(Hint: when was copyright acquired?) As a bonus, here's a blurry photo of my newest acquisition, a Gay Olympics T-shirt:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Rebecca Tushnet
False advertising and more
Rebecca Tushnet
Rebecca Tushnet
Email subscription
ABA Blawg 100
Posts
Subscribe via RSS or LinkedIn
"Bright young [wo]man"/"Yo, who the F is this?"
Blog Archive
-
▼
2011
(430)
-
▼
November
(40)
- Defamation/dilution suit against critic survives m...
- Open wide and say misuse
- King of wishful thinking: naked licensing dooms ow...
- Organization for Transformative Works looking for ...
- Eric Goldman on the Facebook settlement
- False advertising class unaffected by Wal-Mart v. ...
- Rogers v. Grimaldi, obsolete?
- Innovation story of the day
- Nationwide class certified under California law
- A compelling dispute
- Sugar is sugar, but false advertising is false adv...
- Catholic University of America, Third Annual Intel...
- What's wrong with this picture?
- CFP: UCLA Entertainment Law Review/Journal of Law ...
- Intellectual Property Law in the Next Century
- Since I'm about to teach SFAA v. USOC
- NYT on greenwashing
- Organization for Transformative Works elections
- mmmm, litigious: Nutella class action survives mot...
- broken promises and broken bones
- Odd facts, bad law?
- Literally false images get another airing
- Tank wars
- Governance of Social Media, MSU Quello Center Work...
- Santa Monica sues Goldline for false advertising
- Patents and the 1%
- Governance of Social Media Conference at Georgetown
- Claim against Safeway's online grocery goes forward
- Nominative fair use defense blocks Levi's summary ...
- Southern California IP Professors’ workshop 4
- Southern California IP Professors’ workshop 3
- Southern California IP Professors’ workshop 2
- Lashing out the action: battery lawsuit fails
- Southern California IP Professors’ workshop
- Fraudsters fight FTC, lose
- Georgetown Library: What Hath Google Wrought? The ...
- Litigation calling: class action certified for cal...
- Litigation lottery
- Cal. county can sue for the people, not for itself
- A cry for Yelp
-
▼
November
(40)
Labels
- 1201 (19)
- 1202 (2)
- 230 (96)
- acpa (16)
- advertising (283)
- antitrust (49)
- arbitration (3)
- art law (36)
- attribution (28)
- b (1)
- blogging (23)
- california (536)
- can-spam (1)
- cfaa (12)
- cfps (48)
- class actions (277)
- cmi (19)
- comics (37)
- commercial speech (269)
- conferences (917)
- consumer protection (947)
- content moderation (3)
- contracts (100)
- copying (195)
- copyright (1656)
- counterfeiting (1)
- creative commons (12)
- cultural property (10)
- cybersquatting (1)
- damages (159)
- dastar (196)
- defamation (203)
- derivative works (2)
- design patent (57)
- dilution (257)
- disclosures (96)
- disparagement (29)
- dmca (203)
- drm (72)
- evidence (1)
- false advertising (3078)
- false association (12)
- false designation of origin (6)
- false endorsement (13)
- fan fiction (87)
- fanworks (190)
- fda (273)
- fees (35)
- first amendment (442)
- ftc (184)
- g (1)
- geographic indications (43)
- go (1)
- google (89)
- insurance (72)
- interviews (5)
- jobs (2)
- jurisdiction (5)
- libraries (18)
- misappropriation (10)
- moral rights (18)
- music (136)
- my lawsuits (16)
- my writings (113)
- net neutrality (5)
- parody (27)
- patent (224)
- patents (136)
- peer production (27)
- preclusion (1)
- preemption (268)
- presentations (118)
- privacy (113)
- procedure (145)
- property (18)
- reading list (308)
- remedies (275)
- right of publicity (264)
- secondary liability (178)
- securities (8)
- standing (354)
- surveys (106)
- teaching (38)
- tortious interference (116)
- trade secrets (81)
- trademark (2042)
- traditional knowledge (11)
- unconscionability (5)
- unfairness (62)
- warranties (14)
Things I've read
Creative Commons/disclaimer
Text on this blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. Pictures and works quoted may be subject to other parties' copyrights.
I speak for myself. On this blog, I do not and cannot speak for Harvard Law School, the Organization for Transformative Works and/or AO3.
3 comments:
Umm. Oops! It's possible copyright was not acquired at all due to a defective notice, although I've never looked into how the 1909 Act treated errors in the year of first publication.
1921-should be PD, I think.
Anonymous, Bruce is right--there's nothing wrong in itself with being published in 1921. The trouble is the problematic copyright notice with a completely wrong date, which might have prevented it from having copyright ever.
Post a Comment