IP STARS (Managing IP)’s Post

Hi, it’s Deborah and Euzi Do you need help with court and tribunal fees? There is a new help with fees scheme for applications made or fees paid on or after 27 November 2023. If you submitted your application or paid your court or tribunal fee on or after this date, you must use the new form and guidance. For more information on who can get help with fees and how to apply for it, go to: https://buff.ly/3SMjZ5J #legaladvicefordivorcematters #legaladviceforlandlordandtenantmatters #legaladviceforemploymentmatters #mackenziefriend #helpingyoutopreparetoattendatcourt #affordablelawforyou #bespokelegaladvice

I recently wrote about a Tenth Circuit decision that signaled a significant—and surprising—narrowing of the fair use doctrine. On Friday, several industry groups filed amicus briefs encouraging the Tenth Circuit to revisit its decision. The brief filed by the International Documentary Association aptly captures how the court's ruling threatens to undermine how documentarians and other producers traditionally operate: "The Panel Decision’s new rule calls into question any use of a copyrighted work that does not directly 'comment' on the author’s 'creative decisions' or 'intended meaning.' This rule threatens to contract fair use in unprecedented fashion. Documentarians routinely repurpose copyrighted works—without discussing the author’s contributions—to illuminate, analyze, and discuss the world around us. They do so in the mode of quotation, the most time-honored limitation in copyright, to: demonstrate an argument; present a historical reference point; and provide otherwise unknown or unavailable information about the work. These well-established fair use practices have been the lifeblood of documentary filmmaking for decades. . . . The Panel Decision will create an immense chilling effect on documentary filmmaking. It will require documentarians to find and seek license deals from people who cannot be identified or have no interest in licensing their works. It will create massive transaction costs that will make documentary filmmaking prohibitively expensive." We'll be watching closely to see if the Tenth Circuit corrects course.

I had a lot of fun working on this article with my colleague Laura Kaiser for the State Bar of Wisconsin's Wisconsin Lawyer magazine! We cover copyright basics, the Copyright Claims Board, copyright and AI, and more. Get to know (more about) the U.S. Copyright Office! #copyright #artificialintelligence #AI #wisconsinlawyer #wisbar

This has been an interesting case from the #iplaw point of view. #Copyright is property, as such, if created during the relationship (marriage or otherwise) it is relationship property when it comes to the division of assets at the dissolution of that relationship... read more in my article below

Explore the complexities of penal code enhancements in a recent court opinion involving Weldon K. McDavid, Jr., charged with conspiracy to commit murder and attempted premeditated murder. His case sheds light on the nuanced interpretation of Penal Code Section 12022.53 and the discretion afforded to trial courts. Initially convicted in 2017 with an enhancement for firearm discharge, McDavid's case sparked debate over the trial court's understanding of its discretionary power under the then-new Section 12022.53(h). A subsequent appeal resulted in his sentence being vacated, with the Court of Appeal asserting trial courts' discretion to strike enhancements. However, a rehearing led to a reversal of this decision, clarifying that trial courts can only opt for enhancements within Section 12022.53. This ruling reflects a deeper understanding of legislative intent and the balance between discretion and statutory requirements. Delve into the court's reasoning and the implications of this judgment on the legal landscape. Click the link below to read the full court opinion and gain insights into the evolving interpretation of penal code enhancements. Subscribers only: https://ow.ly/nIV150RsHHV #LegalNews #CourtOpinion #PenalCode #LegalAnalysis

Superior Court Judge John G. Pro offers a unique insight into the intricacies of the American court system. With experience from both misdemeanor and felony arraignments, Pro emphasizes the importance of considering an individual's sincerity to change and willingness to accept responsibility for their actions. The question of granting diversion or extended probation poses a significant challenge, with Judge Pro comparing it to parenting dilemmas. Factors such as the severity of the crime, criminal history and potential threats to victims or the community influence his decision. What's notable is Judge Pro's adaptability in his approach, taking each case on its merit, and striving for a fair and balanced courtroom. Subscribers only: https://ow.ly/mE5H50RgE38

