Search for: "WARNER BROS."
Results 701 - 720
of 1,224
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jun 2011, 10:49 pm
Warner Bros. / ?????????????????? [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 11:55 am
Over at Madisonian, Ann Bartow shares interesting observations on Professor Nimmer’s dual role as Warner Bros. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 7:45 am
Eriq Gardner NIAD Management says a movie not involving Warner Bros. entitles them to commission on Card's take.read more [read post]
30 May 2011, 4:55 am
Warner Bros. [read post]
27 May 2011, 1:34 pm
As discussed here previously, Whitmill filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Warner Bros. alleging that he owns the rights to the well-known "Mike Tyson tattoo" and that it cannot be reproduced on anyone's body other than Mike Tyson without his permission. [read post]
27 May 2011, 12:25 pm
He said he and Warner Bros. have talked settlement, but they weren’t “serious discussions. [read post]
27 May 2011, 7:07 am
Eriq Gardner Did Warner Bros.' arch-nemesis make a legal error? [read post]
26 May 2011, 11:37 am
Matthew Belloni The estate of actor Charles Bronson has sued Warner Bros. and MGM claiming the studios have failed to pay profits from two hit 1970’s films.read more [read post]
26 May 2011, 10:46 am
The tattoo factors highly in the marketing campaign for the film.According to the lawsuit: “Warner Bros. copied Mr. [read post]
26 May 2011, 9:57 am
“The harm to Warner Bros. and numerous third parties from such an injunction would be devastating. [read post]
25 May 2011, 8:16 am
Courts have allowed copyright plaintiffs to use this injunction tactic (which gives the plaintiffs, of course, an enormous bargaining club of a value far in excess of the value of the copyright claim itself) much too frequently in the past (a point made many years ago, if memory serves, in a very influential law review article by our own Eugene Volokh); at the same time, the court noted that Whitmill “had a “strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits for copyright infringement”… [read post]
25 May 2011, 8:00 am
An interesting law suit has been brewing between the tattoo artist who created Mike Tyson's famous facial tattoo and the Warner Bros studios in respect of Ed Helms' character in their recent release, The Hangover 2. [read post]
25 May 2011, 7:49 am
" Because the tattoo is incorporated into Tyson's head, the copyright should not be allowed, argued Warner Bros. [read post]
25 May 2011, 12:56 am
Warner Bros (about which I wrote yesterday) issued an Order Denying Whitmill’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, allowing the movie studio to proceed on its release schedule. [read post]
24 May 2011, 3:16 pm
" But a judge has indicated that he has a strong case against Warner Bros. for infringing his copyright in a facial tattoo he designed for Mike Tyson. [read post]
24 May 2011, 1:37 pm
Tattooist Victor Whitmill claims Warner Bros. is misappropriating a tattoo he has copyrighted and had emblazoned on Mike Tyson’s face in 2003. [read post]
24 May 2011, 12:41 pm
Warner Bros. [read post]
24 May 2011, 9:56 am
In past cases, the USCG has attempted to settle these lawsuits quickly, usually for around $3,000.2: Judge Denies Tattoo Artist’s Request to Halt Release of ‘Hangover Part IINext up today, Warner Bros has won a crucial round in a lawsuit filed by the tattoo artist that designed the famous face tattoo on Mike Tyson. [read post]
24 May 2011, 8:04 am
Matthew Belloni But the copyright case against Warner Bros. will continueread more [read post]
24 May 2011, 12:09 am
Warner Bros. [read post]
