2015 Copyright Infringement Ownership Plagiarism 
Plagiarism Today
OCTOBER 27, 2021
However, that is just the latest in a decade-long history of discussing copyright, plagiarism and other authorship issues as they pertain to Halloween and horror. So, this year we’re going to take a look back at the various tales of copyright infringement and/or plagiarism that we’ve looked at over the years.
Plagiarism Today
JANUARY 27, 2022
The case is widely expected to test India’s more liberal fair dealing copyright exemptions against Sci-Hub’s practices. 3: Repudiation of Ownership Costs Pulp Fiction Photographer Copyright Claim. However, Miramax claimed that he reasonably should have been aware of the alleged dispute by at least 2015.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Plagiarism Today
OCTOBER 4, 2022
This prompted Alexander to file a lawsuit against Take-Two, claiming copyright infringement of her work. However, the important thing to know is that there was no doubt that Take-Two did copy the tattoos in question and there was no question of Alexander’s ownership of them. Blurred Tattoo Lines.
The IPKat
DECEMBER 14, 2023
The company was found liable for copyright infringement and breach of contract for using the actor’s photographs picture for advertisements between December 2014 and April 2015 without getting his permission or authorization. The company was ordered to pay Ojo, ₦20 million (US$44 448) in damages.
IPilogue
NOVEMBER 15, 2021
A literary controversy surrounding a copyright claim has taken over the North American online writing community, and it involves a kidney donation, a private Facebook group, and a short story.? . On June 24, 2015, Ms. Dorland to prevent publication of The Kindest at a book festival, and an onslaught of plagiarism allegations.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
JULY 5, 2022
Soon after, an entity called Bayside asserted copyright ownership of the photos and sent 512(c)(3) takedown notices to Twitter followed by a 512(h) subpoena to unmask CallMeMoneyBags. ” Thus, “even if Bayside had made a prima facie showing of copyright infringement, the Court would quash the subpoena in a heartbeat.”
LexBlog IP
DECEMBER 7, 2022
Cattelan moved to dismiss Morford’s infringement and plagiarism claims on three grounds: [7]. Morford cannot claim ownership over a natural element (a fruit) and a functional component (duct tape). 6] The banana is ripe for adjudication. Cattelan’s Motion to Dismiss. Cattelan lacked access to Morford’s work. [10]
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
213 
Let's personalize your content