Remove 2018 Remove Licensing Remove Ownership Remove Settlement
article thumbnail

Who Owns the Copyright in AI-Generated Art?

Intepat

This burgeoning genre is not only pushing the boundaries of artistic expression but also challenging the established norms of copyright ownership. This blog post embarks on a comprehensive journey to unravel the complex issue of copyright ownership in AI-generated art. Copyright laws are designed to safeguard the rights of creators.

Art 105
article thumbnail

“Happy Together” – The Ninth Circuit Plays the Golden Oldies of Copyright Law

The IP Law Blog

The crux of the case turned on the meaning of the phrase, “exclusive ownership,” which the California legislature used in California’s copyright statute in 1872. The parties settled before trial and SiriusXM agreed to pay for past performances of pre-1972 recordings in exchange for a license to use those recordings until 2028.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

A 512(f) Plaintiff Wins at Trial! ??–Alper Automotive v. Day to Day Imports

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The Lenz case got a lot of press, but it ended with a confidential settlement. To settle that dispute, the parties worked out an “exclusive” license: the second-comer could sell the design on Amazon, and the registrant could keep selling it on eBay. A few plaintiffs have won default judgments (including one I blog below).

article thumbnail

“Happy Together” – The Ninth Circuit Plays the Golden Oldies of Copyright Law

LexBlog IP

” The crux of the case turned on the meaning of the phrase, “exclusive ownership,” which the California legislature used in California’s copyright statute in 1872. In essence, if Flo & Eddie prevailed in any of the three appeals, they would be entitled to an additional $5 million under the settlement agreement.

article thumbnail

“Happy Together” – The Ninth Circuit Plays the Golden Oldies of Copyright Law

LexBlog IP

” The crux of the case turned on the meaning of the phrase, “exclusive ownership,” which the California legislature used in California’s copyright statute in 1872. In essence, if Flo & Eddie prevailed in any of the three appeals, they would be entitled to an additional $5 million under the settlement agreement.

article thumbnail

Biosimilars 2020 Year in Review

Fish & Richardson Trademark & Copyright Thoughts

For the first time since FDA licensed the first biosimilar, Sandoz’s Zarxio ® (filgrastim-sndz), in 2015, the United States saw a decrease in annual biosimilar approvals in 2020. No earlier than July 31, 2023 per settlement. No earlier than November 20, 2023 per settlement. . No earlier than June 30, 2023 per settlement.

article thumbnail

A Seismic Ruling Undone: California’s Sound Recording Copyright Statute Does Not Include Public Performance Rights—Flo & Eddie v. Sirius XM (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that California Civil Code section 980(a)(2) , which grants “exclusive ownership” of a sound recording fixed before February 15, 1972, to its “author,” provides only an exclusive right of reproduction and distribution, and does not provide an exclusive right of public performance.