Copyright Law Licensing Public Domain Television 
Kluwer Copyright Blog
APRIL 18, 2024
Copyright: WIPO. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Restrict the treaty’s terms to apply only to traditional broadcasting–linear radio and television broadcasting and cablecasting. No amendment offered in public session.
Copyright Lately
JANUARY 13, 2023
and 20th Century-Fox Records argued that, because King had distributed advance copies of the speech to the press without restricting them from reproducing or distributing it further (and without the copyright notice required under copyright law at the time), the speech was in the public domain.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Kluwer Copyright Blog
FEBRUARY 22, 2022
We invited experts to offer a synthesis of empirical evidence catalogued on the Evidence Portal in response to 21 topical copyright questions of importance for the 21 st century. The digital revolution has moved legal questions about copyright, information, and competition law to the regulatory centre of the creative industries.
Velocity of Content
JUNE 8, 2022
All copyrights, except one, expire.*. Preface: I wanted to learn more about the concept (and applications) of “derivative works” and adaptations under copyright law, and I was searching for a useful example that might also be interesting for readers of Velocity of Content to read about. Peter Pan” (1953 animated film).
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
DECEMBER 13, 2023
At the district court level, the law of copyright preemption is a morass of ad hoc explanations of whether certain contracts are “equivalent” to the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright law. Platforms that copy online data and use it to create AI have a strong fair use argument under copyright laws.
Copyright Lately
AUGUST 2, 2022
Multiple times throughout June and July 2022, Netflix informed Barlow & Bear’s lawyers that their July 26 performance wasn’t authorized and would give rise to claims for willful copyright and trademark infringement unless they negotiated a license—which Netflix was willing to do. Even better, it’s in the public domain.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
JUNE 20, 2023
To fully understand these conflicting views of the majority opinion, it is necessary to understand both the specific facts of the case and the history of the Supreme Court’s case law concerning the fair-use doctrine. Condé Nast paid $400 for the license, which specified “No other usage right granted.” Figure 1, Slip op.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
64 
Let's personalize your content