Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Presumably, anyone reading this article is aware of the enormously popular Harry Potter series of books, which have sold more than 400 million copies and been translated into 67 languages. If you are a fan of the series, you may also be familiar with “The Harry Potter Lexicon,” a Web site devoted to all things Harry Potter. Since 2000, the Web site has developed a cult following of devoted Harry Potter fans. Even J.K Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series, has praised the Web site.
It is against this backdrop that the recent decision from Judge Robert P. Patterson in the Southern District of New York received so much attention. The case, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. RDR Books, involved claims asserted by J.K. Rowling (“Rowling”) and the owner of the film rights in the Harry Potter series, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (“Warner Bros.”), for copyright infringement. The allegedly infringing work was a reference guide authored by the creator of the “Harry Potter Lexicon” Web site, Steven Vander Ark (“Vander Ark”). The primary issue in the case was whether the reference guide constituted a fair use.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.