This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
They provide a recap of last week’s episode , which covers the Second Circuit decision in favor of Goldsmith, the photographer whose image Warhol used to create the Prince Portraits, and the holding that Warhol’s renditions were not transformative enough to be fair use.
The Supreme Courtdecision in Andy Warhol Foundation v. The Supreme Court in Campbell v. Take, for instance, the copyright infringement case filed by the rights holder to the Ed Sullivan Show against the producers of the Broadway hit Jersey Boys in Sofa Entertainment v. Some guidance may be found in Sofa Entertainment.
The US Court of Appeals this week determined that the FCC’s requirement that broadcasters confirm by searching DOJ and FCC databases that all buyers of program time on their stations are not representatives of foreign governments was beyond the power of the FCC as authorized by Congress.
In reaching its decision, the Court noted the important distinction between “the classes of cases a court may entertain (subject-matter jurisdiction)” and “nonjurisdictional claim-processing rules, which seek to promote the orderly progress of litigation by requiring that the parties take certain procedural steps at certain specified times.”
Their discussion covers the Second Circuit decision in favor of Goldsmith, the photographer whose image Warhol used to create the Prince Portraits, and the holding that Warhol’s renditions were not transformative enough to be fair use. The decision overturned a lower courtdecision in favor of the Warhol Foundation.
Talking about the jurisdiction of the Courts, the Court below, by virtue of Section 272 of the Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) has jurisdiction to entertain cases such as recovery of debts, as in the instant case on appeal. 6] First, the Court of Appeal (Hussaini JCA) in A.B.U.
This week’s federal Court of Appeals order was very direct, relying on the state courtdecision that there was no public performance right to end the case.
Supreme Court’sDecision The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the district courts have jurisdiction to hear the parties’ constitutional challenges to the Commissions’ structure.
In March of this year, the court heard argument in another COVID insurance case, Another Planet Entertainment, LLC v. Vigilant Insurance Co. with an opinion expected by June 3. Sundance, Inc. 2022) _ U.S. _ [142 S.Ct.
As an outgrowth of this decision, FCC and Courtdecisions concluded that broadcasters have the right to editorialize on controversial issues, free of any obligation to present opposing viewpoints. What is it that makes this case different?
None of these questions are easy to answer – leading the Judge to determine that the legislature, not the Courts, is the proper venue to make any decision granting a performance right to pre-1972 recordings.
Indecency: After the Supreme Courtdecision in June 2012, upholding the FCC’s right to regulate indecency but questioning the current procedure for doing so, the FCC’s regulation of indecency has been up in the air. While we have seen a plethora of new rules, so far FCC enforcement of these rules has not been active.
Indecency: After the Supreme Courtdecision in June 2012, upholding the FCC’s right to regulate indecency but questioning the current procedure for doing so, the FCC’s regulation of indecency has been up in the air.
The US Supreme Court Monday declined to review the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that overturned entertainer Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction. However, on Monday, the Supreme Court issued an order in which it declined to hear the case. The court did not provide any other comment on the case.
Supreme Court weighing constitutionality of Texas age-verification requirement for porn sites; The Supreme Courtsdecision on Texas law, which adult entertainment website attorneys said were the most overreaching in the country, could determine the fate of similar laws in more than a dozen other states.”
They want a federal court to order the Executive Branch to alter its arrest policies so as to make more arrests,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. Federal courts have not traditionally entertained that kind of lawsuit; indeed, the States cite no precedent for a lawsuit like this.
In this case, however, the challenged orders and regulations have not been established to be arbitrary, i.e., lacking a rational basis, except for one subpart of one order regarding social distancing at entertainment venues that initially made no exception for families or individuals living in the same household.
Share A trade group for the adult entertainment industry will appear at the Supreme Court on Wednesday in its challenge to a Texas law that requires pornography sites to verify the age of their users before providing access for example, by requiring a government-issued identification. 1181 should be subject to strict scrutiny.
Like most states, Michigan courts’ rules for evidence — adopted from the Daubert standard, which was named after a Supreme Courtdecision issued almost 30 years ago — say trial judges are responsible for making sure expert testimony has a reliable foundation.
In 50 years, when a historian is writing about a courtdecision, pouring over the dry words in U.S. Reports, Art’s sketch will help her imagine the scene — the justices on the bench, the spectators, the press, the court staff, the weather, the emotion — of what took place on the day it was argued or handed down.
GPT-4o went on to claim that Chief Justice John Roberts said in 2006, Were not there to provide entertainment. When asked about the formula rate and which Supreme Courtdecision adopted it (Question #53), ChatGPT correctly identified Till v. The post Were not there to provide entertainment. Were there to decide cases.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content