Search for: "Sherlock v. Alling"
Results 81 - 100
of 138
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jan 2014, 7:11 am
It's not unexpected - the District Court's ruling that all but ten of Coinan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories were in the public domain would prevent the Estate from licensing all but those ten works - as well as potentially profitable spin offs, and new stories based on the characters of Holmes and Dr Watson. [read post]
19 Jan 2014, 5:30 am
TERIX COMPUTER ND Cali 2014http://t.co/r8N6zDq81Q -> BitTorrent user found liable for direct and contributory infringement PURZEL VIDEO v. [read post]
19 Jan 2014, 5:30 am
TERIX COMPUTER ND Cali 2014http://t.co/r8N6zDq81Q -> BitTorrent user found liable for direct and contributory infringement PURZEL VIDEO v. [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 6:11 am
Klinger v. [read post]
3 Jan 2014, 6:48 am
Klinger v. [read post]
2 Jan 2014, 6:00 am
Citing Scott v. [read post]
28 Dec 2013, 1:00 am
Those elements, Mr Klinger claimed, are in the public domain because the Sherlock Holmes books and stories published prior to 1923 (which includes all Sherlock works other than ten stories published in The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes) are no longer subject to copyright protection under US copyright law. [read post]
12 Dec 2013, 2:55 pm
Solis v. [read post]
2 Oct 2013, 6:19 am
Inc. v. [read post]
22 Sep 2013, 5:30 am
Nevada 2013http://t.co/rswYrYAV3V -> NY court dismisses copyright personal jurisdiction in TROMA ENTERT. v CENTENNIAL PICTURES 2nd Circuit 2013http://t.co/lcoVRKaYXz -> Link to Copyright case Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Sep 2013, 2:20 pm
The Conan Doyle Estate also dispatches with what would seem to be contradictory case law, Silverman v. [read post]
12 Jul 2013, 10:59 am
Pictures, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Mar 2013, 1:46 pm
But in Lee v. [read post]
11 Mar 2013, 11:24 am
Meanwhile. over on SOLO IP, Barbara Cookson was writing about that issue which, many folk hoped, had all been resolved: the extent to which injunctions to stop patent infringement are just optional or pretty well mandatory. [read post]
4 Mar 2013, 5:58 am
, v USA Cable, 2004 U.S. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 7:21 am
Good news all round then! [read post]
17 Sep 2012, 4:42 am
U.S. v. [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 4:30 am
See Graves v. [read post]
31 May 2012, 8:42 pm
Surely, it is easier to infer in this setting an intent not to coordinate Title VII and ADEA causation standards than it would be had the Age Act never been addressed at all. [read post]
9 May 2012, 1:48 pm
In Hoopingarner v. [read post]
