Remove 2022 Remove Contracts Remove Moral Rights Remove Social Media
article thumbnail

A Brief Thematic Review of Non-Fungible Tokens and their Copyright

IP and Legal Filings

The media industry as a whole encourages creativity and innovation, and copyright is crucial for digital media platforms. Media platforms, such as social media, are utilised to carry out their professional, commercial, and private functions. They serve as a medium for new ideas, images, and sounds.

article thumbnail

Growth of Virtual Youtubers and IP Complications

IIPRD

It varies from creating an alternate persona on a social media account to voicing an animated character in a movie. However, the conversation being considered as a contract between them was unclear regarding the IP rights. 6] NFTs as of today don’t provide the exclusive right to the owner to commercialise the artwork.

IP 52
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

Taking the Mona Lisa Effect from Illusion to Reality: Enhancing the Museum Experience with Augmented and Virtual Reality

JIPEL Copyright Blog

The museum industry, it would seem, is taking note of technology’s growing role in its operations, particularly in regards to visitor engagement and staying relevant in a social media-driven society where declining visitation rates have only been exacerbated by the ongoing pandemic.

article thumbnail

Anil Kapoor Vs Simply Life India & Ors: An Unwavering Assurance In Safeguarding Personality Rights Against Ai

IP and Legal Filings

The plaintiff filed the defence of personality rights infringement based on the contract that allocated the personas to them. Content made with Deepfake AI technology is abundant on social media sites; in fact, many producers exclusively use it for their work. State of Tamil Nadu 1994 SCC(6) 632 [6] Titan Industries Ltd.

article thumbnail

A Look Back at India’s Top IP Developments of 2023

SpicyIP

The Court interpreted the clause on ownership of work made during a contract of service (Section 17(c)) to not apply in situations where there is a contract between equals. The Court limited the scope of Section 17(c) to apply to contracts where the relationship between the parties is akin to that of an apprenticeship.

IP 124