article thumbnail

Free Mickey? (Don’t Be Goofy)

LexBlog IP

Freed from the shackles of copyright, Walt Disney’s iconic rodent was now in the public domain and, therefore, available for everyone to copy. It is no surprise that the legalities of the public domain are more complicated than the headlines suggest. Copyright terms have been on a steady upward march.

article thumbnail

13 Spooky Copyright Cases, Just in Time for Halloween

Copyright Lately

Here are some of the greatest copyright horror stories, featuring such classics as “Nightmare on Elm Street,” “Halloween,” “Dracula,” “Ghostbusters” and … a creepy McDonalds character? The case is New Line Cinema v. The only thing scarier than a slasher flick is a lawsuit.

Copyright 144
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

When a vampire not called Dracula bested the copyright system, and what it tells us about derivative works

The IPKat

But for IP types, perhaps their most notable accomplishment was the revenge that they took upon the copyright system. And, while the copyright laws were used to try to keep the film from public view, ultimately it failed, to the continuing benefit of cinematic creation. Enter the copyright laws.

article thumbnail

Alfred v. Walt Disney Company: Decoding the concept of Substantial Similarity with respect to the Pirates of the Caribbean lawsuit

IP and Legal Filings

Introduction In order to determine copyright infringement , the ‘substantial similarity test’ has routinely been employed by the US Courts. Image Sources : Shutterstock] The term ‘ copyright ’ essentially signifies a bunch of exclusive rights granted to the creator of an original work of art. One such case is the case of Alfred v.

Copying 68
article thumbnail

SpicyIP Weekly Review (November 8-November 15)

SpicyIP

Congress and the KGF 2 Copyright Dispute: Ex-Parte Injunctions, Fair Dealing, and Blocking Orders. The Court, however, disagreed with the Defendant’s argument holding that there was no information available in the public domain for the Plaintiff to reach at the above conclusion regarding relations between the Defendants.

Trademark 105