This HTML5 document contains 61 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n5https://books.google.com/
n21https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
n4http://openjurist.org/711/f2d/141/
yagohttp://dbpedia.org/class/yago/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
freebasehttp://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
n15https://archive.org/details/legalguidetowebs00fish/page/
n6http://www.leagle.com/
n17http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:FilePath/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
n22https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/amistad/
n14https://archive.org/details/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:List_of_copyright_case_law
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:See_v._Durang
Subject Item
dbr:Roth_Greeting_Cards_v._United_Card_Co.
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:See_v._Durang
Subject Item
dbr:The_Actor's_Nightmare
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:See_v._Durang
Subject Item
dbr:See_v._Durang
rdf:type
yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:Case107308889 yago:Happening107283608 yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:Event100029378
rdfs:label
See v. Durang
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."
dbp:name
See v. Durang
foaf:depiction
n17:Seal_of_the_United_States_Courts,_Ninth_Judicial_Circuit.svg
dcterms:subject
dbc:1983_in_United_States_case_law dbc:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit_cases dbc:United_States_copyright_case_law
dbo:wikiPageID
36256565
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1117164873
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Sid_&_Marty_Krofft_Television_Productions_Inc._v._McDonald's_Corp. dbc:United_States_copyright_case_law dbr:Chase-Riboud_v._Dreamworks dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit dbc:1983_in_United_States_case_law dbr:Roth_Greeting_Cards_v._United_Card_Co dbr:Scènes_à_faire dbc:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit_cases dbr:The_Actor's_Nightmare dbr:Substantial_similarity dbr:Christopher_Durang
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n4:see-v-durang-la n5:books%3Fid=V0LIZlUR_vkC&pg=SA2-PA270%7Caccess-date=2012-06-26%7Cpublisher=Aspen n6:xmlResult.aspx%3Fpage=27&xmldoc=19902327813FSupp1514_12125.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006&SizeDisp=7 n14:legalguidetowebs00fish%7Curl-access=registration n15:282 n5:books%3Fid=2UyNR8wpDt8C&pg=PA46%7Caccess-date=2012-06-26%7Cdate=2010-11-03%7Cpublisher=Nolo%7Cisbn=978-1-4133-1270-6 n22:ruling.html n5:books%3Fid=IxHIYjw0ywwC&pg=PA257%7Caccess-date=2012-06-26%7Cyear=2002
owl:sameAs
freebase:m.0k2jw9j n21:4usUV wikidata:Q7445596
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Cite_web dbt:Refbegin dbt:Sfn dbt:Reflist dbt:Refend dbt:Infobox_court_case dbt:Cite_book
dbo:thumbnail
n17:Seal_of_the_United_States_Courts,_Ninth_Judicial_Circuit.svg?width=300
dbp:arguedate
1983-06-07
dbp:citations
17280.0
dbp:court
dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit
dbp:fullName
John William SEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christopher DURANG and L.A. Stage Company, Defendants-Appellees
dbp:judges
BROWNING, CHOY and FERGUSON
dbp:keywords
copyright infringement
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."
dbp:dateDecided
1983-07-22
dbp:opinions
Copying deleted or so disguised as to be unrecognizable is not copying.
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:See_v._Durang?oldid=1117164873&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
6276
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:See_v._Durang
Subject Item
wikipedia-en:See_v._Durang
foaf:primaryTopic
dbr:See_v._Durang