Search for: "Leisure v. Leisure"
Results 381 - 400
of 672
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Dec 2014, 9:25 am
See Perry v. [read post]
5 Feb 2011, 3:31 pm
Also, Pecover v. [read post]
14 Dec 2010, 8:48 am
Aqua-Leisure Indus., Inc. v. [read post]
17 Oct 2015, 4:06 pm
There is still a tension between the ruling of the House of Lords (as it then was) in Campbell v MGN and the subsequent ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in Von Hannover v Germany. [read post]
7 Feb 2014, 7:14 pm
(Legislature v. [read post]
19 Nov 2014, 4:15 am
The linked cases of C-403/08 Football Association Premier League Ltd and Others v QC Leisure and Others and C-429/08 Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd where the CJEU held that copyright owners must authorise any communication to the public and such authorisation was required where a person makes the protected work "accessible to a new public", and then finally the TVCatchup case C‑607/11 ITV v… [read post]
15 Aug 2014, 7:16 am
So for instance, in the 2008 FAPL v QC Leisure litigation it was held that inclusion of the Premier League anthem was not essential for the purpose of showing the player line-up.... compulsive twitterer by nightWould, say, the tweeting of film extracts from football matches' topical moments qualify as news reporting? [read post]
12 Feb 2013, 4:24 am
In the newly published decision of Benjamin v. [read post]
8 Jul 2013, 4:24 am
Bibliographical details can be found here, and the contents can be perused at your leisure here. [read post]
12 Feb 2013, 4:39 am
I wanted to see how the NetFlix culture fit within the confines of workers' compensation law.I didn't find any cases where NetFlix was the party defendant.That doesn't mean there aren't any, just that WorkCompCentral's archive didn't contain any such cases.There was one case where "NetFlix" did come up in the search, and that is an unpublished case out of the 5th Appellate District entitled American Home Assurance v. [read post]
17 Jul 2015, 7:24 am
This Kat is however concerned about the leisurely pace at which this litigation, initiated in 2008, has meandered through the courts. [read post]
28 Apr 2013, 7:04 am
” Lord Sumption, albeit with the benefit of later CJEU decisions in FAPL v QC Leisure and Infopaq II that were not available to Proudman J or the Court of Appeal, has made a clear statement that there is no policy reason why mere watching and listening (as opposed to downloading or printing) should be regarded as an infringement in the online world any more than in the offline world. [read post]
15 Oct 2010, 8:03 am
In Hollowell v. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 4:00 pm
(See Dunlap v. [read post]
15 Jul 2009, 7:13 am
Given that at least two of those cases remain subject to ongoing appeal proceedings (Fisher v Brooker, the "Whiter Shade of Pale" case, is awaiting judgement in the House of Lords and Football Association Premier League Limited and others v QC Leisure, the case concerning smartcards for foreign satellite transmissions, is pending before the European Court of Justice), another edition very soon will doubtless be justified. [read post]
15 Nov 2009, 6:23 pm
O'Connor v. [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 10:00 am
Heller and McDonald v. [read post]
24 Feb 2020, 7:55 am
In Doe v. [read post]
16 Jul 2009, 8:29 pm
Reasons for judgement were released today (Testa v. [read post]
21 Apr 2016, 11:48 am
We’ll leave the details to your leisure time reading. [read post]
