INTRODUCTION A number of contending claims exist in relation to the Moreton Bay (hereafter ‘the painting’). Such claims stand to be most effectively analysed when they are evaluated via an application of contextually relevant principles extant under the law of property. Ultimately it appears that Dr. St John (hereafter ‘John’) shall most probably be found to be the true and rightful owner of the painting. Seemingly this is reinforced throughout the scenario as a result of the nature of the original transfer between Percy and John. Nevertheless, the issue at hand is the determination of whether John has a claim in law to retrieve the painting after being sold by the art gallery (hereafter ‘the gallery’).
Abel was then able to track the painting to Kenyon and file an action to retrieve ownership. Abel was awarded ownership of the painting through two common law doctrines: law of gifts and law of conversions. Kenyon v. Abel, 36 P.3d 1161, (Wyo. 2001). The superseding decision in Kenyon v. Abel was determined through the use of common law.
We need to think about how patents play into the motivations of all participants, not just those who end up seeking a patent. Patent racing is not-yet-a developed theory of patent incentives. Given the historical evidence, if you are skeptical of the benefits of patent racing, you probably ought to be skeptical of the benefits of the patent system as a whole. The resulting disconnect is a problem not only for patent theory but for the design of the patent system, which seems to be based on assumptions about invention that are not borne out by
Basaquiat, I believe that it could go either way. Basaquiat wrote a contract stating that Rosenfeld made a deposit for particular paintings and signed it alone with Rosenfeld signature even though it was in crayon. Some people would look at this as a legal binding contract regardless of how or what it was written with. Two signatures, the purpose of the contract, and the correct date the contract was signed, shall be binding. Others will argue that the crayon written letter would not be enough evidence to win a lawsuit and the other side could argue the point of the contract being written in
The judgment was based on the ground that the statute was in this case made for hire, and as defined by the copyright act by that time, the sculpture ownership exclusively went to CCNV. The copy right act stated that, ownership for any work of hire should go to the employer, unless the two involved parties present a written agreement to the contrary. However, the court of appeal, later on, reversed the hearing, holding that the sculpture was not made for hire as had been stated before. The court stated that Reid was in independent contractor and not an employee within the scale of the employment, therefore, the first set of conditions used to make the ruling were not
It must include the fundamental terms of the agreement with the intention that no further negotiations are to take place. An invitation to treat is different to an offer as it only invites the party to make an offer and it is not intended to be binding. ix) In contract law consideration is required as an inducement to enter into a contract that is enforceable in the courts. It is an essential element for the formation of a contract. What constitutes sufficient consideration, however, has been the subject of continuing legal debate.
There have been debates on past cases, where the legitimate copyright holder have claimed the sample is an independent fixation of music, that it is small enough to be “de minimis,” in which the original musician does not possess the sampled section that the digital sampling constitutes a “Fair Use” of the original. The court decision would be made specific for each case, and it will depend on different factors such as sound sampling originality, sound sampling ownership and fragment literacy among
Liberty theological seminary FAIR TRADE MUSIC – ANALYSIS PROJECT 1 SUMMARY A Paper Submitted to Dr. Paul Rumrill In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Course GLOBAL WORSHIP wrsp 545 by Shaun h. burn lynchburg, Virginia July 19, 2013 Copyright gives creators the right to control their creations and create revenues. Since 1978, the United States protects a work from the moment of creation and remains in effect until 70 years after the creator’s death. Copyright varies from country to country by it is best to assume that someone owns every song unless it can be proven to be public domain. Public domain means that a work is no longer owned by a particular person, and can be used royalty free by the public. Copyright
Must it evoke an emotion? Must it have a message enshrined in its intricacies? These questions cannot be answered without understanding what is ‘aesthetics’, and the role it plays in making art appreciable. When these questions are asked however it goes back to one fundamental question, that is; what counts as Art? Before these questions are ultimately answered it’s important to get a few definitions out of the way.
In view of this, if the records do not belong to an organization, the information professionals should seek permission before reproducing the documents. On the other hand, if the organization reproduce their own work this is not considered as a breach since they have intellectual rights to do so. Digitization as it relates to copyright issues can be hampered if records are not intellectually owned. Records managers can run into law suits if they are not aware of the origin of the records before they are digitized. According to Kastellec, it is the responsibility of records managers to ascertain the origin of each record within their custody (30).