C if viewer notices startling differences then the

This preview shows page 16 - 19 out of 33 pages.

Will audience find its appetite for the original displaced by derivative?c.If viewer notices startling differences, then the work is different enoughnotto beconsidered an infringement.d.Conflicting goals of the statute:encourage creativity w/o harming the incentive to create works which are used by others who create d/w. e.If the underlying work is in the p/d, then no infringement problems.such d/w are 8able if there are sufficientelements of original authorship present.2. Market Competition: Nat=l Geographic v. Classified Geographic(D. Mass. 1939) (p.463)a.Δ took all articles on a particular topic, and bound them together for sale.b.Held: Δ infringed by creating an unlawful compilation of articles. c.Δ didn=t own the rt to make these compilations. d.Policy: π is in thesame marketand may choose to sell its own compilations.3.Mirage Editions v. Albuquerque(9th Cir. 1989) (p.462)a.π had 8in Nagel works. Δ bought a book, cut out pics, glued it to plastic material, and affixed to a tile.b.Held: Δ created an infringing d/w.c.Rule: can=t sell a work of art glued to something else.
4.Horgan v. MacMillan(2d Cir. 1986) (p.464)a.Banlanchine choreographed Nutcracker. Δ made book w/photos from the ballet. b.Held: (the court wrongly held that photos didn=t infringe). Remanded so substantial similarity comparison btwn the ballet and photos could be made.c.. Samuels: agrees w/use of substantial similarity test.5.derivative works which enhance the market:Lewis Galoob v. Nintendo(9th Cir. 1992) (p.467)a.Game Genie video enhancer altered certain features in Nintendo video games.b.Held: Genie was NOT an infringing d/w b/c it does not incorp any part of the 8work.c.Policy: Genie enhances the marketfor Nintendo, (unlikeNat=l Geographiccase) *MORAL RIGHTS:* - NOT an exclusive right BUT...- incorporated in right to make derivative work- Moral rights recongnized in 1988 when we joined Berne Convention.Misrepresentation of original: Gilliam v. ABC(2d Cir. 1976) (p.470)a.Monty Python shows were abridged by ABC to fit in commercials. b.π claims unauthorized abridgement by Δ as violation of '1(b) of 1909 Act(Analogized to '106(2) of 1976 Act)c.Held: Highly probable that there was an infringing d/w, especially b/c editing was substantial, and thus issued a preliminary injunction to bar the show=s broadcast.1. BBC didn=t have the power to authorize ABC=s editing b/c BBC=s contract w/Monty explicitly detailed the altering procedure.2. * ABC's cuts mutilated the original work, thereby violating moral rights under...Lanham Act '43(a):ABC=s editing mutilated original work and violated this act.1)This act serves to prevent misrep that may injure π=s business or personal reputation, where no registered Jis concerned. 2)a representation of a product, although tech true, creates a false impression of the product and thus sufficiently violates the act.Visual Rights Act of 1990 ''101, 106A:Federal moral rights for visual arts '106A:Rts of certain authors to: 1) attribution & 2) integrity.a.Only protects visual art works. Works for hire are exempt. The original work is protected, not the copies. b.Doesn=t apply to graphic magazine art.
'101: Visual work of art includes: 1) painting, drawing, or sculpture, existing in a single copy, limited edition of

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture