Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law

Computer Law

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law

Commercial Creations: The Role Of End User License Agreements In Controlling The Exploitation Of User Generated Content, 16 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 382 (2017), Neha Ahuja Jan 2017

Commercial Creations: The Role Of End User License Agreements In Controlling The Exploitation Of User Generated Content, 16 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 382 (2017), Neha Ahuja

The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law

This article considers the current licensing regime used to control the exploitation of copyright protected works within the online interactive entertainment sector—particularly virtual worlds including multiplayer online games—to further author new copyrightable works. This article aims to identify the gaps that have arisen on account of the nature of these subsequently authored works and the potential for their exploitation under the said licensing regime. Users and the proprietors of virtual worlds often end up in conflict over the monetization and commercialization of user generated content on account of contradictory yet overlapping rights created by copyright law when controlled ...


Did Copyright Kill The Radio Star? Why The Recorded Music Industry And Copyright Act Should Welcome Webcasters Into The Fold, 14 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 292 (2015), Patrick Koncel Jan 2015

Did Copyright Kill The Radio Star? Why The Recorded Music Industry And Copyright Act Should Welcome Webcasters Into The Fold, 14 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 292 (2015), Patrick Koncel

The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law

The Copyright Act has not kept pace with the times, and the next revolution is going full stream ahead. Rather than adapt, entrenched interests at the Copyright table push for more protection, while new technologies are demonized and underrepresented. The resulting Copyright Act’s provisions relating to internet-based radio, ranging from passive over-the-air broadcasts to fully interactive music hosting sites, are a patchwork of accommodations and concessions to these interests. For all non-interactive services, licensing music typically occurs within the Copyright Act’s compulsory licensing system. For interactive webcasters, licensing negotiations take place with the copyright holders directly. These negotiations ...


The Conflict Between An Athlete’S Right Of Publicity And The First Amendment, 15 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 117 (2015), Edward Kuester Jan 2015

The Conflict Between An Athlete’S Right Of Publicity And The First Amendment, 15 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 117 (2015), Edward Kuester

The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law

The recent rise of fantasy sports has created a conflict between an athlete’s right of publicity and the First Amendment of the Constitution. The legal question being discussed is whether athletes have a right of publicity in their identity, specifically their performance statistics and biographical information. If a right of publicity violation does exist, courts will have to determine whether a fantasy provider’s First Amendment privilege can prevail against an athlete’s publicity rights. This comment examines recent litigation surrounding athletes’ identities and the problems courts have in balancing the conflict between an athlete’s right of publicity ...


Will Youtube Sail Into The Dmca's Safe Harbor Or Sink For Internet Piracy?, 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 550 (2007), Michael Driscoll Jan 2007

Will Youtube Sail Into The Dmca's Safe Harbor Or Sink For Internet Piracy?, 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 550 (2007), Michael Driscoll

The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law

Is YouTube, the popular video sharing website, a new revolution in information sharing or a profitable clearing-house for unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material? YouTube’s critics claim that it falls within the latter category, in line with Napster and Grokster. This comment, however, determines that YouTube is fundamentally different from past infringers in that it complies with statutory provisions concerning the removal of copyrighted materials. Furthermore, YouTube’s central server architecture distinguishes it from peer-to-peer file sharing websites. This comment concludes that any comparison to Napster or Grokster issuperficial, and overlooks the potential benefits of YouTube to copyright