Search for: "Koons v. Koons"
Results 81 - 100
of 242
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 May 2012, 1:46 pm
The first began in 1996, when the Supreme Court adopted an abuse-of-discretion standard in Koon v. [read post]
23 Jan 2011, 10:41 am
Koons's Balloon Dog to pop gallery's bubble? [read post]
22 Apr 2010, 2:30 pm
Supreme Court in Koon v. [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 8:55 am
"Finally, the decision contains a guest appearance by serial copyright litigant Jeffrey Koons, noting that, while Wildflower Works is ineligible, more sturdy topiary works like Koons' 42-foot floral "Puppy" (above, right) did meet the fixation requirement. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 7:03 am
Justice Alito delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Koons v. [read post]
10 Feb 2008, 2:11 pm
Koons and Blanch v. [read post]
11 Mar 2008, 7:11 am
Viacom Int'l Inc. v. [read post]
24 Nov 2015, 7:24 pm
Koons, Blanch v. [read post]
26 Mar 2010, 9:28 am
Did Rogers v. [read post]
5 Feb 2014, 12:51 am
” In a more recent decision by a leading US court, Blanch v Koons , 467 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2006), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that the use of copyright photograph by defendant Jeff Koons, although a satire, was fair use, because Koons had a "genuine creative rationale for borrowing [the plaintiff’s] image, rather than using it merely 'to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh’”. [read post]
1 Sep 2016, 2:31 pm
Koons. [read post]
29 Nov 2011, 11:18 am
" Koon v. [read post]
31 Jul 2019, 12:23 pm
In response, Goldsmith filed a counterclaim claiming that Warhol’s works constituted copyright infringement.Court findingsInfringement analysisThe court started its discussion by reiterating the criteria for copyright protection of a photographic work: the protectible, original elements must necessarily stem from the photographer’s original expression, such as “posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, [and] evoking the desired expression” (citing… [read post]
11 Feb 2014, 8:09 am
Perhaps the objectives of Dumb Starbucks and Starbucks do not seem “sharply different” in this context (Blanch v Koons).Could Dumb Starbucks have pursued their marketing objective without copying as much of the Starbucks branding? [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 6:10 am
In Cariou v. [read post]
1 Jul 2007, 2:31 pm
Mattel Inc. v. [read post]
23 Nov 2013, 4:42 am
” * * * Limited criminal liability In its May 2013 decision in People v. [read post]
1 Oct 2007, 12:45 am
Jennifer Koons of the Medill News Service quotes the U.S. [read post]
30 May 2013, 4:44 am
In the Michigan case of People v. [read post]
21 Oct 2014, 4:23 am
[Note: in Washington state, the legal threshold is 5 ng/ml.]In People v. [read post]
