|
【注释】 See James Boyle, The Opposite of Property? 66 Law & Contemp. Prob. 2.
537 U. S. 186( 2003) .
539 U. S. 23( 2003) .
Kurt M. Saunders, A Crusade in the Public Domain: The Dastar Decision, 30 Rutgers Computer & Tech. L. J. at p126.
Ibid.
See, supra note 4.
See, supra note 4.
281 F. Supp. 1177( C. D. Cal. 2003) .
68 U. S. P. Q. 2d 1357.
360 F. 3d 243, 251-52(1st Cir. 2004) .
297 F. Supp. 2d 921, 935( S. D. Tex. 2004) .
Richard Ronald, Note: Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. 19 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 243.
Ibid, at 261.
即作者身份权，英文表述是" right of attribution" ，这里直译为归属权。
Michael Landau, Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox: The Need for Stronger Protection of Attribution Rights in the United States, 61 N. Y. U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 275.
Ibid at 313.
Ibid at 313.
Ibid at 306.
Ibid at 315.
Paul Goldstein, Copyright, Patent, Trademark and Belated State Doctrines: Cases and Materials on the Law of Intellect. ual Property, Westbury, New York, the Foundation Press, Inc. 1990, at 742.
See, Ibid at 755.
Lynn McLain FN, Thoughts on Dastar from a Copyright Perspective: a Welcome Step toward Respite for the Public Domain, 11 U. Bait. Intell. Prop. L. J. 79-80.
Ibid at 80.
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. , 376 U. S. 225, 228-29( 1964) .
Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. , 376 U. S. 234, 237( 1964) .
|
