On the 1st October 2014, the Copyright and Rights in Performances (Extended Collective Licensing) Regulations 2014 came into force in the UK.1
Licensing bodies and collecting societies already operate within the UK, providing rights management and licensing services for their rightsholder members across a range of sectors including publishing, art and design, music and performance.2 Extended Collective Licensing (ECL) occurs where a collecting society is granted permission to license specific kinds of copyright works across an entire sector, thereby representing the interests of non-member rightsholders in addition to those of their own members. ECL was first developed in the Nordic co [...]
“In addition to the requirement of written form, any transaction or notice aiming at the relinquishment of copyright and thus releasing the work into the public domain further requires the notarization of the written form as a condition of validity.”
Under Chapter IV of Law No: 5846 (1) on Intellectual and Artistic Works, the Turkish legal system (2) lays down provisions pertaining both to license contracts and other transactions aiming the transfer of authors’ rights in rem.
Turkish copyright law makes a distinction between license contracts that grant a right to use the work in a certain manner and those that aim at the actual transfer of the rights in rem, namely the passing of pro [...]
“With respect to the current stunted reform, the new legislation once again touches on past issues that were never properly resolved, and I am afraid that this is still the case now. The first is the zombie issue of private copying and the second salient point of the reform is piracy.
Other reforms regard the collecting societies, two new rights of remuneration (tax for Google and universities) and the implementation of directives on phonograms and orphan works.”
2. Objective of the Spanish reform
3. Private Copying
5. Collecting Societies
6. Tax for Google and universities
7. Implementation of directives on phonograms and orphan works
“With the decision in case C-114/12, the Court is now placing emphasis on the hypotheticals by holding that the mere possibility of an international agreement impacting the EU acquis is enough to rule out Member States’ intervention, making the EU exclusively competent to conclude this type of agreement.”
On 4 September 2014, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) delivered its ruling in case C-114/12 – Commission and Parliament v. Council, concerning a decision of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States. The decision authorized the Commission to participate in the negotiation for a Convention on the protection of the rights of broadcasting organiz [...]
On 21st of October 2014 the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its order in a preliminary ruling procedure (C-348/13), which was referred to the CJEU by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in May 2013. As yet, only the German and French language version of the order have been published.
The case concerned the question whether a website operator who embeds copyright protected videos in his website by framing technology infringes the copyright on these videos. Does framing constitutes a (yet unknown kind of) communication to the public pursuant to Art 3(1) InfoSoc-Directive (2001/29/EC)? Like th [...]
The Telecommunications Industry Association (Teleindustrien) in Denmark has recently signed a code of conduct defining the conditions of voluntary website blocking by Danish Internet Service Providers (ISPs).
In the event that one ISP is ordered by a court decision or by an order from a regulatory body to block the access to a copyright infringing website, the participating ISPs commit themselves to implement the block within 7 days after the notification from the plaintiff.
The recent Code of Conduct sets out a number of provisions, which aim at setting up a one stop shop for website blockings at DNS level. Also, the Code of Conduct aims to ensure that blockings can be expanded to other web [...]
“What the Court did not consider though, is that the outcome of the application of the 3-step test to the digitisation of each individual work for the purposes of making it available for research and private study purposes may conflict with the absolute prohibition of digitising the entire collection.”
Judgment CJEU of 11 September 2014, Technische Universität Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG (C-117/13). Request for a preliminary ruling from German Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice).
The CJEU confirms the ancillary right of public libraries to digitise books from their collection in order to make them available by dedicated terminals without the rightholder’s consent. However, in the [...]
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 [...]
“The answers from Luxembourg were much awaited not only due to the questions being interesting as such, but also because academia, the European Commission and the CJEU do not see eye to eye on these currently highly debated issues.”
In response to questions lodged by a Czech court (Krajský soud v Plzni) in a preliminary ruling procedure ( C‑351/12), the Court of Justice of the European Union decided earlier this year that there is no flexibility in the interpretation of the Infosoc directive (2001/29/EC) regarding limitations and exceptions to exclusive rights (points 40-41) and that the statutory monopoly position of a CMO complies with the requirements of the Services directive (200 [...]
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 [...]