﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="../StyleSheet/rss.xsl"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Copyright &amp; Trademark Law Community Publishing</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/copyright-trademarklaw</link><description>The platform that enables you to build rich, interactive communities</description><copyright>http://www.lexisnexis.com/terms/copyright.aspx</copyright><atom:link href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/copyright-trademarklaw/Rss.aspx?id=505" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Supreme Court Holds "First Sale" Doctrine Applies to Grey Market Goods -- Resale of Copyrighted Items Made Overseas Not Copyright Infringement</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2013/04/24/supreme-court-holds-quot-first-sale-quot-doctrine-applies-to-grey-market-goods-resale-of-copyrighted-items-made-overseas-not-copyright-infringement.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2013/04/24/supreme-court-holds-quot-first-sale-quot-doctrine-applies-to-grey-market-goods-resale-of-copyrighted-items-made-overseas-not-copyright-infringement.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_5F00_Supreme-Court-_2800_2_2900_.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;by Laura J. Borst, Rita Weeks and Shelby
Knutson&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Excerpt:&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a landmark ruling on March
19th, the Supreme Court held in &lt;i&gt;Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley &amp;amp; Sons, Inc., &lt;/i&gt;No.
11-697, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 2371 (2013) [&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00234&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=2013%20U.S.%20LEXIS%202371" target="_blank"&gt;an enhanced version of this opinion is available to lexis.com
subscribers&lt;/a&gt;], that the &amp;quot;first sale&amp;quot; doctrine - which permits
lawfully acquired copies of copyrighted works to be resold by their owners -
also applies to works manufactured overseas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By holding that</description><author>FulbrightandJaworski@placeholder.com (Fulbright and Jaworski L.L.P. )</author><pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:43:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Supreme Court Endorses International Copyright Arbitrage </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2013/03/29/supreme-court-endorses-international-copyright-arbitrage.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2013/03/29/supreme-court-endorses-international-copyright-arbitrage.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_OldBooks.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;by&amp;nbsp;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.kenyon.com/Our-People/B/BernsteinFrank.aspx"&gt;Frank L.
Bernstein&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.kenyon.com/Our-People/R/ReichmanJonathan.aspx"&gt;Jonathan D.
Reichman&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a much-awaited decision, &lt;i&gt;Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley
&amp;amp; Sons, Inc.,&lt;/i&gt; &lt;b&gt;(lexis.com subscribers may &lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00234&amp;amp;searchtype=bo&amp;amp;search=number%2811-697%29&amp;amp;source=CRTFLS;BRIEFS" target="_blank"&gt;access Supreme Court briefs&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00234&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=2013%20U.S.%20LEXIS%202371" target</description><author>KenyonandKenyon@placeholder.com (Kenyon &amp; Kenyon LLP)</author><pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:03:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Supreme Court Vacates, Remands in Dispute over Textbook Copyrights</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2013/03/25/supreme-court-vacates-remands-in-dispute-over-textbook-copyrights.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2013/03/25/supreme-court-vacates-remands-in-dispute-over-textbook-copyrights.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_5F00_Supreme-Court.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey&amp;#39;s) Citing its ruling last week
in &lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley &amp;amp; Sons Inc.&lt;/span&gt; (568 U.S. ___ [2013]&amp;nbsp; &lt;b&gt;(lexis.com subscribers may &lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00234&amp;amp;searchtype=bo&amp;amp;search=number%2811-697%29&amp;amp;source=CRTFLS;BRIEFS" target="_blank"&gt;access Supreme Court briefs&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00234&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=2013%20U.S.%20LEXIS%202371" target="_blank"&gt;the opinion&lt;/a&gt; for this case)&lt;/b&gt;; See 11/5/12, Page 4), the
U.S. Supreme Court on March 25 granted &lt;i&gt;certiorari&lt;/i&gt; in another dispute</description><author>melissa.ritti@lexisnexis.com (Melissa Ritti)</author><pubDate>Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:51:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Selling Copyrighted Goods Manufactured Abroad is not Copyright Infringement</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2013/03/20/selling-copyrighted-goods-manufactured-abroad-is-not-copyright-infringement.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2013/03/20/selling-copyrighted-goods-manufactured-abroad-is-not-copyright-infringement.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_Copyright.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;by Donna Ray Berkelhammer&lt;/b&gt; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/" target="_blank" title="Supreme Court of the United States"&gt;US Supreme &amp;nbsp;Court&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf" title="Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley &amp;amp; Sons, Inc."&gt;ruled &lt;/a&gt;6-3&amp;nbsp;on March 19
that once you buy a work covered by &lt;a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/" target="_blank" title="U.S. Copyright LAw"&gt;U.S. copyright law&lt;/a&gt;, you may
resell that product in the U.S., no matter where it was lawfully manufactured.
