During the recent 25th anniversary conference of the IViR (2-4 July in Amsterdam) many interesting lectures were given and many intriguing panel discussions were held. In the unfortunate case you missed the conference, you can find several fotos and videos of the event on the webpage of the conference and on IViR’s YouTube channel.
Readers of this blog already know that the last day of the conference, just after the splendid closing keynote by James Boyle, a panel was dedicated to an event very high in (almost) everybody’s minds, at least at that time – the 4th of July was the day of the FIFA World Cup quarter finals.
The title of the panel was “Who owns the world cup? T [...]
Judgment CJEU, 3 September 2014, Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds (C-201/13). Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Brussel (Belgium).
Belgian copyright law provides that “once a work has been lawfully published, its author may not prohibit caricature, parody and pastiche, observing fair practices”. This provision, which existed before the adoption of the InfoSoc Directive 2001/29/CE, and which has not been modified by the implementation of the latter, was clearly subject to interpretation (especially the last three words : “observing fair practices”).
Belgian Courts and Tribunals have therefore progressively established many conditions to be met in order to successfu [...]
While preparing a post for this blog about the wonderful panel ‘Who owns the World Cup: The case for and against property rights in sports events’, that concluded IViR’s 25th anniversary conference, something unusual stopped me.
I received an email from a colleague informing me that the videos of the conference (at least those of the panel discussions that were held in the magnificent Oosterhuiszaal) were available online on IViR’s YouTube channel. Very good news, especially for all the people who could not attend the conference and who have now the possibility to watch it (or at least parts of it) online.
However, another aspe [...]
Two Acts of 2007 and 2014 to fight against counterfeiting have modified the French Intellectual Property Code, in order to enable improved compensation for the rightholders as well as better protection of intellectual property rights.
In French intellectual property infringement cases, damages were traditionally supposed to cover the prejudice suffered, no more, no less. Punitive damages were not theoretically possible. However, Acts No. 2007-1544 of 29 October 2007 and No. 2014-315 of 11 March 2014 to strengthen the fight against counterfeiting have modified many aspects of the French Intellectual Property (‘IPC’) with regard to damages and remedies.
Calculation of the damages
“A take-down notice which generically refers to the titles of the infringing videos, without specifically indicating their URLs, is not sufficient to determine the “actual knowledge” of the hosting provider.”
On May 5, 2014, the Distric Court of Turin has given a preliminary ruling on the proper content of the take-down notices in copyright infringement disputes. Although the decision is not completely surprising (see, in this regard, this ruling of the Distric Court of Rome, 11 July 2011), it sets the standard for copyright holders on how to draft a take-down notice to be notified to a ISP.
The action has been brought by Delta TV, an Italian company which produces and d [...]
In France, search engines using thumbnails are likely to infringe on copyright. On 8 April 2014, a French Senator proposed a Bill to establish compulsory collective management for the reproduction of photographs and images by search engine services.
Thumbnails are reduced-size versions of photographs and images, used by search engines such as Google Images in order to facilitate their recognition and organisation, with links to the websites where the photographs and images are published.
Such reproduction of photographs and other works is likely to constitute fair use under the US Copyright Act of 1976 (see Meng Ding, Perfect 10 v Amazon.com: A Step Toward Copyright’s Tort Law Roots, Berk [...]
“This indicates the main danger of the ruling, that of fragmentation. This was foreseen by the Austrian referring court, which suggested that guidelines assessing the proportionality of blocking measures be laid down by the CJEU – that would have been welcome indeed! That absence is certainly the biggest deficiency of the ruling.”
Last Thursday, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued its judgment on Austria’s Oberster Gerichtshof reference for a preliminary ruling in Case C-314/12, UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH.
The case begun when film production companies Constantin Film Verheih and Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft GmbH noticed their copy [...]
“According to Art. 13 of the German Copyright Act (“CA”) the author has the right to be identified as the author of the work. He may determine whether the work shall bear a designation of authorship and which designation is to be used.”
The District Court of Cologne (Landgericht Köln) apparently never sleeps. After its somewhat questionable role in a surge of so called Redtube warning letters which infested some 10.000 unsuspecting German internet users in December 2013, the Court surprises both internet users as well as the legal community with a judgment (LG Köln, judgment of 30.1.2014, 14 O 427/13) on the moral right of recognition of authorship (Art. 13 Copyright Act) and its [...]
The long-awaited judgment of the CJEU in the Svensson case, judgment of 13 February 2013 in (C-466/12).
The legal definition of internet links has been a widely-discussed subject in recent times, pitting those who consider links an act of communication to the public within the meaning of article 3.1 of Directive 2011/29/EC (Directive of the Information Society) against those who, on equally justifiable grounds, argue that the creation of internet links does not, strictly speaking, constitute an act of communication to the publi [...]
“The test in case of sale could therefore be reduced to the following simple question: would there have been an infringement if the seller had been established in the Member State where the buyer resides.”
On 6 February 2014, the Court of Justice of the EU issued a decision in the Blomqvist v Rolex SA Case (C-98/13) that has been welcomed by IP rights owners. It simplifies and clarifies the test that should be run to determine whether goods acquired on-line from a seller established in a non-member state are goods infringing intellectual property rights in the sense of Regulation 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003.
The regulation gives a specific definition to the “goods infringing an intellectual [...]