article thumbnail

Michelangelo’s David and cultural heritage images. The Italian pseudo-intellectual property and the end of public domain

Kluwer Copyright Blog

107-108 of the Legislative Decree 42/2004 , Cultural Heritage Code “Codice dei Beni Culturali” (the public law on the regulation of cultural heritage) and, by analogy, art. They merge and overlap pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests, such as public law (Legislative Decree 42/2004) and private law (Civil Code).

article thumbnail

Publicity Rights Concerning Sports Athletes

IP and Legal Filings

sports/singapore-billionaire-acquires-ronaldo-image-rights [7] Business-standard.com/sourav-ganguly-slaps-damage-suit-on-tata-tea [i] The Constitution of India, 1950, art. ii] 2003 VIIAD Delhi 405, 2003 (26) PTC 245 Del, 2004 (1) RAJ 10 [iii] The Trademarks Act, 1999. [iv] iv] The Copyrights Act, 1957. [v]

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

The Court of Florence finds against Condé Nast for use of the image of the David by Michelangelo, recognizing image rights to the work of art

LexBlog IP

42 of 22 January 2004, hereinafter “Cultural Heritage Code”), which under Article 106 et seq. 42 of 22 January 2004, hereinafter “Cultural Heritage Code”), which under Article 106 et seq.

Art 52
article thumbnail

Analysis Of Domain Name Disputes In India

IP and Legal Filings

The right to use the name “Arun Jaitley” vested with the plaintiff alone on account of being a well-known mark and the plaintiff’s personal right and entitlement to use his personal name. 3] AIR 2004 SC 3540. [4] The court further observed that the domain name “arunjaitley.com” had been registered in the bad faith.

article thumbnail

SpicyIP Weekly Review (July 12 – 18)

SpicyIP

She highlights that the Court refused to afford post mortem protection to personality rights of the actor. Nishtha emphasises that in determining whether the deceased possessed personality rights enforceable by his heirs, the Court based its reasoning on the intertwining between privacy and publicity rights.