This link has been bookmarked by 714 people . It was first bookmarked on 02 Mar 2006, by someone privately.
-
27 Sep 17
-
28 Jun 17
-
28 Apr 17
-
17 Feb 17
-
14 Feb 17
-
22 Jan 17
-
20 Nov 16
reaktorplayer RobertStanford Copyright and Fair Use Center : http://bit.ly/2fdMrsg Home to Lawrence Lessig a major proponent for free transmission of culture http://pic.twitter.com/qKWsFvy5xQ
— reaktorplayer (@reaktorplayer) November 20, 2016 -
17 Nov 16
-
08 Aug 16
-
01 Aug 16
-
30 Jul 16
-
21 Jul 16
-
19 Jul 16
krhoecoStanford University Libraries
great case law - examples -
28 Apr 16
-
13 Nov 15
-
25 Oct 15
-
21 Sep 15
-
07 Aug 15
-
04 Aug 15
-
01 Aug 15
-
20 Jul 15
sgoldmanlibInformation on how copyright and fair use work. Includes primary case law, statutes, regulations, as well as current feeds of newly filed copyright lawsuits, pending legislation, regulations, copyright office news, scholarly articles, blog and twitter fee
copyright education case law statutes legal intellectual property laws fair use digital rights
-
17 Jun 15
-
16 Jun 15
-
19 May 15
-
09 Apr 15
elb123Legal rights and protection of works done or something owned by an individual or individuals. Say you were to write a song and did not want anyone to come along and take your music, make money from your written words or claim your work falsely you would need to get legal protection from that happening. It's the legal protection of your or ones personal work.
-
06 Apr 15
-
05 Apr 15
-
19 Mar 15
Donald LuckNice academic site dealing with fair use and fair use principles.
-
17 Mar 15
-
07 Mar 15
-
06 Mar 15
-
05 Mar 15
-
22 Feb 15
chrisminetteJust another WordPress site
-
19 Feb 15
-
18 Feb 15
-
17 Feb 15
-
09 Feb 15
-
08 Feb 15
-
05 Feb 15
-
Defendants removed so much of the original that, “as with the Cheshire Cat, only the smile remains.” What is left, besides a hint of Soglin’s smile, is the outline of his face, which cannot be copyrighted.
-
-
15 Jan 15
-
10 Jan 15
-
The case involves statements made by plaintiff Vehicle Market Research, Inc. (VMR) in a breach of contract case that were allegedly inconsistent with earlier statements by its sole owner, John Tagliapietra. VMR developed and owned certain intellectual property, including a software system to calculate the value of a total loss of an automobile for the purposes of the automobile insurance industry and certain “pre-existing software tools, utilities, concepts, techniques, text, research or development” used in the development of the software. When Mr. Tagliapietra filed for personal bankruptcy, he asserted that his shares in VMR were worth nothing. A few years later, as the bankruptcy was winding down, VMR sued Mitchell International, Inc., a company which held an exclusive license to VMR’s technology. That case sought $4.5 million in damages for the alleged
-
-
29 Dec 14
-
11 Dec 14
-
02 Dec 14
-
30 Nov 14
-
Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation, LLC
Published on:While a student at University of Wisconsin in 1969, Soglin attended the first Mifflin Street Block Party. Now in his seventh term as Mayor of Madison, Wisconsin, Soglin wants to shut down the annual event. For the 2012 Block Party, Sconnie sold 54 t-shirts and tank tops displaying an image of Soglin’s face and the phrase “Sorry for Partying.” Photographer Kienitz accused Sconnie of copyright infringement. Sconnie conceded starting with a photograph that Kienitz took at Soglin’s inauguration that it downloaded from the city’s website. The picture was posterized, background was removed, and Soglin’s face was turned lime green and surrounded by multi-colored writing. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, applying the fair use statutory defense to infringement, 17 U.S.C. 107. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding that a shirt is no substitute for the original photograph; Kienitz does not argue that defendants reduced demand for the original work or any use that he is contemplating. Defendants removed so much of the original that, “as with the Cheshire Cat, only the smile remains.” What is left, besides a hint of Soglin’s smile, is the outline of his face, which cannot be copyrighted. Defendants chose the design as a form of political commentary, not for profit. View “Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation, LLC” on Justia Law
-
-
25 Nov 14
hpbookmarksIncludes copyright overview, and latest court cases.
copyright fair use permission usage public domain academic honesy information explanation court cases law
-
10 Nov 14
-
22 Oct 14
-
The case involves statements made by plaintiff Vehicle Market Research, Inc.
-
developed and owned certain intellectual property
-
-
15 Oct 14
-
14 Oct 14
-
13 Oct 14
-
07 Oct 14
-
15 Sep 14
-
09 Sep 14
-
08 Sep 14
-
-
Guidance on websites and copyright registration from the U.S. Copyright Office
As part of its new draft Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition, we have guidance on registration for websites. The draft of the full compendium is over 1200 pages and covers publication, recordation, notice, deposits, along with other topics. Members of the public may make comments anytime before (or after) the Third Edition […]
-
-
-
Website Permissions
-
Academic and Educational Permissions
-
Fair Use
-
Copyright Research
-
-
03 Sep 14
-
19 Aug 14
-
10 Aug 14
-
The Copyright Act of 1976 gives a copyright owner the “exclusive righ[t]” to “perform the copyrighted work publicly,” 17 U.S.C. 106(4), including the right to “transmit or otherwise communicate … the [copyrighted] work … to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance … receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times,” section 101.
