The African legal system is based on common law and civil law. [37] It was based on tribal customs and traditions before colonization adopted its original system. [38] People listened to their elders and used their elders as the people they could turn to in times of conflict. They did not keep written records because their laws were often passed orally. During colonization, African authorities developed a formal legal system called indigenous courts. [39] After colonialism, the main religions that remained remained Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism. Cooper v. Aaron (1958) Holding: States cannot overturn federal court decisions. Starting in 2001, WIPO intensified its efforts to protect TCEs by establishing the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC). TCEs represent works of indigenous peoples and traditional communities and may include stories, legends, names, symbols, songs and music.

The Intergovernmental Conference has the difficult task of ensuring intellectual property protection for TCEs when the works cannot easily be protected by copyright or other intellectual property laws. For example, many TCEs do not have a sole author or owner; Therefore, it is difficult to protect them under U.S. copyright law. In response, the IGC sought to identify issues and options for possible legal protection of TCEs. In addition, WIPO launched the Creative Heritage Project in 2008 to develop best practices and guidelines for addressing IP issues in the collection, digitization and dissemination of cultural heritage. The Fourth District Court of Appeals partially upheld and partially overturned a district court`s decision that the Ravens and the NFL used Bouchat`s drawing fairly when they depicted a similar image at the Ravens` headquarters, as well as some NFL flagship films. In the early 1990s, Bouchat created the “Shield” logo, and the Ravens later used a similar image, the “Flying B” logo, on the team`s helmets for the 1996, 1997 and 1998 seasons. After a decision in 2000 that found the Ravens` “Flying B” logo damaged Bouchat`s image, the Ravens stopped using the “Flying B”. However, the logo still appeared in movies and photos hanging in the lobby of the Ravens` headquarters.

In its fair dealing analysis, the Fourth Circuit rejected the lower court`s finding that the flagship films sold by the NFL and played during the Ravens` home games were “primarily historical,” noting instead that there was no documentary purpose for the highlights and no transformative message behind the use of the “Flying B” logo. As for displaying the logo in the Ravens` lobby, the Fourth Circuit found that the Ravens used the image fairly because it documented previous games and shared factual content about the Ravens — it wasn`t used for the original purpose of identifying the Ravens. For more information, see scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Baltimore+Ravens+v.+Bouchat&hl=en&as_sdt=2,9&case=2192489748530170159&scilh=0. Since 2008, the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has been examining limitations and exceptions for libraries and archives, as well as limitations and exceptions for persons with print disabilities and educational and research institutions. In November 2011, a special meeting was convened and the formation of thematic groups was discussed, including preservation, reproduction rights, legal deposit, library lending, parallel import, cross-border use, orphan works, liability, technological protection measures and contracts. At the November 2011 meeting of SCCR 24, Brazil, Ecuador and Uruguay presented their proposal for an instrument of limitations and exemptions for libraries and archives; Subsequently, other delegations also made proposals in this regard. In addition, a paper entitled “The Case for a Treaty on Exceptions and Limitations for Libraries and Archives: Background Paper by IFLA ICA EIFL and INNOVARTE” was presented by the United States and a paper entitled “Objectives and Principles”. The African Group had previously submitted a detailed proposal on restrictions and exceptions for visually impaired persons and persons with other print disabilities, libraries and archives, and education. Libraries and archives continue to be on the agenda of the WIPO SCCR, and a “working document containing comments and textual proposals on an appropriate international legal instrument (in any form) on exceptions and limitations for libraries and archives” was continuously revised and distributed.

In September 2010, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the first-sale doctrine did not apply to the sale of software subject to a software license agreement that the user must “accept” before installing the product. The first-sale doctrine allows the buyer of a lawful copy to sell or later lend its copy without the permission of the copyright owner. The central issue in that case was whether a purchaser of software protected by terms of use was a “licensee” or an “owner” of the copy of the software. While the lower court found that the buyer is the owner and therefore has the right to resell the copy of the software under the “first-sale doctrine” without infringing the copyright owner`s distribution right, the Ninth Judicial District found that the buyer of the software was only a licensee and was not protected by the first-sale doctrine. After determining that the first-sale doctrine was not applicable, the Ninth Circuit determined that original purchasers of Autodesk software were not entitled to resell used copies of the software to Vernor at a flea market and that Vernor did not have the right to resell its copies on eBay. For more information, see scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Vernor+v.+Autodesk&hl=en&as_sdt=2,9&case=10742056384168408518&scilh=0. However, Faulkner was indicted after the Supreme Court ruled that New York Times Co. v. Tasini and clarified which digital distributions could be considered revisions. The Second Circuit, relying on Tasini, split from the Eleventh Greenberg District Court and ruled that National Geographic`s CD-ROMs were a copyright revision.

The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from the Faulkner case, leaving a division between the Second and Eleventh Districts. The second circuit dealt with the “doctrine of news” and its applicability in the digital age. FlyOnTheWall operated a financial information service that published recommendations of investment company shares on its website. These companies argued that the recommendations were “hot news” and that FlyOnTheWall`s use of the information had led to a diversion of “hot news.” The Second Circuit rejected Barclays` argument, noting that the “hot news doctrine” applies only in the narrow case where a defendant is a genuine free rider, and that in the absence of a finding of free-riding, the right of first refusal of copyright applies and the copyright law prohibition applies to protect the facts or news of the day. The Second Circuit found that FlyOnTheWall was not a free rider because it was only reporting news or facts of investment firm recommendations. On March 14, 2000, Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore signed UCITA. Virginia was the first state to approve the legislation. Maryland passed it in April 2000. The highly controversial legislation is currently under consideration in several state parliaments. Law Report, at common law, published an account of a court decision cited by lawyers and judges for its use as a precedent in subsequent cases. The report of a decision usually contains the title of the case, a statement of the facts giving rise to the dispute and its history before the court.

It then reflects the opinion of the court and ends with the judgment of the court, which confirms or reverses the judgment of the next court. The report on a modern decision is usually preceded by an executive summary of the opinion, called the guiding principle, which indicates the points decided. Before the football games, student staff members at a Texas high school chose one of their classmates to speak to players and spectators. These lectures were delivered over school loudspeakers and usually included a prayer. Participation in these events was voluntary. Three students sued the school, arguing that the prayers violated the founding clause of the First Amendment. A majority of the court rejected the school`s argument that the prayer did not violate the First Amendment because it was initiated by students and led by students and led by students, as opposed to officially sponsored by the school. The court ruled that this action constituted a school-sponsored prayer because the loudspeakers used by the students for their invocations were the property of the school.