All Article Summaries

Rereading the case in which the Supreme Court first recognized transformative fair use could help the Supreme Court resolve tension between derivative rights and transformative fair use in Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith.

The case of Andy Warhol Foundation v. Lynn Goldsmith arose when one artist’s copyrighted work was used to create a second artist’s work. The key factor is the effect of the alleged infringement on the value of the first work.

From 2001 to 2021, digital technologies have challenged U.S. copyright law. Key copyright concepts affected include the scope of exclusive rights, fair use, and liability of online service providers for infringement.

Memes challenge basic assumptions underlying copyright law. Creators of memes want to be copied. Creators may use copyright selectively to prevent changes to a meme by a select few.

Traditionally, trade secret law protected innovations from misappropriation by departing employees. Now, however, trade secret claims are often used to conceal information of public concern.

Process concerns, including formal registration requirements and the rule of law, are important to copyright lawyers and policymakers. Recent histories of copyright law neglect these procedural elements.

A book that placed Star Trek characters in illustrations from Dr. Seuss is an unauthorized derivative work under the Copyright Act. The District Court erred in ruling that the book was a “fair use.”

Software made by one firm often needs to work with software made by other firms. In Oracle v. Google, a federal court will consider whether copyright law will change to hinder software interoperability.

Net neutrality rules bar broadband carriers from charging different prices to different Internet users, but this would mean that ordinary consumers are paying more for Internet service so that firms like Netflix can pay less.

Intellectual property (IP) law includes copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secret law. Some scholars advocate revisiting and reforming fundamental principles of IP law, because it can be overly complex, raise prices, and restrict free expression and innovation.