# data[].attributes.body
Luxo vs. Walt Disney Company
Disney made a luxo Jr. lamp animation that had kept the Luxo Company happy (1986). In 2009 Pixar had the idea to package its Up Blu-rays with its own Luxo Jr. merchandise. The merchandise not being manufactured by Luxo. The Luxo Company was not happy with this. Luxo immediately filed a lawsuit for trademark infringement, after a couple of months both companies quickly reached to an agreement that Disney and Pixar would no longer sell Luxo Jr. lamps as long as Pixar was allowed to continue having Luxo Jr. as it’s corporate mascot. I agree with the resolution because it had seem that disney had went over the “line” to creating merchandise of the Luxo Jr. lamp because it was originally the Luxo company’s trademark as a regular lamp, and believe that it would still be okay for Disney to have the luxo Jr. lamp as their mascot.

# data[].attributes.body
Forever 21 & Adidas

Forever 21 made clothes with 3 stripes which is the iconic adidas logo. The situation was there was no conclusion yet. The only thing that happen was Forever 21 paid a settlement to Adidas. At the end our decision to the courts reaction was that they should've paid. Forever 21 made clothes with 3 stripes which is the iconic adidas logo

# data[].attributes.body
Alfonso Riberio vs Epic Games

Alfonso Riberio tried to sue Epic games for the "Fresh" one of Fortinite emotes in the game. Alfonso was denied because the dance was 3 moves and had no choreography so they could not say it was his dance. I agree with what happened because its too short to be copyrighted so we all still have the right to use/sell it.
Carltons Dance from the Fresh Prince Of Bel Air

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Fresh Prince' star sues Fortnite makers over 'Carlton' dance

# data[].attributes.body
Jeff Koons vs Andrea Blanch

Jeff Koons was accused of copying the photograph of Andrea Blanch, and incorporating a piece of it into his painting. The pieces he included were the legs and sandals from the original photograph. The outcome was that Jeff Koons won the court case under the fair use claim. The judge said that his painting was an original work based off of the raw material of the photograph. Plus they said that Andrea had no copyright over the Gucci sandals and the legs cannot be copyrighted as they are not original.

# data[].attributes.body
Shepherd Fairey vs. Associated Press

In 2009, Shepherd Fairey was accused of copying an image used by the National Press Club in Washington. The image was of the President of that time, Barack Obama. Fairey was a street artist in LA, and based his image off of the image used by the National Press Club in Washington. After two years, a judge finally dismissed the copyright lawsuits between the two.

# data[].attributes.body
cariou vs prince

cariou was a photographer and he took this picture and named it "yes rasta" later he published a book of Portraits and landscapes including the "yes Rasta" photo. later on Prince took the photo and altered it and put it in a gallery and called it "Canal Zone". Princes photo was not fair game because it didn't c comment or critique the original photo. Prince had to pay a small fine but he didn't get in much trouble. We believe the outcome was the correct one because he changed it enough to make it his own.

# data[].attributes.body
Charlie Kessler vs Duffer Brother (Stranger Things lawsuit)

# data[].attributes.body
Soulja Boy vs Nintendo

Soulja Boy began to “design” and sell a gaming console, and called it the Soulja Game. The console itself was ripped off, but the accusation came when he began to port copyrighted games onto the consoles. Nintendo forced Soulja Boy to pull his consoles off the shelves due to the fact that he copied Nintendo licensed games and ported them onto his knock-off console. The website that sold Soulja Boy’s systems had also been taken down and now reroutes to the Nintendo 3DS store. We agree with the resolution because clearly, Soulja committed straight piracy, no doubt about it, on multiple accounts.

# data[].attributes.body
Photographer Art Rogers shot a photo of a couple holding 08 puppies. He sold his for use on greeting cards. Jeff Koons came across the photo and used it to make the statues. Koons then sold his statues and made a profit. Rogers sued Koons but Koons claimed his work was a parody.

The court ruled that the two works were too similar. Koons was ordered to pay a monetary settlement. An artist who reproduces a photo as a 3 dimensional sculpture for sale as a high priced piece of art cannot claim parody as a defense for copyright infringement because the photo itself is not the target of the parody.
I agree with the courts ruling. They look exactly a like. It was noted that Koons removed the copyright label from Rogers postcard and instructed his assistant to model the sculpture after the photo.  He wanted it copied as much as possible.  Koons was very aware that he was copying a copyrighted photo. Koons sold his sculptures for $367,000.

# data[].attributes.body
Vox Media/ The Verge v. Bitwit and ReviewTechUSA

In October of 2018, Kyle Hansen of the YouTube channel Bitwit and Richard Masucci, Jr. of the Youtube channel ReviewTechUSA made videos criticizing and videos critiquing and making parodies of the original. On February 15, 2019, Bitwit and ReviewTechUSA were issued copyright claims by The Verge and their parent company Vox Media (links to the accused videos below). This was an issue for Kyle as he hosted a weekly news live stream about tech and now he couldn't do it. ReviewTechUSA was just angry, as it did not effect him as much. After pressure from the tech community and the threat of going to court, Editor-in-Chief of The Verge Nilay Patel removed the strikes and claims. However, Bitwit and ReviewTechUSA claim they claimed   that it was fair use and that is why the videos were re-uploaded and the situation was resolved. I think that Vox Media and the Verge were in the wrong as Bitwit and ReviewTechUSA's videos were protected by fair use.

Bitwit's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vmQOO4WLI4
ReviewTechUSA's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaDX2HsFvNA
The Verge's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDbHnRWSXTk

# data[].attributes.body
forever 21 vs adidas

# data[].attributes.body
Converse (chuck taylor star) and offbrand sneaker brands

Converse wanted to trademark the sole of their chuck taylor all star sneakers and Walmart argued that because the soles were actually and aesthetically functioning that they couldn’t trademark it.  The law does not allow companies to protect aspects of their designs that are functional, and companies must also prove that consumers associate the specific design with the manufacturer, not just that a given design is popular. They couldn’t trademark the design nor sue Walmart for using said design because it was functioning. This is a very common shoe design, it’s not extremely unique to just converse.The law says that functioning aspects of designs cannot be trademarked, which makes sense unless it is the trademark/symbol of that company. Functioning shoes are functioning shoes, if the designs are exactly alike then that’s a different story. But seeing as there are multiple visible differences, I agree with the outcome.

https://footwearnews.com/2015/business/uncategorized/walmart-fight-converse-copyright-infringement-20499/

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/business/converse-sues-to-protect-its-chuck-taylor-all-stars.html