Comments on: October 25 roundup

By: cecil

cecil — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 15:24:57 +0000

Did it specify french champagne service? Otherwise it’s just a trademark issue and the passenger doesn’t have standing since they aren’t the trademark holder.
I really need to find me a stick, and some paint… Who knew that dripping was so valuable.

By: David C

David C — Wed, 25 Oct 2017 23:30:13 +0000

The balloon article seems to get the numbers wrong for statutory damages (at least, assuming https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504 is accurate) – the actual numbers are often double or triple what is stated. It’s apparently using the law as it was originally written, instead of the law as it was amended – and it was first amended way back in 1988. And this was written by someone calling himself an IP attorney! (I have visions of a defense team baffled by why their opponent is only asking for $10,000 when the law allows damages of up to $30,000.)

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Wed, 25 Oct 2017 20:54:54 +0000

It seems very unlikely to me that the hotel is liable for his work being shown in pornographic films. As I understand it, the makers of pornographic films do not identify themselves as such when they book hotel rooms. The hotel probably had no way of knowing that its beds would appear in pornographic films.

By: wfjag

wfjag — Wed, 25 Oct 2017 14:47:14 +0000

“Yves Clement specializes in abstract paintings and giclée prints based on a technique of dripping paint directly from a wooden stick onto a canvas.

. . . He estimates that the 766 pieces of art leased to the hotel are worth $6.5 million to $17 million.”

I should have saved my drop cloths.