Search for: "Rural Telephone Service Co. v. Feist Publications"
Results 1 - 20
of 50
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Dec 2023, 9:15 am
2022cv1564-24 [9] Feist Publications, Inc., v. [read post]
8 Dec 2023, 6:30 am
Rural Telephone Service Co., and Stewart 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]
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]
8 Jan 2020, 10:03 pm
First, the Board considered Feist Publications, Inc., v. [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]
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
Rural Telephone Service Co., where the US Supreme Court ruled that a compilation of facts may be protected by copyright but only if such selection, coordination and arrangement is original enough: would that cover an invented language? [read post]
8 Jun 2016, 4:46 am
Rural Telephone Service Co. [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]
