This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Some forms of data are protected by copyright, trademark, or another cognizable forms of intellectualproperty. But most of the data on the Internet isn’t easily protectible as intellectualproperty by those who might have an incentive to protect it. LinkedIn Corp. In the end, it was a pyrrhic victory.
My roundup of the top Internet Law developments of 2023: 10) California court bans targeted advertising (?). Facebook , a California appeals court shocked the advertising community by suggesting that using common demographic criteria for ad targeting, such as age or gender, may violate California’s anti-discrimination law.
Ochoa’s definitive analysis of the Supreme Court’s Warhol opinion. For nearly 30 years, the framework for judging fair use cases has been remarkably stable, based on Justice Souter’s masterful opinion for a unanimous Court in Campbell v. [Eric’s note: this is the post you’ve been waiting for: Prof. 569 (1994).
As a result, courts have recognized three types of liability for copyright infringement: direct infringement (“to do” any one of the five exclusive rights), contributory infringement (“to authorize” another to directly infringe) and vicarious liability (based on the relationship between the direct infringer and the person sought to be held liable).
If you want a commercial license to clarify your rights to any other intellectualproperty that might be associated with the G-A-L Method, please contact me. Dennis and Tom have co-hosted The Kennedy-Mighell Report podcast on legal technology since 2006 and he has been blogging at www.denniskennedy.com/blog/ for more than 20 years.
If you want a commercial license to clarify your rights to any other intellectualproperty that might be associated with the G-A-L Method, please contact me. Dennis and Tom have co-hosted The Kennedy-Mighell Report podcast on legal technology since 2006 and he has been blogging at www.denniskennedy.com/blog/ for more than 20 years.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content