Neil Gaiman and Marvels and Miracles, Llc, Plaintiffs-Appellees/cross-Appellants v. Todd McFarlane Defendants-Appellants/cross-Appellees

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that copyright notice did not repudiate claimants’ interest in the work because the “copyright notice [was] not adverse to the [claimants’] copyrights and so [did] not put them on notice that their rights [were] being challenged”
• “A stock character is a stock example of the operation of the [scenes á faire] doctrine.... ”
• person who contributes contribute merely nonexpressive elements to a work, such as ideas, suggestions and editorial changes, is not an “author”
• fact that suit is not a claim of infringement does not preclude application of Copyright Act
• stock characters remain unprotected because they \are the products not of the creative imagination but of simple observation of the human comedy\
• “The function of copyright notice is to warn off copiers, not to start the statute of limitations running.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).