the Court when it discusses application of the Rogers test focus on uses in the title or content of artistic works (not on T-shirts). VIP Products (Guest Blog Post) appeared first on Technology & Marketing Law Blog.

Trademark 100

Trademark Blogging Trademark Law Fair Use 100

Barry Sookman

MAY 4, 2020

In rendering the decision, the USPTO referred to a number of provisions in the U.S. It also referred to other provisions including 35 U.S.C. § Title 35 of the United States Code consistently refers to inventors as natural persons. The USPTO then referred to some other U.S. For example, 35 U.S.C. § 9 35 U.S.C. §

Intellectual Property 52

Intellectual Property Inventor Invention Copyright 52

43(B)log

FEBRUARY 19, 2022

Summary of current treatment: Although courts have often referred to “expressive” or “artistic” works as shorthand for the scope of Rogers, they have applied it to speech that quali?es Lemley: Hard to separate artists from art. TM bullying w/ a public domain quilt, claiming rights over “Dear Jane” as quilt/software.

Trademark Law 72

Trademark Law Trademark Art Branding 72