The Court Used The Discerning Observer Test For Substantial Similarity

Today I was able to have a quick interview with the honorable Mrs.Salvarez. I asked her a few questions about what she does in the government and if she could clarify some things.

As part of their journalism class students produced a newspaper with a collection of student-written articles about teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce on kids. As a result, the principal made the decision to delete the two articles from that edition of the school’s newspaper. Consequently, three students sued the school district alleging violation of their First Amendment rights.

To what degree are two photos similar enough to have both parties get involved in court? This question is asked frequently in the copyright law world, and is the subject of a case involving Esquire magazine’s cover of famous contemporary boxer Sonny Liston in 1963 and if the 1998 cover of Sports Illustrated with the then-popular boxer Evander Holyfield infringed on Time Inc.’s copyright. At face value the image can be copyrighted, but when dissecting the individual elements of the image apart, what remains is a weak argument to justify copyright protection.

In Maryland, there are 4 levels of court including district, circuit, court of special appeals, and court of appeals. The lowest court is District court, most people experiencing court will be at this one. This court deals with less serious crimes including traffic and boating violations, misdemeanors, domestic violence, landlord disputes, and small claims. Circuit Court, which is the next lowest court, generally handles more serious criminal cases, major civil cases, certain administrative agencies, and domestic violence cases. The Court of special appeals, the intermediate appellate court, sees any reviewable judgment, or other action of the circuit court. The court of appeals, the highest court, hears cases involving the death penalty, legislative

Examining the witness statements it can be concluded that the alleged offence had taken place at a crowded nightclub with Low lighting and alcohol being served.

The Supreme Court held the decision that Varsity Brand’s had a right to copyright their designs because the feature can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article, and it would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, either on its own or fixed in some other tangible medium of expression arrangements of lines, chevrons, and colorful shapes appearing on surface of cheerleading uniforms were eligible for copyright protection as separable

A motion for summary judgment is granted when the similarities concern only non-copyrightable elements of an allegedly infringed work or when no reasonable trier of fact could find the works substantially similar. Boisson v. Banian, Ltd., 273 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2001); Castle Rock Entm 't, Inc. v. Carol Publ 'g Grp., Inc., 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998); Williams v. Crichton, 84 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1996); Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir 1986). When the works contain protectable and unprotectable elements, the court applies a more discerning test, extracting the unprotectable elements from the works and asking whether the protectable elements, standing alone, are substantially similar. Knitwaves Inc. Lollytogs Ltd., 71 F.3d 996 (2d Cir. 1995) The discerning ordinary observer test must be applied in conjunction with the total concept and feel after the unprotectable elements are eliminated from consideration. Boisson, 273 F.3d 273. An allegedly infringing work is considered substantially similar to a copyrighted work if the ordinary lay observer unless he set out to detect the disparities, would regard the two works appeal as the same. Boisson 273 F.3d 273; Knitwaves, 71 F.3d 996. In determining whether or not the allegedly infringing work falls below the quantitative

Discussing yourself ethically isn’t really as easy or hard as I thought it would be, hopefully I’m not missing the point, then. I use Weston’s chapters 10-13 to discuss the meanings presented and how I can apply them to my own “ethical self-reflection”.

The second approach to copyright is the democratic approach. All works of art are ideas built on a foundation of other ideas. The democratic approach advocates that intellectual property belongs to the society and should be available for the general good of the public. If the particular usage is intended to derive financial benefit or any other business-related benefits, it is considered inappropriate usage. If the utilization of factual work were more usable than the use of someone’s creative work, then that would not be fair use. There is no specified edge to the amount of quoted work that can be called “fair use.” The courts exercise common sense to determine if it was too much. If the utilization of the material created market or stirred a competition, and if the fair use diminishes demand for the original product, it is not considered as appropriate use (Crews, 1993).

1. Two cases that help represent how congress dealt with voting rights are Breedlove v. Suttles (1937) and Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966). The former case upheld a Georgia Statute that allowed the state to implement a voting tax on all eligible male voters between the ages of 22-59 for $1.00 per year. They ruled that voting is a privilege consequential of state rights not federal, which can enact certain conditions that may be deemed applicable. A law requiring payment of poll taxes as a condition to voting does not infringe any privileges or immunities granted by the fourteenth amendment. The later case, Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, filed suit alleging that Virginia’s poll tax was unconstitutional, therefore challenging the decision made in 1937. The court held that making wealth a voting standard did in fact violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. The court stated that voter affluence was not a qualification necessary to vote. These two

The intrinsic test measures the instinctive reaction of the lay observer (like an average, non-expert, jury member). If the author can prove both intrinsic and extrinsic test in his favor, then there is infringement; if either test is found in favor of the alleged infringer, then there is no infringement. See Kouf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television, 16 F.3d 1045 (9th

1) The court looked at if a reasonable individual would consider the offer as valid. Zehmer’s outward expressions and words constituted a genuine offer to sell. The outward demonstrated intent is all the court looks at, not the secret and inward thought of the defendant. The contract cannot be done in passing or absent-mindedly. Both parts have to come to mutual understanding and agreement (Melvin, 2011). Lucy demonstrated her intent by ensuring that details were in the contract (illustrated by several drafts that were written), and by ensuring both husband and wife signed the contract (Lucy v. Zehmer-Case Brief Summary, 2015).

Copyright protection extends to expressions and not to ideas . Originality is the threshold standard of requirement of copyright. The case Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539 expounded the three essential elements (labour, skill and judgment ) of originality. The court adapted to sweat of brow test with no element of creativity require to make the work original. Copyright can be granted if a work is created through the effort of an individual despite the work containing statement of facts and no creative input by an author.

Regarding given circumstance, the issue is to determine the status as such the rights derived by Arvind, his partner Stephanie as well as their two children under EU law. In order to do this each of them will be discussed below.

Many infringement claims involve simple cases of copyright infringement where the copying is obvious. Others, however, are more difficult to resolve because copyright protection is not limited to exact copying. It is inevitable that creative and commercial works will take inspiration from the culture at large, and it is often challenging to determine when this "inspiration" has crossed the line into infringement. There also may be a question of whether the allegedly infringed work is even protected by copyright. Unprotected works may include, for example, compilations of facts that lack the requisite creativity to be covered by copyright, or those works that are in the public domain because the copyright term expired.