Remove Fair Use Remove Licensing Remove Litigation Remove Ownership
article thumbnail

Some Thoughts on Five Pending AI Litigations – Avoiding Squirrels and Other AI Distractions

Velocity of Content

After all, while we are pondering the weighty issue of future ownership, we are not focusing on the fundamental issue of wholesale copying of works to train AI in a wide variety of situations. Each of these cases is unique, fact dependent, and likely, if fully litigated on the merits, to shed light on different aspects of copyright law.

article thumbnail

Tattoos and Copyright: A Potent Combination

Plagiarism Today

However, the important thing to know is that there was no doubt that Take-Two did copy the tattoos in question and there was no question of Alexander’s ownership of them. Fair Use – That the use of the tattoos was a fair use, meaning that the use was transformative enough to not be an infringement of the original work.

Copyright 210
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Take-Two Tattoo Trial Begins: What You Need to Know

Copyright Lately

In a first-of-its-kind copyright trial, a jury will decide whether tattoo artist Catherine Alexander can effectively control the use of Randy Orton’s likeness in video games. After over four years of litigation and five COVID-related continuances, it’s finally time for the main event. There’s a lot at stake.

article thumbnail

If You Ask Your Friend to Take Your Photo Using Your Camera, Who Owns the Copyright?–Shah v. NYP

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Here’s an example of a subject photo from his complaint (which, based on this ruling, I’m now confident he can’t sue me for; plus fair use), with some pretty obvious photography flaws: His copyright claims raise a simple but troubling question: who owns the photos taken with his camera?

Copyright 124
article thumbnail

People Don’t Come to See the Tattoo, They Come to See the Show

IP Tech Blog

Because ownership of original works, like a tattoo, vests with the author (here the tattoo artist), the tattoo artist owned the copyright in the tattoo, even though it was physically on the someone else’s body. Netflix moved to dismiss the complaint on, among other grounds, fair use. Lynn Goldsmith, et al. , Koons , 467 F.3d

article thumbnail

What if? Discussing the Elsevier Ltd. And Ors v Alexandra Elbakyan and Ors in the Multiverse of Substantive Copyright Arguments

SpicyIP

SpicyIP intern Tanvi Agarwal brings us up to date on the last two orders (see here and here ) regarding amendments that the defendants wanted in the written statement, and the dismissal of the application to reject the plaint. Tanvi is a second-year student pursuing BA LLB at the National University of Juridical Sciences.

article thumbnail

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

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

To my knowledge, the only litigated case that resulted in a 512(f) win was Online Policy Group v. 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. Diebold from 2004, which led to a $125k damages award.