Add RSS RSS

Non-Sequiturs: 09.14.07

* Can a shoe infringe on copyright? [Fashionista]

* Maybe there IS such a thing as bad publicity. Business ain't so hot for "TB Andy" right now. [WSJ Law Blog]

* Some Chemerinskygate updates. [TaxProf Blog; TaxProf Blog]

* Thinking of a career as a professional blogger? Read this first. [Career Journal]

Comments
avatar
1 Posted by Anon | Permalink Friday, September 14, 2007 5:44 PM

More IP please! Also an IP salary bump for NYC would be fantastic.

avatar
2 Posted by first | Permalink Friday, September 14, 2007 5:44 PM

first

avatar
3 Posted by anon | Permalink Friday, September 14, 2007 7:08 PM

Actually aren't fashion designs NOT currently protected under copyright?

avatar
4 Posted by Its covered | Permalink Saturday, September 15, 2007 10:53 AM

The Nike Swoosh is copyrighted- fashion can be within the Act.

avatar
5 Posted by Warren Burger | Permalink Saturday, September 15, 2007 12:38 PM

Only patterns or designs printed on a piece of clothing are protected by copyright, not the shoe or clothing itself. I doubt a swoosh is enough of a pattern. It's trademarked, but not likely copyrightable.

avatar
6 Posted by all wrong | Permalink Saturday, September 15, 2007 1:24 PM

forget copyright or tm--shoe designs can be protectable trade dress. if vans wants to sue, that's what it'll be for...

Post Your Comment