Search for: "People v. Arnold (1988)" Results 21 - 40 of 41
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Aug 2014, 7:16 am
In this Kat's opinion, furthermore copyright does not only vest in those extracts that include the copyright-protected works mentioned by the CJEU, including the Premier League and Barclays logos, as Arnold J clarified in FAPL v BSkyB and Others (see paras 8 ff; this action originated as an application for a blocking injunction as per section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA)).There is also copyright in those broadcast… [read post]
7 Apr 2014, 9:57 am by Eleonora Rosati
 At the national level, also super-learned Mr Justice Arnold said [in his 2013 decision in SAS v WPL, at para 27] that:"In the light of a number of recent judgments of the CJEU, it may be arguable that it is not a fatal objection to a claim that copyright subsists in a particular work that the work is not one of the kinds of work listed in section 1(1)(a) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents 1988 and defined elsewhere in that Act." [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 12:31 pm by L. Gopika
 Justice Arnold stated that Defendants were service providers within the meaning of the 1988 Act as this question had already been settled in Dramatico v. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 1:00 pm by Benjamin Wittes
Earlier today, I had the pleasure of visiting Professor Jack Goldsmith’s “Foreign Relations Law” class, which is studying Hamdan v. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 9:20 am
The lesson being if you are going to die, die in Indiana.Raskopf cited the case of CMG Worldwide v The Upper Deck Co., Inc case where he acted for the defendant. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 3:37 pm by Steven M. Taber
Motz, to felony obstruction of justice charges and violation of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships related to concealing deliberate vessel pollution from the M/V Iorana, a Greek flagged cargo ship that made port calls in Baltimore, Tacoma, Wash., and New Orleans. [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 11:07 am by R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
Dear Friends:Just wanted to tell you about this case that was recently decided against Aurora Loan Services. [read post]
1 Nov 2009, 7:00 pm
Shusta, the court stated that even participants in an informal “kick the can” game owed no additional duty to each other than to refrain from intentional or willful and wanton misconduct. [19]             Some courts have broadened the scope of liability for sports participants by imposing a duty of care for unforeseeable risks which players would clearly not endorse given the… [read post]