article thumbnail

When is an artist entitled to refuse attribution of an artwork? Italian Supreme Court provides (final) guidance in long-running dispute over Jeff Koons’s The Serpents

The IPKat

There, it was presented as an original Koons artwork of which three copies exist. Garrone subsequently contacted Koons several times (in 1997, 2007 and 2009) in order to obtain a declaration of authenticity from him and thus sell the artwork. Subsequently, the sculpture was shipped to Italy and held at customs in Milan.

Artwork 94
article thumbnail

When Do Defendants Have Access to Copyrighted Works Posted to the Internet?–Cooley v. Target Corp.

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The plaintiff, NOC, is a teenager who has copyrighted designs in hand-drawn dots that Target allegedly copied in the clothing line. Work #2: This work was published in 2016 in a video that “had over 100,000 views within the first 7-10 days and currently has about 125,000 views.” Instead, the court summarizes: N.O.C.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Understanding Copyright, Trademark and Halloween Costumes

Plagiarism Today

Wtf is a juice demon pic.twitter.com/OxYMWEuoCq — Eli Matthewson (@EliMatthewson) October 1, 2016. This means, theoretically, that elements such as the Superman “S” can be protected by copyright because they are separate elements that are merely copied onto the clothing. The second limitation is masks. Bottom Line.

Copyright 235
article thumbnail

Protection of Nonfungible Tokens in Indonesia

IP and Legal Filings

11 of 2008, dated April 21, 2008, regarding Electronic Information and Transactions, as amended by Law No 19 of 2016, dated November 25, 2016.• 20 of 2016, dated December 1, 2016, regarding the Protection of Personal Data in Electronic Systems. Government Regulation No. MOCI Regulation No. 10 of 2021, dated May 21, 2021.

article thumbnail

No Free Use in the Purple Rain – U.S. Supreme Court Finds License of Andy Warhol’s “Orange Prince” Infringes Photographer’s Copyright

LexBlog IP

” [5] When the original and the copy share a similar purpose, there is a concern that the copy will substitute for the original. AWF argued that the Prince Series is sufficiently transformative of Goldsmith’s original photograph because the artworks convey a different meaning or message than her photograph.

article thumbnail

Supreme Court Holds Warhol’s “Orange Prince” Not Transformative, Not Fair Use

IP Tech Blog

The main principle practitioners can derive from Goldsmith is that transformation alone is not enough render copying of a reference work “fair use.” When Prince passed away in 2016, the Andy Warhol Foundation (“AWF”) licensed “Orange Prince” for use on the cover of a commemorative magazine cover. Goldsmith et al, Case No.

article thumbnail

Let’s Go Hazy: Making Sense of Fair Use After Warhol

Copyright Lately

The court’s limited ruling also means that museums displaying the artwork don’t need to worry that they’ll be served with injunction papers any time soon. But make no mistake, Warhol v. Goldsmith will be parsed and picked apart for years to come. “[T]he first fair use factor. “[T]he first fair use factor.