Law Commons^™

The Proof Is In The Data: How Ethereum And Efficient Audits Can Reduce Litigation In The Streaming Era, Keri Ogden

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

No abstract provided.

Revisiting The License V. Sale Conundrum, Nancy S. Kim

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

This Article seeks to answer a question that has become increasingly more important as commerce moves from the tangible to the intangible—to what extent may a business use a contract to control the use of a fully paid product? The characterization of a transaction as a license or a sale determines what may be done with a product, who controls how the product may be used, and what happens in the event of a dispute. The past generation has seen a seismic shift in the way businesses distribute their products to consumers. Businesses often “license” rather than “sell” their products, …

The Copyright Act’S Mandatory-Deposit Requirement: Unnecessary And Unconstitutional, Drew Thornley

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

Many people are unaware of a federal copyright statute that requires owners of material published in the United States to furnish the federal government with two copies of each item published. Section 407(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. § 407) states that “the owner of copyright or of the exclusive right of publication in a work published in the United States shall deposit, within three months after the date of such publication—(1) two complete copies of the best edition; or (2) if the work is a sound recording, two complete phonorecords of the best edition, together with …

Revoking The "Get Out Of Jail Free Card": How Mavrix Photographs, Llc V. Livejournal, Inc. Could Revolutionize User-Generated Safe Harbor Protections Under § 512(C) Of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Caitlin Oswald

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

"If That's The Way It Must Be, Okay": Campbell V. Acuff-Rose On Rewind

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

The 1994 Supreme Court case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose established broad protections for parody in U.S. copyright law. While the case is well known, the facts behind the case are not. None of the three courts that heard the case were told that the alleged parody by 2 Live Crew appeared only on a “sanitized” version of the group’s controversial album. Thus the work had a heightened commercial purpose: filling up a meager album so that album could serve as a market stopgap for its controversial cousin. Although commercial purpose is a key factor in the fair use calculus, no court …

A Sui Generis System Of Protection For Exceptionally Original Fashion Designs

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

Despite the robust nature of the fashion industry, which has been largely unprotected by copyright, there is a clamor among certain sectors for stronger protection for fashion designs and the apparel manufactured from these designs. This article acknowledges that full-dress copyright protection is unnecessary, impracticable, and harmful; however, it proposes a middle-ground: a sui generis system of protection that only protects fashion designs and pieces of apparel that are exceptionally original, and does so only against other articles that are substantially identical.

This article provides a standard (“exceptionally original”) that will protect a fashion design only if it meets certain …