Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Critics of the CTEA argue that it was never the original intention for copyright protection to be extended in the United States. Attorney Jenny L. Dixon mentions that "the United States has always viewed copyright primarily as a vehicle for achieving social benefit based on the belief that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance the public welfare;" [24 ...
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Help; Learn to edit; Community portal; Recent changes; Upload file
Case Citation Year Vote Classification Subject Matter Opinions Statute Interpreted Summary; New York Times Co. v. Tasini: 533 U.S. 483: 2001: 7–2: Substantive: Collective works
One example was It's a Wonderful Life, whose 1946 copyright thus lapsed in 1975, but this applied only to its images (allowing a colorized version); Dimitri Tiomkin's score and the short story, from which the screenplay was adapted, had separate copyrights properly renewed.
This page was last edited on 13 January 2025, at 21:24 (UTC).; Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License; additional terms may apply.
Specifically, for works published before January 1, 1978, and still in copyright on October 27, 1998, the term was extended to 95 years. For works authored by individuals on or after January 1, 1978 (including new works), the copyright term was extended to equal the life of the author plus 70 years. For works authored by joint authors, the ...
Warner offered a payment of $3 million, an annual stipend of $500,000, a 6% royalty of Superman and a 1% royalty of his publications, and full medical benefits. Warner also agreed to insert the line "By Special Arrangement with the Jerry Siegel Family" in all future Superman productions. [ 32 ]
The case finally reached the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1978. The court unanimously upheld the District Court's ruling on copyright infringement, and remanded the concurrent trademark infringement and unfair competition claims back to the lower court for further discovery (though Disney did not pursue those claims any further). [2]