&amp;nbsp;This is an important decision for second-hand shops, discounters, online
auction sites, museums and libraries.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The</description><author>Sands.Anderson@placeholder.com (Sands Anderson PC)</author><pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:43:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Supreme Court Reverses, Says First Sale Doctrine Applies in Copyright Case</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2013/03/19/supreme-court-reverses-says-first-sale-doctrine-applies-in-copyright-case.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2013/03/19/supreme-court-reverses-says-first-sale-doctrine-applies-in-copyright-case.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_5F00_SupremeCourt-_2800_5_2900_.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey&amp;#39;s) A student accused of
copyright infringement prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court, which held in a
divided ruling March 19 that the first sale doctrine applies to lawfully made
works manufactured abroad and imported to the United States (&lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;Supap Kirtsaeng
d/b/a BlueChristine99 v. John Wiley &amp;amp; Sons Inc.&lt;/span&gt;, No. 11-697, U.S. Sup.;
See 11/5/12, Page 4.) &lt;b&gt;(lexis.com subscribers may &lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00209&amp;amp;searchtype=bo&amp;amp;search=number%2811-697%29&amp;amp;source=CRTFLS;BRIEFS" target="_blank"&gt;access Supreme Court briefs&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href="http://www</description><author>melissa.ritti@lexisnexis.com (Melissa Ritti)</author><pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:35:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Elementary, My Dear Watson: Author Seeks to Firmly Establish Sherlock Holmes’ Entry into the Public Domain</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2013/02/15/elementary-my-dear-watson-author-seeks-to-establish-sherlock-holmes-entry-into-the-public-domain.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2013/02/15/elementary-my-dear-watson-author-seeks-to-establish-sherlock-holmes-entry-into-the-public-domain.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/publishing/Sherlock-Holmes.jpg" title="Sherlock Holmes" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img border="0" src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/publishing/Sherlock-Holmes.jpg" style="border:0;float:left;margin:11px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;The world&amp;#39;s greatest detective could be yours free of
licensing fees as a recent complaint seeks to establish the boundaries of Sherlock
Holmes&amp;#39; entry into the public domain.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Yesterday, Leslie S. Klinger, the author and editor of
multiple Sherlock Holmes&amp;#39; articles and books, &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/taxlaw/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Documents.IP+Documents/Klinger-v-Sherlock-Holmes-Complaint.pdf"&gt;filed a declaratory judgment
action&lt;/a&gt; against Sir Arthur</description><author>travis.burchart@lexisnexis.com (Travis Burchart)</author><pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:21:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Sony’s Woody Allen Film the Target of William Faulkner Copyright Case</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/11/12/sony-s-woody-allen-film-the-target-of-william-faulkner-copyright-case.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/11/12/sony-s-woody-allen-film-the-target-of-william-faulkner-copyright-case.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/publishing/looking-through-a-book.jpg" title="Looking through a book" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img border="0" src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/publishing/looking-through-a-book.jpg" style="border:0;float:right;margin:3px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;Last month, Faulkner Literary Rights filed a copyright case
against Sony Pictures Classics, accusing Sony of infringing a quote from
William Faulkner&amp;#39;s book, &lt;i&gt;Requiem for a
Nun&lt;/i&gt;. &amp;nbsp;The original quote, &amp;quot;The past
is never dead. It&amp;#39;s not even past,&amp;quot; was allegedly used in Woody Allen&amp;#39;s movie, &lt;i&gt;Midnight
in Paris&lt;/i&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the &lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/TAXLAW/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Documents.IP+Documents/Faulkner-v-Sony</description><author>LexisNexisStaffCopyrightTM@placeholder.com (Copyright &amp; Trademark Law Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:40:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Is First Sale Rule Limited to Domestically-Made Copies?</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/11/06/is-first-sale-rule-limited-to-domestically-made-copies.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/11/06/is-first-sale-rule-limited-to-domestically-made-copies.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" title="Book Sale" href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/copyright-trademarklaw/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/publishing/book-sale_2D00_first-sale.jpg"&gt;&lt;img style="border:0;float:right;margin:3px;" src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/copyright-trademarklaw/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/publishing/book-sale_2D00_first-sale.jpg" border="0" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;In the upcoming &lt;i&gt;Kirtsaeng &lt;/i&gt;case, the Supreme Court is expected to provide the long-awaited answer to the question whether copyright law&amp;#39;s first sale rule applies only to domestically-manufactured copies. Mary LaFrance gives us a preview of the upcoming case and its implications.