-
-
08 Aug 14
-
The Copyright Act of 1976 gives a copyright owner the “exclusive righ[t]” to “perform the copyrighted work publicly,” 17 U.S.C. 106(4), including the right to “transmit or otherwise communicate … the [copyrighted] work … to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance … receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times,” section 101.
-
-
-
The Copyright Act of 1976 gives a copyright owner the “exclusive righ[t]” to “perform the copyrighted work publicly,” 17 U.S.C. 106(4), including the right to “transmit or otherwise communicate … the [copyrighted] work … to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance … receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times,” section 101.
-
-
25 Jul 14
-
22 Jul 14
-
21 Jul 14
-
08 Jul 14
-
03 Jul 14
-
30 Jun 14
mamahenjdCopyright opinions, dockets, legislation, articles, and blogs are available on this website. Great resource for copyright and fair use.
-
The owners of program copyrights unsuccessfully sought a preliminary injunction, arguing that Aereo was infringing their right to “perform” their copyrighted works “publicly.” The Second Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that Aereo performs the works within the meaning of section 101 and does not merely supply equipment that allows others to do so.
-
The Court stated that when an entity communicates the same contemporaneously perceptible images and sounds to multiple people, it “transmit[s] … a performance” to them, regardless of the number of discrete communications it makes and whether it makes an individual personal copy for each viewer. Aero subscribers are “the public” under the Act: a large number of people, unrelated and unknown to each other.
-
-
23 Jun 14
-
22 Jun 14
-
19 Jun 14
-
11 May 14
-
08 May 14
-
fter performing a “singing telegram” at a credit union trade association event, she sued, charging infringements of intellectual property rights. Although Conrad claims that she stated that her performance was not to be recorded, except for “personal use,” photos were posted on websites.
-
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, first questioning Conrad’s copyright on the costume, because similar costumes are a common consumer product. The performance was not copyrightable, not being “fixed in any tangible medium of expression,” 1
-
-
09 Apr 14
-
07 Apr 14
-
Psihoyos v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Published on:Plaintiff filed suit against publisher Wiley under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., based on Wiley’s publication of textbooks containing eight of plaintiff’s photographs. The district court concluded that the applicable three-year statute of limitations barred none of plaintiff’s infringement claims because plaintiff, exercising reasonable diligence, did not discover the infringements until fewer than three years prior to bringing the suit. Nonetheless, the district court granted Wiley’s motion for summary judgment as to several of the infringement claims on the ground that plaintiff had failed to register the relevant photographs with the Copyright Office prior to instituting suit pursuant to section 411(a). The court held that copyright infringement claims did not accrue until actual or constructive discovery of the relevant infringement and that the Act’s statute of limitations did not bar any of plaintiff’s infringement claims; the court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims relating to the Narcoleptic Dog and Dinamation photos where the district court acted within its discretion to partially deny plaintiff leave to amend his complaint; the court discerned no error in the district court’s denial of Wiley’s motion for remittitur or a new trial; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to alter the jury’s award of statutory damages. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
-
-
01 Apr 14
-
24 Mar 14
-
19 Mar 14
-
18 Mar 14
-
26 Feb 14
-
21 Feb 14
-
1993 Lindsay began developing rules
-
for categorizing names by ethnicity
-
reate computer programs that did
-
everything from rewriting names into proper data format to turning the rules into computer code
-
-
13 Feb 14
-
09 Feb 14
-
25 Jan 14
Elizabeth ClarkThe Stanford Copyright & Fair Use site was started by Mike Keller, Vicky Reich and Tim Stanley in 1996 to support a talk that Mike was about to give. The talk was about the Michigan Documents Services case and whether it was Fair Use for a local copyshop to make coursepacks for university students. The idea for the site was proposed on a Wednesday and the site was up and running by the next Monday.
It's grown a bit over the years, and today includes primary case law, statutes, regulations, as well as current feeds of newly filed copyright lawsuits, pending legislation, regulations, copyright office news, scholarly articles, blog and twitter feeds from practicing attorneys and law professors.
Its emphasis is on copyright issues especially relevant to the education and library community, including examples of fair use and policies. Useful copyright charts and tools are continually added to help users evaluate copyright status and best practices.
Featured cases include full text of court documents of district court cases that The Center for Internet and Society Fair Use Project is involved with as well as other cases of high interest. -
09 Jan 14
-
22 Dec 13
Márcia GenovêzFair use é um princípio de direitos de autor com base na crença de que o público tem o direito de usar livremente porções de materiais com direitos autorais para fins de comentários e críticas.
-
10 Dec 13
J MillerOAA Week 3 Class Materials
-
05 Dec 13
-
04 Dec 13
Page Comments
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.