Remove 2015 Remove Copyright Infringement Remove Fair Use Remove Intellectual Property Law
article thumbnail

Humanizing Copyright Infringement: “Who Is the Bad Art Friend?” by Robert Kolker

IPilogue

Lamont Abramczyk is a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School, enrolled in Professor David Vaver’s 2021-2022 Intellectual Property Law & Technology Intensive Program. In 2015, Dorland decided to donate one of her kidneys to a stranger. It is common practice for jockeys to equip horses with blinders.

article thumbnail

Copyrightability of a Programming Language

Patently-O

Although the Supreme Court eventually sided with Google on fair use grounds, it did not disturb the Federal Circuit’s copyrightability decision that strongly supported copyright protection even for functional software. Posner, The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law (2003).

Copyright 109
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

IT’S THE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT FOR ME: WHY CLAIMS AGAINST MEME CONTENT SHOULD NOT MATTER

JIPL Online

In particular, it explores why copyright of a meme’s underlying content does not matter in a normative sense. In this blog I argue that copyright protection of the content underlying memes does not matter because of the relative weakness of enforcement mechanisms for copyright infringement of this scale. 8, 2015), [link].

article thumbnail

With Friends Like These: Copyright Implications Of Novelists Drawing Inspiration From The Real Lives They Cross

LexBlog IP

Larson also sought a declaration that she owns the copyright to The Kindest and that the letter in the short story does not infringe Dorland’s copyright. Dorland counterclaimed for copyright infringement, claiming that Larson’s use of Dorland’s letter was a violation of intellectual property law.

article thumbnail

The Modern Copyright Dilemma: Digital Content Ownership and Access

IP and Legal Filings

Introduction The Intellectual property laws are designed in such a way that not only reward the creator of his intellectual creation thereby incentivising other creators for further innovation, while balancing the rights of the creator with the right of the society to access information or knowledge.