| dbo:abstract
|
- See v. Durang (1983) was a case where the author of a play claimed that another playwright had based a second play on a draft script that the plaintiff had written, infringing on its copyright. The court refused to consider the process by which the second play had been created, but chose to simply compare the end results. The court found no infringement, coining the axiom, "Copying deleted or so disguised as to be unrecognizable is not copying." (en)
|
| dbo:thumbnail
| |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 6276 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:arguedate
| |
| dbp:citations
| |
| dbp:court
| |
| dbp:dateDecided
| |
| dbp:fullName
|
- John William SEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christopher DURANG and L.A. Stage Company, Defendants-Appellees (en)
|
| dbp:judges
|
- BROWNING, CHOY and FERGUSON (en)
|
| dbp:keywords
|
- copyright infringement (en)
|
| dbp:name
| |
| dbp:opinions
|
- Copying deleted or so disguised as to be unrecognizable is not copying. (en)
|
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- See v. Durang (1983) was a case where the author of a play claimed that another playwright had based a second play on a draft script that the plaintiff had written, infringing on its copyright. The court refused to consider the process by which the second play had been created, but chose to simply compare the end results. The court found no infringement, coining the axiom, "Copying deleted or so disguised as to be unrecognizable is not copying." (en)
|
| rdfs:label
| |
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:depiction
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
