Respectfully, plagiarism was not the problem with Gino’s work. thecrimson.com/article/2024/4…

Heaney & Breyer had something in common.

Headline is a bit of a ridiculous argument by pro se litigant but I appreciate his argument that AI is a tool he used to author his works. That arg reminds me of Burrow-Giles v Sarony

Also, I’m sorry, but it isn’t a taking if the copyright is transferred is a C- argument. For shame.

Here’s the letter. I’m glad Valancourt won, but a little sad the case won’t be going to SCOTUS. I’m disturbed that the DoJ & Copyright Office seem to think they can just ignore the DC Circuit’s holding that Section 407 is unconstitutional. Redux? justice.gov/d9/2024-04/04.…

This has been one of my favorite things I've done as a scholar & advocate. Valancourt Books stood firm as plaintiff, Institute for Justice did their usual great job as counsel, and Haynes and Boone LLP was fantastic as counsel to Brian L. Frye and myself. Now to figure out the future of deposit.

Victory is sweet! It’s especially fitting that we are learning about takings in my property class right now. Would have been cool to go to SCOTUS tho. I wonder if the 9-0 in Sheetz v. CA yesterday was the final straw?

“2 Live Crew could become more popular than Roy Orbison” is not a particularly compelling fourth-factor argument for the plaintiff.

Oof, Alice goes hard.

I only wish they watched more interesting stuff. I would have died for that access as a kid. While it sounds ridiculous, I read Eisenstein’s Film Form & Film Sense, but had to imagine what Battleship Potemkin looked like. In retrospect, maybe ok, but I would have loved a video.

This is good advice. Your academic angle is finding something to be mad/excited about that no one else has noticed yet. You can also pick a few & see which ones stick. I got lucky with plagiarism, NFTs, rankings & and few other things.

I mean, come on. Drunk history is my scholarly agenda.

You really gotta love it when people make your point for you. I say, “artists should be careful about criticizing fair use, because they use it all the time, without even realizing it.” This guy says, “No they don’t!” Here are some examples of his work.

Yeah, so this is going to be the front-page add to the new MQD reading list. Probably the best piece on the subject in a good long while.

What the Major Questions Doctrine is Not by Anita S. Krishnakumar :: SSRN papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…

From a practical lawyer's perspective, the only two kinds of competition are: (1) lawful competition; and, (2) unlawful competition. Whether competition is good - is a question for politicians, academics, and theologians.