Copyright Lately
OCTOBER 24, 2022
In that case, artist Lebeus Woods claimed that a torture device used in the Terry Gilliam film had been unlawfully copied from his drawing of a wall-mounted chair. But if you’re exploiting AI art generated without any human contributions, understand that you may have no legal recourse if others later copy that work.
Plagiarism Today
APRIL 27, 2022
3: Immersive Experiences and Copyright: TeamLab Sues MODS for ‘Copying their Artwork’ Finally today, Jonny Walfisz at Euronews reports that the Tokyo-based art collective teamLab has filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles-based museum, the Museum of Dream Space (MODS) alleging copyright infringement.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
IP and Legal Filings
OCTOBER 18, 2022
The National Information and Communication Technology Policy, 2015, has therefore been a key policy action. However, as artwork typically cannot be duplicated exactly and cannot be swapped with another without losing or gaining value, it is non-fungible. Conclusion. NFTs are viewed as the future of ownership by enthusiasts.
The IPKat
APRIL 19, 2023
McCoy’s registration on the Namecoin blockchain expired In January 2015. The entire history of the name can be seen here ) On May 28, 2021, McCoy minted another NFT to record the Quantum artwork, this time on the Ethereum blockchain. The Creative Commons licences address the same problem but from the other end of the spectrum.
IPilogue
NOVEMBER 17, 2021
In 2015, the Cowichan Tribes were faced with the issue yet again when Ralph Lauren launched their own line of Cowichan sweaters. Collective Ownership Over Cultural Artwork. Canadian courts have not yet grappled with the issue of collective ownership of Indigenous artwork. Their application was granted in 1997. Going Forward.
LexBlog IP
DECEMBER 7, 2022
Within hours, his work, Comedian , sold for $120,000, went viral, and became that year’s perhaps most discussed artwork. [2] copyright law does not protect “elements of expression that nature displays for all observers,” [8] which, according to Cattelan, excludes the main components of Morford’s artwork.
The IPKat
DECEMBER 16, 2021
The Court of Appeal however found that there was enough evidence before the court to prove CPL’s ownership of the copyright in the artwork (as it had commissioned and paid for the artwork). It therefore held that Morison was also liable for copyright infringement of the artwork in the registered trademark.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
88 
Let's personalize your content