Tedbert
- 3 Followers
- 10 Following
- 21 Posts
Dude is delusional... iron sky was conceived 2005... and finland has public posted details of the movie some trailers even were published in finland 2008 for example...
Baylis v Valve Corp is an alleged IP action case where a vfx artist claims to have copyright over the entire movie #ironsky...well. let's remember that a judge in Findland previously declared that he did not own said copyright
TreviTyger exhibits a variety of negative behaviors when presented with true statements about AI copyright-related issues that he wishes were false.
TreviTyger sometimes uses insults; for example calling users morons and idiots.
Another poor behavior by TreviTyger is his apparently frequent blocking of other Reddit users. I have seen a number of other Reddit users claim that TreviTyger blocked them.
10.
The Market Court considers that the production companies therefore have the right to receive full compensation for their reasonable legal costs resulting from the necessary measures.
Paragraph 111. Regarding the counterclaim, the production companies' confirmation claim 1 has been successful,
this was reported https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/iron-sky-producers-win-copyright-suit-finland-1116079/
9. So readers, here is the actual truth of the case
Section 7 Litigation and party costs
Paragraph 110.
Regarding the main claim, the production companies have won the case, except for the part that remained very small from the point of view of the whole, the creation of A's copyright to one ship, in which part the copyright has, however, been deemed to have been transferred by exclusive right.
8. and that the production companies had NOT violated the artists' rights
Also in Paragraph 90 ...A has exclusively assigned to the employer the rights referred to in Section 2 of the Copyright Act to all the material created by him.
furthermore whenever Trevor has shared Paragraph 108 he has cropped the text to exclude this first line
108. As stated above, B and D have not been deemed to have acquired the copyright to the Valkyrie ship.
7. The Market Court considers that, taking into account what was stated in paragraph 33, it was not shown that B should be considered the creator of the moon landing vessel in question based solely on the animation about the explosion
with all of these against Trevor, the claims were rejected, they HAD NOT acquired the copyright to the film Iron Sky and its Director's or Dictator's Cut version
the market court also confirmed that rights HAD transferred to the production Companies.
with all of these against Trevor, the claims were rejected, they HAD NOT acquired the copyright to the film Iron Sky and its Director's or Dictator's Cut version
the market court also confirmed that rights HAD transferred to the production Companies.
6. question.
The Market Court considers that it has not been shown that B should be considered the creator of the Valkyrie vessel in question.
The Market Court considers that it has not been shown that B should be considered the creator of the Australian vessel in question.
The Market Court states that B's claims have been based only on the interior of the moon base and considers that it has not been shown that B should be considered the creator of the moon base
The Market Court considers that it has not been shown that B should be considered the creator of the Valkyrie vessel in question.
The Market Court considers that it has not been shown that B should be considered the creator of the Australian vessel in question.
The Market Court states that B's claims have been based only on the interior of the moon base and considers that it has not been shown that B should be considered the creator of the moon base
5. as referred to, it has not been shown that B should be considered as the creator of the vessel in question, based on the scene of the ship's destruction
The Market Court considers that it was not shown that, based on the animation of the legs, B should be considered the creator of the Rheingold vessel in question.
The Market Court considers that it was not shown that B's actions regarding the George W. Bush ship's weapon and especially its animation would have been original and independent in
The Market Court considers that it was not shown that, based on the animation of the legs, B should be considered the creator of the Rheingold vessel in question.
The Market Court considers that it was not shown that B's actions regarding the George W. Bush ship's weapon and especially its animation would have been original and independent in