The legal protections afforded to graffiti and “street art” artists have gained increased visibility in recent months. But while street art may be entitled to certain protections under the law, not every use of street art without permission will violate an artist’s rights. A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York highlights this, finding that de minimis use of graffiti in a television production without the artist’s permission did not give rise to liability under the Copyright Act.
Legal Protection for Graffiti and Street Art
Graffiti and street art can be protected by the law like any other art form. For example, in a widely publicized decision earlier this year, a federal court in the Eastern District of New York found that street art painted on the famous “5Pointz” in Long Island City, Queens, was entitled to protection under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990.
Graffiti and street art may also be protected from infringement under the Copyright Act. The Copyright Act protects “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.” Street art that takes the form of a painted mural can be easily understood to meet this standard. Moreover, even distinctive graffiti-style lettering can, in certain circumstances, be protected under the Copyright Act. Generally, typeface alone will not be entitled to copyright protection. However, at least one court has found that stylized lettering in graffiti art was protectable. Likewise, the court found that a street artist’s choice of color and background imagery could be protectable elements of a graffiti design. Continue Reading
In a recent precedential decision, a split Federal Circuit (Judges Dyk and Taranto in the majority, Judge Newman, dissenting) issued a lengthy, 53-page decision, regarding the obviousness doctrine. Judge Taranto, writing for the majority, engaged in a fact-intensive analysis to determine that a ‘blocking patent’ mooted evidence of objective indicia of non-obviousness and found the patents-in-suit invalid on obviousness grounds.
On 4 July 2018, Russian IP Court rendered a landmark judgment 
A July 2018 decision of the UK Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) appears to have put paid to Nike’s recent “Nothing beats a Londoner” ad campaign. The case highlights, with hindsight, a perhaps regrettable commercial/legal decision by the sports giant, whilst also demonstrating the usefulness of the IPEC as a means of speedy and effective redress in David vs Goliath disputes.
Suppose that you have an invention disclosure for a design of an article that you want to protect. When you review the invention disclosure, you notice that the inventor has only supplied photographs of the design and not any line drawings of the design. Can you file the design patent application with the photographs? The answer is YES! if that is the only practicable medium for illustrating the design for the article.
On March 21, 2018, the Russian Supreme Court published its 
As with any major event, the FIFA World Cup presents an attractive marketing opportunity for brands to connect with consumers around the world. The World Cup is a particularly hot ticket for marketers because it only occurs once every four years and is followed closely by fans worldwide. It also helps that soccer (err … football) is the most popular sport in the world. Although the buzz can present a compelling marketing tool, marketers should be wary of the unique legal risks associated with leveraging the 2018 FIFA World Cup Russia without permission.
Recent focus on the United States Supreme Court has surrounded who President Trump will nominate to replace retiring Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. (The nominee is Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit.) However, once October is here, the 2018 Term begins and focus will shift back to the cases before the Court. One of those issues will be the extent that sales (or offers for sale) of an invention before the filing of a patent application will prevent the issuance of a patent. Also known as the ‘on-sale bar’ doctrine, the outcome will have broad implications for startup companies and small businesses holding intellectual property assets.