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Excerpt:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="padding-left:30px;"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;i&gt;Background&amp;nbsp;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;The petitioner in&amp;nbsp;&lt;i&gt;Kirtsaeng&lt;/i&gt;&amp;nbsp;imported and sold copyrighted</description><author>mary.lafrance@unlv.edu (Mary LaFrance)</author><pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 09:36:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Print Disabilities Support Fair Use Judgment in New York Copyright Case against Universities’ HathiTrust</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/11/05/print-disabilities-support-fair-use-judgment-in-new-york-copyright-case-against-universities-hathitrust.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/11/05/print-disabilities-support-fair-use-judgment-in-new-york-copyright-case-against-universities-hathitrust.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/copyright-trademarklaw/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/publishing/Computer-disability.jpg" title="Computer Disability" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img border="0" src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/copyright-trademarklaw/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/publishing/Computer-disability.jpg" style="border:0;float:left;margin:12px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;Recently, the Southern District of New York granted
defendants summary judgment in a copyright case attacking the HathiTrust
Digital Library (HDL). The HDL, which houses digitized works from university
libraries, is used for: (1) full-text searches; (2) preservation; and (3) to
provide access for people with certified print disabilities.&amp;nbsp; The court determined that defendants&amp;#39; present
application of the HDL is protected by fair use. &lt;i&gt;Authors Guild,
Inc. v. Hathitrust&lt;/i&gt;, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146169 (S.D.N.Y.</description><author>travis.burchart@lexisnexis.com (Travis Burchart)</author><pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 07:01:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Stan Lee Media Sues Disney to Recover Copyrights to Comic Book Characters Spider Man, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, X-Men, Fantastic Four &amp; Avengers</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/10/16/stan-lee-media-sues-disney-to-recover-copyrights-to-comic-book-characters-spider-man-iron-man-hulk-thor-x-men-fantastic-four-amp-avengers.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/10/16/stan-lee-media-sues-disney-to-recover-copyrights-to-comic-book-characters-spider-man-iron-man-hulk-thor-x-men-fantastic-four-amp-avengers.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/publishing/10_2D00_16_2D00_2012-8_2D00_25_2D00_33-AM.png" title="Comic Book Characters" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img border="0" src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/publishing/10_2D00_16_2D00_2012-8_2D00_25_2D00_33-AM.png" style="border:0;float:right;margin:3px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;Last week, Stan Lee Media, Inc. (SLMI) sued The Walt Disney
Company for copyright infringement. Stan Lee created many of Marvel Comics&amp;#39; most
famous characters, including Spider Man, Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Thor,
The X-Men, The Fantastic Four, and most of The Avengers. Disney has used these characters
in the motion pictures Iron Man 2 (May, 2010), Thor (May, 2011), X-Men: First Class
(June, 2011) Marvel&amp;#39;s The Avengers (May, 2012) and The Amazing Spider Man
(July</description><author>travis.burchart@lexisnexis.com (Travis Burchart)</author><pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:19:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>New York Court Rejects Paramount’s Preemption Argument in “The Godfather” Copyright Case</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/10/05/new-york-court-reject-s-paramount-s-preemption-argument-in-the-godfather-copyright-case.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/10/05/new-york-court-reject-s-paramount-s-preemption-argument-in-the-godfather-copyright-case.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" title="Books Open" href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/publishing/books-open.jpg"&gt;&lt;img style="border:0;float:left;margin:12px;" src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/publishing/books-open.jpg" border="0" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;The Southern District of New York recently refused to
dismiss a breach of contract counterclaim asserted by the Estate of Mario Puzo
against Paramount Pictures. &lt;i&gt;Paramount
Pictures Corp. v. Puzo,&lt;/i&gt; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139827 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26,
2012) [&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&amp;amp;view=full&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=2012%20U.S.%20Dist.%20LEXIS%20139827&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00234" target="_blank"&gt;enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers&lt;/a&gt;].
