Search for: "Rural Telephone Service Co. v. Feist Publications"
Results 1 - 20
of 50
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Mar 2009, 6:29 pm
Here is the abstract:In the 1991 case of Feist Publications, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Dec 2023, 6:30 am
Rural Telephone Service Co., and Stewart v. [read post]
21 Jul 2014, 1:48 pm
In the seminal copyright case Feist Publications, Inc. v. [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]
9 Mar 2010, 10:22 pm
Rural Telephone Services. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 12:25 pm
Rural Telephone Service Co. 499 U.S. 340 (1991). [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 12:25 pm
Rural Telephone Service Co. [read post]
21 Apr 2016, 5:34 am
Rural Telephone Service Co. [read post]
29 Nov 2012, 1:01 pm
Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 US 340 (1991).) [read post]
16 Apr 2021, 8:10 pm
Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 345 (1991) (quoting Professor Nimmer). [read post]
29 Jun 2019, 4:38 am
This too was rejected, with the US Copyright Office stating that there were no elements embodied in the work, alone or combined, that would be eligible for copyright protection.In its second reconsideration request Tommy Hilfiger restated the earlier claims, and added that the originality of the Flag Logo Design exceeded the standards set out in Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), due to the… [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 5:49 am
As per the landmark decision in Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Services, the term original consists of two components: independent creation and sufficient creativity, with only a modicum of creativity necessary for a work to be eligible for copyright protection. [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]
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]
8 Jan 2020, 10:03 pm
First, the Board considered Feist Publications, Inc., v. [read post]
6 Nov 2015, 2:14 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]
25 Mar 2009, 11:23 am
Here is the abstract: In the 1991 case of Feist Publications, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Aug 2009, 11:57 am
Rural Telephone Service Co., which involved people's names, addresses and phone numbers in a telephone book). [read post]
31 May 2016, 6:22 am
Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991); a modicum of creativity.Substantial similarityThe later work must be substantially similar to the earlier work for a finding of copyright infringement. [read post]
24 Jun 2007, 10:35 pm
Rural Tel. [read post]
