Remove 2006 Remove Contracts Remove Licensing Remove Public Domain
article thumbnail

Whither a Signal-Based Broadcast Treaty?

Kluwer Copyright Blog

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. The 2006 GA authorized negotiations for a diplomatic conference on the Broadcast Treaty only on “traditional” broadcasting and cable casting and only adopting a “signal based” approach.

article thumbnail

13 Spooky Copyright Cases, Just in Time for Halloween

Copyright Lately

Concerned about the effect the book would have on Twain’s reputation, publisher Harper & Brothers and his daughter Clara Clemens filed a lawsuit to stop further publication of “Jap Herron.” In 1999, Cinema Secrets licensed the right to sell a Michael Myers Halloween mask from the film’s copyright owner.

Copyright 144
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

U.S. Supreme Court Vindicates Photographer But Destabilizes Fair Use — Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Specifically, when a derivative work is created pursuant to a statutory exception, then the derivative work is prepared “lawfully,” even though the artist who created the derivative did not get a license or other permission from the owner of the copyright in the underlying work. Goldsmith herself had been entirely unaware of the licensed use.)

article thumbnail

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2021

SpicyIP

This judgment concerned the classification of payments under end-user license agreements (EULA). In this judgment, the Delhi High Court delved into the interpretation of section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with respect to disputes involving trademark licensing agreements. CIT [Supreme Court].

IP 143
article thumbnail

15th Trademark Scholars’ Roundtable: Session 1: Congress and the Courts (including the role of the Supreme Court)

43(B)log

Sears/Compco said there was a right to copy things in the public domain; how did that go away? What you’re seeing is cross-licensing/branding. What if we could read that part of the opinion in ways that were less awful? But somehow there’s a big change between Sears/Compco and Taco Cabana.