Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
Kapoor v. National Rifle Association of America
A recent clash between the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) and Sir Anish Kapoor (Kapoor), a decorated visual artist, has many wondering just how far the rights of a copyright owner can extend when an artistic work is prominently and publically displayed and inextricable from photographs of a city's public spaces. When the NRA incorporated a photograph of Kapoor's publically displayed sculpture into a promotional video used to solicit contributions, Kapoor, who disagrees with the NRA's mission and message, forcefully expressed his displeasure. See, Eileen Kinsella, The NRA Used Anish Kapoor's Most Famous Work in a Political Ad. Now the Artist is Blasting Back, artnet News, March 12, 2018 (http://bit.ly/2RF3DPB). Kapoor alerted the NRA that he considered its use of his work objectionable, and an infringement of his rights. Initially relying on its First Amendment right to free speech, the NRA declined to remove what it described as a “fleeting” and de minimis display of Kapoor's work from the advertisement, which was reproduced, displayed, and further disseminated online.
In response, Kapoor sued the NRA for copyright infringement for the unauthorized use of his work. See, Kapoor v. Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am., Dkt. No. 18-c-4252 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2018). Alleging that the NRA had acted willfully, Kapoor requested an injunction; actual damages; statutory damages of $150,000 per infringement; as well as litigation expenses, costs, and attorneys' fees. In December, 2018, the parties settled, with the NRA removing the image of Kapoor's work from its video.
Sir Anish Kapoor
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?