[caption id="attachment_9319" align="alignnone" width="210"] Images in question in the Graham v. Prince copyright infringement case.[/caption] The Federalist's Robin Ridless takes some clean power-punches at the "ivy-cloistered radicalism" of the "all-appropriation-is-fair-use" jihadists. Here's one example, To read a sampling of current American law review articles on the topic, it is easy to form the impression that copyright and trademark protections comprise this nation’s gravest injustice. The call by legal academics to get rid of almost all intellectual-property protection at first seems like a reversal of the Left’s usual promotion of the nanny state. And then this zinger, Legal grants of “monopoly” in artworks suppress the free speech ...
The Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property has put together "a summary of the intellectual property backgrounds of President Trump’s twenty-one potential Supreme Court nominees. The summary addresses judicial, legislative, and legal experience, as well as education and scholarly work. The summary includes data on each nominee’s intellectual property cases, whether decided as a judge or argued in private practice. Where appropriate, the summary also notes legislative bills that were co-sponsored by the nominee." For judges, the summary also notes how many cases, per IP area, the judge ruled in favor or against the owner and infringer.
The United States Copyright Office is undertaking a public study to assess the current state of U.S. law recognizing and protecting moral rights for authors, specifically the rights of attribution and integrity. As part of this study, the Office will review existing law on the moral rights of attribution and integrity, including provisions found in title 17 of the U.S. Code as well as other federal and state laws, and whether any additional protection is advisable in this area. To support this effort and provide thorough assistance to Congress, the Office is seeking public input on a number of questions. Comments ...
[caption id="attachment_9276" align="alignnone" width="300"] Public service add advertising the need to protect indigenous rights via intellectual property, in Spanish language.[/caption] As it stands, there’s not much indigenous groups can do to protect their cultural patrimony or to keep companies from ripping off their designs. There’s currently no law granting Mayan groups control over their own intellectual property. But Mayan communities are fighting to trademark their work, and they could be paving the way for other indigenous groups in the process. Another great post on indigenous rights by online powerhouse, Remezcla.
The Art & Law Program is now accepting applications on a Rolling Basis. Applicants who apply through Rolling Admissions can expect to receive a decision from the Program 1 to 2 weeks after their application is received. The Program's admissions process is competitive—as each year they get many more applications than they have spaces for, so if you'd like to increase the likelihood of acceptance or need to know of an acceptance or rejection as soon as possible, obviously the sooner you apply the better it is for you. Non-US based applicants are strongly encouraged to apply sooner rather than later. In ...
The Federalist’s Robin Ridless takes some clean power-punches at the “ivy-cloistered radicalism” of the “all-appropriation-is-fair-use” jihadists. Here’s one example,
To read a sampling of current American law review articles on the topic, it is easy to form the impression that copyright and trademark protections comprise this nation’s gravest injustice. The call by legal academics to get rid of almost all intellectual-property protection at first seems like a reversal of the Left’s usual promotion of the nanny state.
And then this zinger,
Legal grants of “monopoly” in artworks suppress the free speech of others. Ownership privileges thwart the “flourishing” of inner-city children.
Right. Because in the end the leftist’s hysteria about the “death of creativity” means nothing other than the death of sexy art law cases to opine and write about. The spectacle, pure and simple. Sans the rockets and red glare, all we’re left with is “aspiring” artists, art students and, oh yes, just plain simple artists. Who the hell wants to write about that?
The Washington Post’s Tom Rachman shoots several zingers and comedy and farce that “political art” has become.
Example number one: “Today, ‘politicized artist’ is as likely to evoke a whiny, entitled, bobble-headed creative.”
Switch to our mobile site