Works matching Copyright cases
1
- Modern Law Review, 2018, v. 81, n. 2, p. 282, doi. 10.1111/1468-2230.12329
- Kalimo, Harri;
- Meyer, Trisha;
- Mylly, Tuomas
- Article
2
- Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, 2011, v. 15, n. 1, p. 257
- Article
3
- ITNOW, 2006, v. 48, n. 1, p. 34, doi. 10.1093/itnow/bwi150
- Article
4
- Boston University Law Review, 2024, v. 104, n. 3, p. 965
- Article
5
- Florida Bar Journal, 2010, v. 84, n. 2, p. 26
- Wolfe, Richard C.;
- Elton, Serona
- Article
6
- Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review, 2022, v. 43, n. 1, p. 37
- Article
7
- Pace Law Review, 2015, v. 35, n. 3, p. 1016, doi. 10.58948/2331-3528.1900
- Article
8
- Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 2020, v. 43, n. 3, p. 343
- Article
9
- Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 2012, v. 20, n. 1, p. 75
- Article
10
- William & Mary Law Review, 2022, v. 63, n. 3, p. 773
- Article
11
- Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 2020, v. 35, n. 3, p. 663, doi. 10.15779/Z38ST7DX70
- Baganesh, Shyamkrishna;
- Menell, Peter S.
- Article
12
- Jurisprudence (1802-3843), 2020, n. 1, p. 15
- Article
13
- Jurisprudence / Jurisprudencija, 2008, v. 2, n. 104, p. 84
- Article
14
- Northwestern University Law Review, 2015, v. 109, n. 2, p. 343
- Walker, Robert Kirk;
- Depoorter, Ben
- Article
15
- Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2015, v. 10, n. 6, p. 406, doi. 10.1093/jiplp/jpv060
- Bercimuelle-Chamot, Kevin
- Article
16
- Journal of Law & Education, 2014, v. 43, n. 4, p. 581
- Article
17
- Library Trends, 2022, v. 71, n. 1, p. 66, doi. 10.1353/lib.2023.0005
- Article
18
- Deakin Law Review, 2012, v. 17, n. 2, p. 385
- Article
19
- Publishing Research Quarterly, 2017, v. 33, n. 3, p. 238, doi. 10.1007/s12109-017-9522-7
- Article
20
- William & Mary Law Review, 1997, v. 39, n. 1, p. 65
- Article
21
- Law of Ukraine / Pravo Ukraini, 2025, n. 2, p. 102, doi. 10.33498/louu-2025-02-102
- Article
23
- George Washington Law Review, 2011, v. 79, n. 6, p. 1746
- Article
24
- George Washington Law Review, 2011, v. 79, n. 6, p. 1644
- Article
26
- Strategic Finance, 2001, v. 82, n. 8, p. 52
- Article
27
- Creative Industries Journal, 2011, v. 3, n. 3, p. 237, doi. 10.1386/cij.3.3.237_1
- Article
28
- Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 2021, v. 36, n. 4, p. 1375, doi. 10.15779/Z38W37KW8B
- Article
29
- Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 2009, v. 24, n. 1, p. 476
- Article
30
- Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 2005, v. 20, n. 1, p. 47
- Article
31
- Law & Literature, 2010, v. 22, n. 1, p. 110, doi. 10.1525/lal.2010.22.1.110
- Article
32
- Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal, 2020, v. 28, n. 2, p. 183
- Article
33
- Texas Review of Entertainment & Sports Law, 2003, v. 5, n. 1, p. 195
- Article
35
- U.C. Davis Law Review, 2013, v. 47, n. 2, p. 473
- Dogan, Stacey L.;
- Lemley, Mark A.
- Article
36
- Texas Law Review, 2015, v. 93, n. 3, p. 743
- Article
37
- Texas Law Review, 1998, v. 76, n. 4, p. 869
- Article
38
- Seybold Report: Analyzing Publishing Technologies, 2008, v. 8, n. 20, p. 15
- Article
39
- Business Lawyer, 2019, v. 75, n. 1, p. 1673
- Article
40
- Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 2016, v. 18, n. 4, p. 907
- Article
41
- Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 2010, v. 13, n. 1, p. 55
- Article
42
- University of San Francisco Law Review, 2022, v. 57, n. 2, p. 171
- CARRENO ALVAREZ, VANESSA R.
- Article
43
- Houston Law Review, 2014, v. 52, n. 2, p. 467
- Article
44
- ARSC Journal, 2009, v. 40, n. 2, p. 225
- Article
45
- Washington Law Review, 2013, v. 88, n. 3, p. 1021
- Article
46
- DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law, 2011, v. 21, n. 2, p. 323
- Article
47
- DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law, 2009, v. 20, n. 1, p. 215
- Article
48
- Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2017, v. 12, n. 1, p. 20, doi. 10.1093/jiplp/jpw179
- Article
50
- King's Law Journal, 2011, v. 22, n. 2, p. 209
- Article