The Experts below are selected from a list of 312 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Robert Kasunic - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Applying Star Athletica’s Teachings in the Copyright Office
    Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts, 2020
    Co-Authors: Robert Kasunic
    Abstract:

    The Copyright Office does not have all the answers about where the lines are drawn between works of applied art and works of artistic craftsmanship. I don’t think the decision and opinion in Star Athletica answered all of the questions that we had. And in many ways it did not answer any of them, and in part made some of the issues more confusing. Because as Jane Ginsburg had said, the dress designs at issue were all filed with the Copyright Office as two-dimensional drawings. Some of them did depict the cheerleader outfit as well. But these were never being claimed as three- dimensional dress designs or anything else. The focus of these was on the applied art and not on the drawings of cheerleader uniforms. Going back for a minute to prior to the Star Athletica decision, the Copyright Office’s prior approach to separability was that the pictorial, graphic, or sculptural feature satisfies the conceptual separability requirement only if the artistic feature and the useful article could both exist side-by-side and be perceived as fully realized separate works; one an artistic work and the other as a useful article. And to us this worked very well for quite some time, to look and see whether there was something that was fully separable as an artistic work—such as a pictorial work or sculptural features that would be separable—but still leaving the useful article intact.

  • applying star athletica s teachings in the Copyright Office
    Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts, 2020
    Co-Authors: Robert Kasunic
    Abstract:

    The Copyright Office does not have all the answers about where the lines are drawn between works of applied art and works of artistic craftsmanship. I don’t think the decision and opinion in Star Athletica answered all of the questions that we had. And in many ways it did not answer any of them, and in part made some of the issues more confusing. Because as Jane Ginsburg had said, the dress designs at issue were all filed with the Copyright Office as two-dimensional drawings. Some of them did depict the cheerleader outfit as well. But these were never being claimed as three- dimensional dress designs or anything else. The focus of these was on the applied art and not on the drawings of cheerleader uniforms. Going back for a minute to prior to the Star Athletica decision, the Copyright Office’s prior approach to separability was that the pictorial, graphic, or sculptural feature satisfies the conceptual separability requirement only if the artistic feature and the useful article could both exist side-by-side and be perceived as fully realized separate works; one an artistic work and the other as a useful article. And to us this worked very well for quite some time, to look and see whether there was something that was fully separable as an artistic work—such as a pictorial work or sculptural features that would be separable—but still leaving the useful article intact.

  • Copyright from inside the box a view from the u s Copyright Office
    Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts, 2016
    Co-Authors: Robert Kasunic
    Abstract:

    Good morning. I want to thank Professors Ginsburg and Besek for inviting me to speak today and introducing me. I also want to thank everyone at the Kernochan Center and the Journal of Law and the Arts for their assistance. It’s always a pleasure to be here—a block from where I grew up. And an entire event about Copyrightability, what a wonderful thing. This topic is usually covered in just a couple minutes in a panel, but I really want to welcome you to my world at the U.S. Copyright Office. I’d also like to take a moment for a pitch for a twenty-first century Copyright Office as well. This is a picture of the Office as it appeared in the 1920s, so we are actually not still using typewriters. This is a more current view of my Office that, on a daily basis, examines more claims than the federal courts review in any given year. The issues that come up are enormously varied and complex. But where we start our assessment of Copyrightability in the Office is where we start when we first begin studying Copyright law, and where we start when we’re teaching Copyright with our students—back to the basic principles of Copyright, and some of the seminal cases on creativity.

Gabriel J Michael - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • politics and rulemaking at the Copyright Office
    Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 2014
    Co-Authors: Gabriel J Michael
    Abstract:

    Studies of rulemaking often conclude that members of the public participate infrequently, while businesses participate actively and are more likely to influence final rules. I analyze a series of rulemakings organized by the Copyright Office from 2000 to 2012. In contrast to the existing literature, I find high levels of public participation and a lack of influence by businesses over final rules. Instead, legal representation is the key predictor of influence over final rules. Finally, I argue that the existing literature has wrongly theorized about how to measure public participation in rulemaking, thereby mischaracterizing the rulemaking process as undemocratic.

Geo. R. Lawrence Co. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Helen Thomson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Alena Wolotira - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.