The counterclaim is part of Paramount&amp;#39;s copyright infringement</description><author>travis.burchart@lexisnexis.com (Travis Burchart)</author><pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2012 10:21:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Fair Use &amp; the Quotation of Song Lyrics in Fiction</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/08/13/fair-use-amp-the-quotation-of-song-lyrics-in-fiction.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/08/13/fair-use-amp-the-quotation-of-song-lyrics-in-fiction.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" title="Music Copyrights" href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/copyright-trademarklaw/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/copyrightandtrademarkcommentary/copyrighted-music.jpg"&gt;&lt;img style="border:0;float:left;margin:12px;" src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/copyright-trademarklaw/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/copyrightandtrademarkcommentary/copyrighted-music.jpg" border="0" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;By&amp;nbsp;Stephen B. Harrison *&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;*Notes Editor, Washington University Law Review; J.D. candidate, Washington University School of Law 2013.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Excerpt from&lt;i&gt;&amp;nbsp;Fair Use &amp;amp; the Quotation of Song Lyrics in Fiction&lt;/i&gt;,&amp;nbsp;11 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 214 (Spring, 2012).&amp;nbsp;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;INTRODUCTION&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The question applies to a specific context: Should a fiction
author be able to freely quote song lyrics in her work without fearing suit for</description><author>LexisNexisStaffCopyrightTM@placeholder.com (Copyright &amp; Trademark Law Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:19:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>1st Circuit Finds Religious Text Copyrights Valid and Infringed by Archbishop</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/08/08/1st-circuit-finds-religious-text-copyrights-valid-and-infringed-by-archbishop.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/08/08/1st-circuit-finds-religious-text-copyrights-valid-and-infringed-by-archbishop.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;SAAB sues GM for $3 billion saying
interference resulted in its Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and, the 1st Circuit finds
religious text copyrights valid and infringed by an Archbishop. Hear these and
other stories from LexisNexis&amp;reg; Mealey&amp;#39;s Publications. Copyright &amp;copy; 2012
LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. For the latest litigation news
headlines, visit &lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/mealeys"&gt;www.lexisnexis.com/community/mealeys&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
(Please visit the site to view this media)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In&lt;i&gt;&amp;nbsp;Soc&amp;#39;y of the Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Inc. v. Gregory&lt;/i&gt;, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16025 (1st Cir. Mass. Aug. 2, 2012)&amp;nbsp;&lt;span&gt;[&lt;/span&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&amp;amp;view=full&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=2012%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%2016025&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00234" target="_blank"&gt;enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers&lt;/a&gt;&lt;span&gt;]&lt;/span&gt;, the First Circuit held that a monastery&amp;#39;s copyrights to translations</description><author>LexisNexisStaffCopyrightTM@placeholder.com (Copyright &amp; Trademark Law Community Staff)</author><enclosure url="http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3?http://www.lexisnexis.com/mealeys/podcasts/LNPODCAST_080812.mp3" length="550" type="audio/mp3" /><pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:47:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Nietzsche Ruckus Highlights Importance of Citations in Biographical Works</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/07/10/nietzsche-ruckus-highlights-importance-of-citation-in-biographical-works.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/07/10/nietzsche-ruckus-highlights-importance-of-citation-in-biographical-works.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;This morning, I stumbled upon an article in the &lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;Chronicle
of Higher Education&lt;/span&gt; entitled, &lt;i&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://chronicle.com/article/When-One-Biographer-Borrows/132705/?cid=at&amp;amp;utm_source=at&amp;amp;utm_medium=en"&gt;When One Biographer &amp;#39;Borrows&amp;#39; From Another, the Dispute Gets
Philosophical&lt;/a&gt;. &lt;/i&gt;The article describes an academic storm that has been
slowly growing in the biography genre; in particular, with regards to the citation to
