Search for: "Feist v. Feist"
Results 101 - 120
of 217
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Apr 2007, 3:22 am
" .....We reiterated this theme in Feist Publications, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Apr 2015, 9:18 am
Cairou v. [read post]
13 Nov 2018, 12:27 pm
V. [read post]
17 May 2016, 2:27 am
There the answer tends to be more straightforward as you cannot copyright collection of facts (see cases such as Publications International and Feist). [read post]
29 Sep 2010, 2:04 pm
Feist Publications, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Apr 2017, 6:24 am
Mazer v Stein, 347 US 201, 214 (1954) concerns the protection of lamps. [read post]
31 Mar 2017, 11:22 am
One reason Oracle v. [read post]
10 Aug 2020, 6:33 pm
“To state a copyright claim, Plaintiffs need allege only ‘(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original,'” the brief says, citing the seminal copyright case, Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 10:31 pm
In Feist Publications, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Jan 2011, 8:34 pm
More particularly, Darden argues that the Register's refusal to find sufficient originality in his submitted works despite the “extremely low” amount of creativity required for a work to be copyrightable, Feist Publications, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Dec 2010, 5:41 pm
Borland, Int’l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 813 (1st Cir. 1995), citing Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Jun 2016, 4:46 am
, v. [read post]
6 Jan 2016, 8:56 am
See Feist, 499 U.S. at 363 (“[N]o one disputes that [the telephone company] undertook the task of alphabetizing the names itself. [read post]
27 Mar 2017, 2:41 pm
”[22] [1] Star Athletic, LLC v. [read post]
27 Mar 2017, 2:41 pm
”[22] [1] Star Athletic, LLC v. [read post]
8 Jun 2009, 2:43 am
See Rice v. [read post]
29 Nov 2012, 1:01 pm
(See, for example, Feist Publications, Inc. v. [read post]
7 May 2012, 10:18 am
A visit to Google Scholar allowed me to quickly identify Feist Publications, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Nov 2023, 8:27 am
And as I pointed out here, disembodied designs are already automatically (and costlessly) protected by copyright as long as they can meet the low standard of creativity mandated by Feist v. [read post]
24 Sep 2023, 12:39 am
In my opinion, there has never been any talk of such works, because that would be the same as talking about non-distinctive trademarks.Human authorIt is well known that copyright protects products of the human mind (see Feist v. [read post]
