Search for: "Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc."
Results 1 - 20
of 46
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Dec 2023, 9:15 am
2022cv1564-24 [9] Feist Publications, Inc., v. [read post]
11 Aug 2023, 4:00 am
Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). [4] See Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. [read post]
20 Jun 2023, 6:07 am
Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Feb 2023, 7:54 am
Rural Telephone Service Co. [read post]
16 Apr 2021, 8:10 pm
Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 345 (1991) (quoting Professor Nimmer). [read post]
15 Jun 2020, 6:53 am
However, in light of the seminal US Supreme Court judgment in Feist Publications Inc v Rural Telephone Services (499 US 340 (1991)) (Feist), works that combine geometric shapes, letters, and other non-protectable elements into a larger design may be registered if the overall design is sufficiently creative. [read post]
8 Jan 2020, 10:03 pm
First, the Board considered Feist Publications, Inc., v. [read post]
18 Jun 2019, 8:26 am
Original works of authorship The Review Board set out that its decision was based on the “low standard of copyrightability” set out in Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Service Co., (499 U.S. 340 (1991), requiring a “minimal creative spark”). [read post]
28 Dec 2017, 2:45 am
Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U. [read post]
1 Nov 2017, 12:56 am
Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc. , “[t]he sine qua non of copyright is originality. [read post]
26 May 2017, 1:39 pm
Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U. [read post]
28 Mar 2017, 3:45 am
Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U. [read post]
27 Mar 2017, 2:41 pm
Rural Telephone Service, Co., 499 U.S. 341, 358-359 (1991)), and that this determination is remanded for the district court to decide.[6] The Court noted as a threshold question that separability analysis is needed to determine whether “surface decorations are protected two-dimensional works of graphic art. [read post]
27 Mar 2017, 2:41 pm
Rural Telephone Service, Co., 499 U.S. 341, 358-359 (1991)), and that this determination is remanded for the district court to decide.[6] The Court noted as a threshold question that separability analysis is needed to determine whether “surface decorations are protected two-dimensional works of graphic art. [read post]
26 Dec 2016, 4:30 am
Well Marie-Andree cited that 1879 case Feist Publications, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Jun 2016, 4:46 am
Rural Telephone Service Co. [read post]
31 May 2016, 6:22 am
Copyright subsists in the US if the work is original according to the standard set out in Feist Publications, Inc. [read post]
21 Apr 2016, 5:34 am
Rural Telephone Service Co. [read post]
24 Feb 2016, 3:17 pm
Rural Telephone Service Co, Inc. provides that a work only requires a “modicum of creativity” to be considered “original. [read post]
6 Nov 2015, 9:57 am
As was decided some time ago in Feist Publications, Inc. v Rural Telephone Service Co., compilations can be protected even if they only contain ideas if "... [read post]
