There's a couple points here I haven't seen elsewhere. Like DiMorica's pending TM application for CHARGING BULL for things like pasta, olive oil, and wine!
VARA doesn't apply! (1) It only applies to artworks created after the effective date of the law (1990); (2) It only lasts for the artist's lifetime. I don't see why the wall can't be taken down and the mural taken somewhere else.
The obama campaign had the audio available as a free ringtone download for awhile...BMG needs to bust 'em and everybody who downloaded! Call David Lowery! It's stealing!
If you go to p.20 of the decision there's an explanation of the work for hire rules under the 1909 act, which cover the recordings here. The presumptions are basically reversed from those in the 1978 act: generally if somebody else paid for the work to be created, it's a work for hire. This decision should have to effect on the reversion rights issues coming up with works created after 1/1/78.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by lhblotto.
a couple points
http://thealt.com/2017/04/19/rapp-on-this-raging-scum/
There's a couple points here I haven't seen elsewhere. Like DiMorica's pending TM application for CHARGING BULL for things like pasta, olive oil, and wine!
VARA
VARA doesn't apply! (1) It only applies to artworks created after the effective date of the law (1990); (2) It only lasts for the artist's lifetime. I don't see why the wall can't be taken down and the mural taken somewhere else.
Prince's 1999 lawsuit debacle
http://rapponthis.blogspot.com/2014/02/2614-lets-litigate-like-its-1999.html
cote
Same judge that decimated the fair use doctrine in the Richard Prince case.
here it is too
sorry about the lack of formatting:
http://rapponthis.blogspot.com/2012/11/111712-republicans-house-report-on.html
remarkable
All this time I thought I was a copyleftist when I was actually a tea-bagger.
ringtone
The obama campaign had the audio available as a free ringtone download for awhile...BMG needs to bust 'em and everybody who downloaded! Call David Lowery! It's stealing!
foretold in 1982!
work for hire
If you go to p.20 of the decision there's an explanation of the work for hire rules under the 1909 act, which cover the recordings here. The presumptions are basically reversed from those in the 1978 act: generally if somebody else paid for the work to be created, it's a work for hire. This decision should have to effect on the reversion rights issues coming up with works created after 1/1/78.