2016 Cease and Desist Licensing Marketing 
Plagiarism Today
OCTOBER 13, 2022
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. Lynn sued allegiging that those prints were a copyright infringement.
Plagiarism Today
FEBRUARY 1, 2022
VHT licenses real estate photos for marketing purposes and many of its photos appear on Zillow. This prompted ZHT to file the lawsuit and decided that Zillow’s infringement was innocent until July 10, 2014, when ZHT sent a cease and desist letter to the company.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Intellectual Property Law Blog
JUNE 5, 2023
3] The Court found that the Warhol Foundation’s licensing of the Orange Prince to Conde Nast did not have a sufficiently different purpose as the Goldsmith photograph because both were “portraits of Prince used in magazines to illustrate stories about Prince.” [4] The effect upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. [8]
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
FEBRUARY 27, 2022
On January 9th, American Airlines sent TPG a cease-and-desist letter. dispute back in the Ninth Circuit in 2016. Of course, Facebook objected and sent a cease-and-desist letter. That language implied that revocation-by-cease-and-desist letter was no longer sufficient to trigger CFAA liability.
Plagiarism Today
OCTOBER 26, 2021
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?
LexBlog IP
JUNE 5, 2023
3] The Court found that the Warhol Foundation’s licensing of the Orange Prince to Conde Nast did not have a sufficiently different purpose as the Goldsmith photograph because both were “portraits of Prince used in magazines to illustrate stories about Prince.” Goldsmith and, as a result, did not constitute fair use. [2]
LexBlog IP
MAY 26, 2023
3] The Court found that the Warhol Foundation’s licensing of the Orange Prince to Conde Nast did not have a sufficiently different purpose as the Goldsmith photograph because both were “portraits of Prince used in magazines to illustrate stories about Prince.” Goldsmith and, as a result, did not constitute fair use. [2]
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
188 
Let's personalize your content