Search for: "Mazer v. Stein"
Results 1 - 20
of 41
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe:
12 Sep 2012, 1:45 pm
I could pay the Copyright Office over $300 for it to search its records (publicly available online already, thanks to the University of Pennsylvania), to confirm that the copyrights in the lamps at issue in Mazer v. [read post]
31 Jan 2014, 12:00 pm
In the 1950′s, the Supreme Court of the United States in Mazer v. [read post]
22 Mar 2017, 11:02 am
In the case of Mazer v. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 5:30 am
The court noted that no aspect of the lamp could be physically separated, citing the famous Mazer v. [read post]
30 Jan 2015, 1:36 pm
Stein would get an automatic A. [read post]
26 Apr 2017, 6:24 am
Mazer v Stein, 347 US 201, 214 (1954) concerns the protection of lamps. [read post]
8 May 2012, 12:25 pm
In Mazer v. [read post]
11 Apr 2016, 4:00 am
Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954). [read post]
27 May 2017, 10:25 am
” So said the Supreme Court in Mazer v. [read post]
3 Sep 2010, 3:36 pm
See Mazer v. [read post]
18 Jun 2019, 8:26 am
” The Review Board also considered the principles set out in Mazer v Stein (347 U.S. 201 (1954), which allowed a dancer-shaped lamp base to be protected under copyright), and found that the test was fulfilled in the present case as the designs could be perceived as separate from the useful article, the sneaker. [read post]
26 May 2017, 1:39 pm
” Mazer v. [read post]
12 May 2014, 12:30 pm
” The Oracle opinion instead invoked the dicta from Mazer v. [read post]
28 Apr 2017, 5:50 am
The Copyright Office’s Amicus Brief from Mazer v. [read post]
29 Mar 2017, 1:07 pm
Stein. [read post]
24 Oct 2016, 7:06 am
The leading case is the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Mazer v. [read post]
4 Feb 2010, 9:08 am
Mazer v. [read post]
10 Aug 2017, 12:56 pm
Only 4 cited © cases: Mazer v. [read post]
28 Aug 2009, 5:12 am
., the design of "useful articles" is not copyrightable, and as I'm sure you know, the seminal case on "separability" is Mazer v. [read post]
8 Mar 2012, 2:16 pm
L.J. 301 (1998); Mazer v. [read post]