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court acquitted a man accused of murdering his roommate, highlighting the importance of credible evidence and due process. The case underscores the judicial scrutiny applied to extra-judicial confessions and the necessity for thorough investigation. Case Background: The appellant and the deceased were roommates sharing a rented space. A dispute over playing music allegedly escalated into a fatal altercation. The prosecution's case rested on eyewitness testimonies, an extra-judicial confession, and a dying declaration. However, several witnesses turned hostile, and the trial court and High Court still convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. Supreme Court's Observations: A Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan scrutinized the prosecution's reliance on extra-judicial confession. The Court emphasized: - Human Conduct Rule: Confessions are typically made to individuals in whom the confessor has implicit faith. The appellant had only worked for PW-19 for five months in 2004, making it improbable for him to confess such a serious crime to PW-19. - Credibility of Testimony: The Court found the prosecution's evidence weak due to the absence of corroborative investigation. Key witnesses, such as the police officer (PSI Mishra), who allegedly witnessed the confession, were not examined. This omission raised serious questions about the reliability of the evidence. The Supreme Court noted, "A vital prosecution witness has been withheld from the Court. Nothing is placed on record to show that PSI Mishra made any official record to show that he had taken the appellant into custody." Importance of Thorough Investigation: The ruling highlighted the necessity for the prosecution to thoroughly investigate and present all relevant evidence to the Court. The failure to examine crucial witnesses and verify the appellant's alleged confessions led to the Supreme Court setting aside the conviction and sentence. Implications for Legal Professionals: This judgment serves as a reminder for legal professionals about the critical role of thorough investigation and credible evidence in ensuring a fair trial. The decision reinforces the judiciary's commitment to upholding justice and due process. Conclusion: The Supreme Court's decision to acquit the appellant in this case underscores the importance of credible evidence and due process. Legal professionals must ensure that all investigations are comprehensive and all evidence presented in court is scrutinized rigorously to uphold the integrity of the judicial system. #SupremeCourt #LegalUpdate #FairTrial #CriminalLaw #Judiciary #LawyersLife #LegalProfessionals #DueProcess #EvidenceLaw #Section302IPC #JusticePrevails

If you are concerned about equal justice and equal protection under the law, then #thestolenimage legal matter is a perfect example of the corruption and obstruction of justice that takes place within govererning municipalities and their court systems. This matter is a disgusting display of an elected sheriff having too much power and authority so as to accept bribes and commit extortion to protect the defendants when millions of dollars are at stake. When the incompetence by both judges and attorneys who deliberately pervert the rule of law and don’t provide due diligence for their clients happens, it becomes egregious corruption with gaslighting strategies to prolong the matter and coverup for the crooks. Why should a simple breach of contract and copyright infringement matter take almost 18 years to resolve when the plaintiff has hired 8 different attorneys, and presented facts to prove the truth in 6 courts of law but has been denied his 14th Amendment equal protection rights by law enforcement for 22 years? The docket and transcript speaks for itself! ARIZONA BLACK BAR - United States Commission on Civil Rights - United States Attorneys' Offices - U.S. Department of Justice - U.S. Copyright Office - #TheStolenImage - #BlackLinkedIn

A recent court ruling has revisited the critical legal concept of excited utterance within the sensitive framework of a sexual abuse case. The case involved the heart-wrenching testimony of Jane Doe 1, who disclosed to her mother the sexual abuse by Norman Alexander Lozano, starting when she was just 11 years old. This disclosure, made before Jane Doe 1's untimely death, led to Lozano's prosecution for multiple offenses against her and another victim, Jane Doe 2. The prosecution's attempt to admit Doe 1's statements to her mother as evidence under the excited utterance exception was a focal point of the trial. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that the criteria for an excited utterance were not satisfied. The court emphasized that the statements were made years after the alleged incidents, allowing for reflection, which is contrary to the spontaneous nature required for such an exception. This decision underscores the complexities of legal proceedings in sexual abuse cases and the stringent requirements for hearsay exceptions. It's a must-read for attorneys seeking to understand the nuances of evidence admissibility in such delicate matters. 👉 For a deeper legal analysis, click to read the full court opinion summary. #LegalUpdate #CourtOpinion #SexualAbuseCases #Evidence https://ow.ly/ea2e50RfgeR

The LIV acknowledges the maintenance of funding for core areas and programs in the legal and justice sector in the 2024/25 Victorian State Budget. “Given the fiscal challenges the government is facing, the LIV is relieved that core legal and justice sector programs are not facing significant funding cuts," Adam Awty, Chief Executive, Law Institute of Victoria said. "The justice sector, and in particular legal assistance, remains under significant pressure.” Read the LIV's statement here: https://lnkd.in/g77TKjub #budget #justicesector #law #auslaw #government #governmentfunding #justice #LIV #lawinstituteofvictoria