past works.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/copyrightandtrademarklawblog/books-open.jpg" title="Books" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img border="0" src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/copyrightandtrademarklawblog/books-open.jpg" style="border:0;float:left;margin:12px;" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;In 2010</description><author>travis.burchart@lexisnexis.com (Travis Burchart)</author><pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2012 15:05:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Patents vs. 18th Century Satire: Which Will Do More to Protect Copyrights at the University Level?</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/06/28/patents-vs-18th-century-satire-which-will-do-more-to-protect-copyrights-at-the-university-level.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/06/28/patents-vs-18th-century-satire-which-will-do-more-to-protect-copyrights-at-the-university-level.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;In 1729, Jonathan Swift wrote&amp;nbsp;&lt;i&gt;A Modest Proposal&lt;/i&gt;, in which he suggested that the impoverished Irish would benefit from selling their children as food to the rich. As Swift wrote:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="padding-left:30px;"&gt;I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasie, or a ragoust.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>travis.burchart@lexisnexis.com (Travis Burchart)</author><pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:47:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Who's the Author? A Bright-Line Rule for Specially Commissioned Works Made for Hire</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/06/22/who-s-the-author-a-bright-line-rule-for-specially-commissioned-works-made-for-hire.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/06/22/who-s-the-author-a-bright-line-rule-for-specially-commissioned-works-made-for-hire.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;By Richard D. Palmieri*
&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;*J.D. Candidate 2013, University of Richmond School of Law; M.S., 2005, North Carolina State University; B.S., 2003, North Carolina State University.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;
&lt;a target="_blank" title="Gold and Gray Copyrights" href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/copyrightandtrademarkcommentary/copyright-gold-gray.jpg"&gt;&lt;img style="border:0;float:left;margin:12px;" src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/copyrightandtrademarkcommentary/copyright-gold-gray.jpg" border="0" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;Excerpt from &lt;i&gt;Who&amp;#39;s the Author? A Bright-Line Rule for Specially Commissioned Works Made for Hire&lt;/i&gt;, 46 U. Rich. L. Rev. 1175 (May 2012)
&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="padding-left:30px;"&gt;Only one thing is impossible for God: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet</description><author>LexisNexisStaffCopyrightTM@placeholder.com (Copyright &amp; Trademark Law Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2012 08:43:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Ballard Spahr LLP: GSU Scores a Victory for Academic Fair Use in Landmark Copyright Case</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/05/23/ballard-spahr-llp-gsu-scores-a-victory-for-academic-fair-use-in-landmark-copyright-case.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/05/23/ballard-spahr-llp-gsu-scores-a-victory-for-academic-fair-use-in-landmark-copyright-case.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a title="Ballard Spahr LLP" target="_blank" href="http://www.ballardspahr.com/"&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/ESTATE-ELDERLAW/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/practitionerscorner/7_2D00_5_2D00_2011-2_2D00_54_2D00_45-PM.png" border="0" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;By members of the &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.ballardspahr.com/PracticeAreas/Practices/Intellectual_Property/Intellectual_Property_Litigation.aspx"&gt;Intellectual Property Litigation Group
&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a landmark decision on the nature of copyright law in the digital age, a federal judge in Atlanta has ruled in favor of officials at Georgia State University on nearly all the copyright infringement claims lodged by a trio of textbook publishers.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For the vast majority of claims, the judge concluded that the &amp;quot;fair use&amp;quot; doctrine protected the GSU professor&amp;#39;s decision to allow students to access excerpts of textbooks online through Georgia</description><author>BallardSpahr@placeholder.com (Ballard Spahr LLP)</author><pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 06:41:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>A Game of Thrones: Is Meltwater Attempting to Overthrow the AP as Content King?</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/05/17/a-game-of-thrones-is-meltwater-attempting-to-overthrow-the-ap-as-content-king.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/05/17/a-game-of-thrones-is-meltwater-attempting-to-overthrow-the-ap-as-content-king.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img style="border:0;float:left;margin:12px;" src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/copyrightandtrademarklawblog/5_2D00_17_2D00_2012-9_2D00_46_2D00_14-AM.png" border="0" alt="" /&gt;If you&amp;#39;ve read &lt;i&gt;Game of Thrones &lt;/i&gt;or watched it on HBO, then
you&amp;#39;re probably aware of the general theme, which can be summarized in a single
sentence from the book: &amp;quot;When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The AP has long held the content throne, but an usurper -
Meltwater - has come to challenge the content king. Meltwater - an aggregator
or a search engine, depending on your kingly allegiance - is a media monitoring
service that displays AP headlines and textual snippets to its users. In a recent copyright
