Source: http://nwlawyer.wsba.org/nwlawyer/dec_2016_jan_2017?pg=49
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 17:52:32+00:00

Document:
We are now accepting referral cases for people suffering from mesothelioma or who have sustained injuries caused by faulty IVC filters or other medical devices. If you’re looking for effective, experienced and compassionate legal representation for your injured clients, contact Weinstein Couture today.
1 Williams v. Bridgeport Music, Inc., No.
2See, e.g. www.youtube.com/watch? v=ziz9HW2Zmm Y. Accessed Oct. 1, 2016.
3 The Australian court ordered the band to pay the copyright owner 5% of their royalties earned from 2002 onward. For another online comparison of the two songs, see www.bing.com/ videos/search?q=kookabura+down+under+- comparison&&view=detail&mid=BA8E3D- 958BCC1CBF3BDCBA8E3D958BCC1CB- F3BDC&FORM=VRDGAR. Accessed Oct. 1, 2016.
4 The Tate Gallery defines “appropriation art” as “the practice of artists using pre-existing objects or images in their art with little transformation of the original.” www.tate. org.uk/learn/online-resources/glossary/a/ appropriation.
5 Carihou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694 (2nd Cir. 2013).
7 Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.2d 1126, 1151 (9th Cir. (Cal.) 2015), opinion amended and superseded on denial of reh’g, 815 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. (Cal.) 2016), pet. cert. docketed Aug. 16, 2016.
8 Leval, Pierre, "Commentaries, Toward a Fair Use Standard," Harv. L. Review, Vol. 103:1105, 1106 (1990). Available at www.law.berkeley. edu/files/Leval_-_Fair_Use.pdf. Leval’s article is widely regarded as the impetus toward a “transformative” fair use analysis by courts. Leval, a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, recently authored the opinion in Authors Guild v. Google, 804 F.3d 202 (2nd Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S.Ct. 1658 (April 18, 2016) wherein the court found that Google’s books project that scanned copies and established a publicly available search function of millions of library books, was transformative fair use.
9 Esworthy, Cynthia. “A Guide to the Visual Rights Artists Rights Act.” Found at www.
10 See, e.g. Cheffens v. Stewart, No. 12-16913 (9th Cir. June 8, 2016). Court found that the artists’ La Contessa art installation at Burning Man was not a work of “visual art,” but “applied art” and, therefore, not protected under VARA.
11 Chihuly is trademarked, raising the possibility of a trademark claim, too.
12 DMCA amended the U.S. Copyright Act and was implemented to bring the U.S. in compliance with the directives of the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization Treaty and WITO Performances Phonograms Treaty.
13 Title II of DMCA, sometimes called the Online Copyright Infringements Limitation Liability Act (OCILLA) is codified at 17 U.S.C. §§512(a) through (f).
14 The court noted that You Tube is a for-profit company that generates revenues by selling advertising. If users choose to become “ content partners” with You Tube, they share in a portion of the advertising revenue generated. Lenz is not a content partner and no advertisements appear next to the video. Lenz, 815 F.2d at 1149.
al or ceasing to disable access to it."
16 Lenz, 801 F.2d at 1149.
19 Lenz v. Universal Music Corp, 815 F.3d 1126, 1135-1136 (9th Cir. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2015) ( citations omitted), amended and superseded on denial of reh’g, 815 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. (Cal.) Mar. 17, 2016), pet. cert. docketed Aug. 16, 2016.
20 Steinhauer, Jillian. “Are Art Professionals Afraid of Fair Use?” Hyperallergic, Feb. 3, 2014. Accessed Oct. 1, 2016.
21 Leval, supra, citing, inter alia, Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.