Remove 2016 Remove Cease and Desist Remove Fair Use Remove Licensing
article thumbnail

3 Count: Warhol Battle

Plagiarism Today

In 1984, Lynn licensed one of her photographs of the musician Prince to be converted into a painting by Warhol for Vanity Fair magazine. However, after Prince died in 2016, it was revealed that Warhol actually made an additional 14 prints using the photograph. 2: Textile Designer Sues Zulily for Copyright Infringement.

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. If the costume isn’t licensed, why is it not infringing regardless of the name change? In short, Juice Demon is Juice Demon because he can’t be Beetlejuice, not without a license. Why did the company do this?

Trademark 246
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

Supreme Court Finds Warhol’s Commercial Licensing of “Orange Prince” to Vanity Fair Is Not Fair Use and Infringes Goldsmith’s Famed Rock Photo

Intellectual Property Law Blog

s (AWF), [1] in a long-awaited decision impacting fair use under Section 107(1) of the Copyright Act. Goldsmith and, as a result, did not constitute fair use. [2] Goldsmith and, as a result, did not constitute fair use. [2] Goldsmith was not paid or credited for this use.

Fair Use 130
article thumbnail

Supreme Court Finds Warhol’s Commercial Licensing of “Orange Prince” to Vanity Fair Is Not Fair Use and Infringes Goldsmith’s Famed Rock Photo

LexBlog IP

’s (AWF), [1] in a long-awaited decision impacting fair use under Section 107(1) of the Copyright Act. Goldsmith and, as a result, did not constitute fair use. [2] Goldsmith and, as a result, did not constitute fair use. [2] Goldsmith was not paid or credited for this use.

article thumbnail

Supreme Court Finds Warhol’s Commercial Licensing of “Orange Prince” to Vanity Fair Is Not Fair Use and Infringes Goldsmith’s Famed Rock Photo

LexBlog IP

’s (AWF), [1] in a long-awaited decision impacting fair use under Section 107(1) of the Copyright Act. Goldsmith and, as a result, did not constitute fair use. [2] Goldsmith and, as a result, did not constitute fair use. [2] Goldsmith was not paid or credited for this use.

article thumbnail

AN ARGUMENT FOR EMBRACING THE LEGALITY OF CROWDFUNDED GAME MODS

JIPL Online

Section 106 of the Copyright Act grants copyright holders an exclusive right to make or license derivative works based upon a previously copyrighted work. [11] 19] After classifying the mod as derivative, the court rejected other protections such as fair use doctrine as defenses to the paid mod. [20] 20, 2017), [link]. [3]