lawsuit, the AP attacked Meltwater&amp;#39;s unlicensed display of AP content.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Agitation&amp;nbsp;by Aggregation&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The AP&amp;#39;s &lt;a href="http://www</description><author>travis.burchart@lexisnexis.com (Travis Burchart)</author><pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 10:49:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Oprah “Owns Fair Use” in Trademark Lawsuit Involving O Magazine and Headline Phrase "Own Your Power"</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/03/29/oprah-owns-fair-use-in-trademark-lawsuit-involving-o-magazine-and-headline-phrase-quot-own-your-power-quot.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/03/29/oprah-owns-fair-use-in-trademark-lawsuit-involving-o-magazine-and-headline-phrase-quot-own-your-power-quot.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/copyright-trademarklaw/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/copyrightandtrademarklawblog/magazines.jpg" title="Magazine Stack" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img border="0" src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/copyright-trademarklaw/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/copyrightandtrademarklawblog/magazines.jpg" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On March 6&lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt;, the Southern District of New York
dismissed a trademark lawsuit filed against Oprah Winfrey, holding that Oprah&amp;#39;s
use of the phrase &amp;quot;Own Your Power&amp;quot; did not infringe plaintiff&amp;#39;s
trademark. The court held that Oprah&amp;#39;s use constituted fair use under &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&amp;amp;view=full&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=15%20USC%201115&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00234"&gt;15 U.S.C. &amp;sect; 1115(b).&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The October 2010 O Magazine cover depicted the trademark
&amp;quot;O</description><author>travis.burchart@lexisnexis.com (Travis Burchart)</author><pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:13:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Copyrights Begin Revolt against Oppressive Patent Tyranny </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/03/08/copyrights-begin-revolt-against-oppressive-patent-tyranny.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/03/08/copyrights-begin-revolt-against-oppressive-patent-tyranny.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/copyrightandtrademarklawblog/3b50326r.jpg" title="Revolution Image" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img border="0" src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/copyrightandtrademarklawblog/3b50326r.jpg" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If intellectual property were a&amp;nbsp;sovereign&amp;nbsp;nation, patents might form the capital whereas copyrights might form a province (along with trademarks). The&amp;nbsp;argument&amp;nbsp;for this would be that&amp;nbsp;original works of authorship are subordinate to patents and&amp;nbsp;inventions. Assuming, without admitting, that this is true, copyrights might now be
ready for a revolution. Two recent complaints serve as the first volley in a
possible intellectual property war.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the cases of&lt;i&gt; American
Institute of Physics v. Schwegman, Lundberg &amp;amp;</description><author>travis.burchart@lexisnexis.com (Travis Burchart)</author><pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:03:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Sky Appears to Be Falling on Higher Education Copyright Policies</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/02/23/sky-appears-to-be-falling-on-higher-education-copyright-policies.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/02/23/sky-appears-to-be-falling-on-higher-education-copyright-policies.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#39;m designating myself the Chicken Little of academic
copyrights. Last week, I wrote about the &lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/copyright-trademarklaw/blogs/copyrightandtrademarklawblog/archive/2012/02/17/is-uc-berkeley-s-lecture-note-restriction-an-attempt-at-copyright-monkeyshines.aspx" target="_blank"&gt;lecture note monkeyshines at UC Berkley&lt;/a&gt;, where students are
restricted from note sharing because of instructor copyrights. This week, I
look up and see the sky falling at the University of Louisiana. There, it&amp;#39;s the
faculty, not the students, seeking sanctuary from the University&amp;#39;s copyright
policy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="padding-left:180px;"&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" title="College Classroom" href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/copyrightandtrademarklawblog/college-classroom.jpg"&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0</description><author>travis.burchart@lexisnexis.com (Travis Burchart)</author><pubDate>Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:54:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Is UC Berkeley’s Lecture Note Restriction an Attempt at Copyright Monkeyshines?</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/02/17/is-uc-berkeley-s-lecture-note-restriction-an-attempt-at-copyright-monkeyshines.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/02/17/is-uc-berkeley-s-lecture-note-restriction-an-attempt-at-copyright-monkeyshines.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Ever heard of the infinite monkey theorem? Basically, if a
monkey randomly hits a typewriter&amp;#39;s keys for an infinite time, it is theorized
that the monkey will produce the works of Shakespeare or other great authors.&amp;nbsp; In the &lt;i&gt;Simpson&lt;/i&gt;,
the character, Mr
Burns, states the theorem this way: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="padding-left:30px;"&gt;&amp;quot;This is a thousand monkeys
working at a thousand typewriters. Soon they&amp;#39;ll have written the greatest novel
known to man. Let&amp;#39;s see. (reading) &amp;#39;It was the best of times, it was the
