Remove Artistic Work Remove Copyright Remove Government Remove Personality Rights
article thumbnail

Personality Rights : Through The Glasses Of IPR

IP and Legal Filings

Every day we come across many such influencers and celebrities endorsing products wherein the personality of an individual is traded either by validation or without. Living in an era where influential personalities are reverenced, fortifying Personality Rights from any such misuse is a must. PERSONALITY RIGHT.

article thumbnail

IP Issues in The World of Japanese Sequential Art – Manga

IIPRD

This makes it difficult for the creator to control the dissemination of their works. However, the US Court has held Napster [2] , which was a file-sharing platform as well, guilty of infringing copyrighted materials and was denied the defence of fair use. For content piracy, Takeshobo Inc., million JPY ($13,500 USD).

Art 52
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Media Laws, Rights & Privacy Of Celebrities

IP and Legal Filings

Unless with his/her consent, the right to control the commercial use of his/her own identity should be exclusively theirs. Image Sources : Shutterstock] Protection Under Copyright Act, Licensing & Contractual Issues for the Celebrities A celebrity is a well-known person.

Privacy 77
article thumbnail

SpicyIP Weekly Review (December 18- December 24)

SpicyIP

From an in-depth discussion on the terms of copyright and translations in India to the recent UK Supreme Court’s order regarding the patentability of inventions by an AI, we had some engaging posts on this blog this week. the larger public interest in assuring early access to the work.

article thumbnail

SpicyIP Weekly Review (November 13- November 19)

SpicyIP

vs Acko General Insurance on 10 November, 2023 (Delhi High Court) The dispute pertains to the use of the plaintiff’s artistic work “Humanity” by the defendant in one of its advertisement hoardings. The defendant argued that since the plaintiff’s work was exhibited in public its reproduction will fall under the ambit of fair use.