tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post379173484727129755..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Copyright protection granted to Charlotte Tilbury makeup powder case and designVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-67148177878227068332019-08-22T14:19:44.009+01:002019-08-22T14:19:44.009+01:00Surely a clear case of 51(1) CDPA? The designs may...Surely a clear case of 51(1) CDPA? The designs may be artistic works, but the resulting products...Artistic?noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-62988092724395690662019-08-17T16:34:58.586+01:002019-08-17T16:34:58.586+01:00The decision might have been different had the cas...The decision might have been different had the case been tried in the US. Even if the designs were the result of the author’s own intellectual creation, that creativity may have been considered de minimis under US law. For example, the Review Board of the US Copyright Office recently affirmed a refusal to register the gold decorative design of a placemat consisting of concentric rows of U-shaped holes without discussing whether or not it originated from the author’s own efforts: https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/bellagio-pressed-vinyl-placemat.pdf. Under US copyright law, a mere simplistic arrangement of non-protectable elements does not demonstrate the level of creativity necessary to warrant protection, even if created by original thought.Peter S. Sloanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13716797147373895623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-9224576501729109102019-08-16T16:50:20.453+01:002019-08-16T16:50:20.453+01:00A useful case to read in full as an introduction t...A useful case to read in full as an introduction to some Copyright case law.HazelMacnoreply@blogger.com