&amp;quot;blurst&amp;quot; of times&amp;#39;? You stupid monkey!&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="padding-left:210px;"&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/copyrightandtrademarklawblog/Simpsons.png" border="0" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#39;t know if this would really work for monkeys, but what
if you had a classroom of highly intelligent students writing as a collective? More</description><author>travis.burchart@lexisnexis.com (Travis Burchart)</author><pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:35:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Supreme Court Upheld Constitutionality of Copyright Restoration: Golan v. Holder</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/02/09/supreme-court-upheld-constitutionality-of-copyright-restoration-golan-v-holder.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/02/09/supreme-court-upheld-constitutionality-of-copyright-restoration-golan-v-holder.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/copyright-trademarklaw/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/copyrightandtrademarkcommentary/2_2D00_9_2D00_2012-12_2D00_28_2D00_29-PM.png" title="Globe" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img border="0" src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/copyright-trademarklaw/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer.Blogs.Components.WeblogFiles/copyrightandtrademarkcommentary/2_2D00_9_2D00_2012-12_2D00_28_2D00_29-PM.png" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;i&gt;Golan v. Holder &lt;/i&gt;[&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&amp;amp;view=full&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=2012%20U.S.%20LEXIS%20907&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00234" target="_blank"&gt;enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers&lt;/a&gt;],
the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of &lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?app=00075&amp;amp;view=full&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=17%20USC%20104A&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00234" target="_blank"&gt;17 U.S.C. &amp;sect; 104A&lt;/a&gt;, which</description><author>mary.lafrance@unlv.edu (Mary LaFrance)</author><pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:19:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>On the Frontlines of Fair Use: Library Association Publishes Code of Fair Use Best Practices </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/01/25/on-the-frontlines-of-fair-use-library-association-publishes-code-of-fair-use-best-practices.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/01/25/on-the-frontlines-of-fair-use-library-association-publishes-code-of-fair-use-best-practices.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.arl.org/"&gt;Association
of Research Libraries&lt;/a&gt; recently published a document entitled &lt;i&gt;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/codefairuse/code/index.shtml"&gt;Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Academic and Research
Libraries&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt;. The document is a code of fair use practices to be used by
the academic and research library community. It provides an overview of fair
use and identifies eight situations that represent acceptable fair use practices.
It also describes how fair use rights should apply in each situation. The &lt;i&gt;Code&lt;/i&gt;, which was created in conjunction
with American University, was put together using surveys, small group discussions,
and copyright experts. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to the &lt;i&gt;Code&lt;/i&gt;,
the eight library practices to which the fair use doctrine can be applied
include:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul class="unIndentedList"&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
Supporting Teaching and Learning with Access to
Library Materials via Digital Technologies;</description><author>LexisNexisStaffCopyrightTM@placeholder.com (Copyright &amp; Trademark Law Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 15:10:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Copyrights Continue to Taunt the Public Domain</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/01/09/copyrights-continue-to-taunt-the-public-domain.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/COPYRIGHT-TRADEMARKLAW/blogs/publishing/archive/2012/01/09/copyrights-continue-to-taunt-the-public-domain.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:medium;"&gt;Recently, Duke University&amp;#39;s &lt;i&gt;Center
for the Study of the Public Domain&lt;/i&gt; posted an &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2012/pre-1976"&gt;article&lt;/a&gt; on works published in 1955 that would have entered 2012&amp;#39;s public
domain but for the 1976 Copyright Act (effective 1978). Some of the works
include:&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul class="unIndentedList"&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:medium;"&gt;
J.R.R. Tolkien&amp;#39;s &lt;i&gt;The Return of the King&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:medium;"&gt;
C.S. Lewis&amp;#39; &lt;i&gt;The
Magician&amp;#39;s Nephew&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:medium;"&gt;
Walt Disney&amp;#39;s &lt;i&gt;Lady and the Tramp&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:medium;"&gt;
James Dean&amp;#39;s &lt;i&gt;Rebel
Without a Cause&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:medium;"&gt;
The songs &lt;i&gt;Blue
Suede Shoes &lt;/i&gt;and &lt;i&gt;Folsom Prison Blues&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;span style="font-size:medium;"&gt;The article makes its case</description><author>travis.burchart@lexisnexis.com (Travis Burchart)</author><pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:33:00 -0400</pubDate></item></channel></rss>