Free for a Fee

One of the interesting theories posed by the case is Character for Hire’s claimed right to use Disney characters, which derive from Norse mythology or centuries-old fairy tales. In its response to Disney’s motion for summary judgment, Characters for Hire argues that many of the Plaintiffs’ copyrights are based on prior works that have been in the public domain for hundreds of years such as Cinderella, Snow White, Rapunzel, Sleeping Beauty, Aladdin, Princess Aurora, Beauty and the Beast, the Little Mermaid, Thor and Loki. “It will be interesting to see how the Court delineates between established fairy tale characters and the original expression added to them by Disney,” Furey said.

more

The content in this post was found at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/12/05/disney-slams-characters-for-hire-tarnishing-image/id=90649/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

A technology start-up company can be an informal environment – both Apple Computer and Hewlett-Packard famously started out in garages, and Yahoo!, Google and Facebook were developed, initially at least, in college dorm rooms. But informality can, and frequently does, lead to legal disputes down the road. In JustMed, Inc. v. Byce, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 6976 (9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2010), the Ninth Circuit was faced with a dispute over ownership of the source code for a program that operated a digital audio device.

more

The content in this post was found at http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2010/04/articles/copyright/in-assessing-employee-status-in-copyright-ownership-disputes-technology-startups-are-a-special-case-says-the-ninth-circuit/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NewMediaAndTechnologyLaw+%28New+Media+and+Technology+Law%29 and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

By Eric Goldman

Conwell v. Gray Loon Outdoor Marketing Group, Inc., 82S04-0806-CV-00309 (Ind. Sup. Ct. May 19, 2009)

This is a classic cautionary tale about interactions between a web developer/host and a customer. The customer retained the web developer to develop a website. The paperwork between the parties was not a model of clarity. Later, the customer orally asked the developer to modify the site; this time, there is only garbled conversations and no paperwork. The developer modified the site but the customer changed its mind and asked the developer to roll back to the earlier version. But the developer could not do so because it didn’t keep a copy of the earlier version (what???), The customer stiffed the developer and the developer took the website offline. The developer sued for non-payment; the customer cross-sued for conversion on the theory that it had paid for the site and had been deprived of its property.

The Indiana Supreme Court wrestles with several questions, concluding that:

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2009/06/web_developer_d.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

The content in this post was found at http://revolver87.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/when-creating-new-material-what-must-you-do-to-protect-your-legal-rights/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.