The document delivery service of ETH Zurich (scanning individual articles and sending them by email to the users) is covered by the exception for private use (Art. 19 CopA), as a person entitled to make copies of a work for private use (Art. 19 al. 1 CopA) may also have them made by libraries and sent by email (Art. 19 al. 2 CopA). Such a service is not in direct competition with the publishers’ services (publishers’ pay-platform), as the library may merely scan individual articles on request, but shall not provide an entire online database. This reverses the decision of the Zurich Commercial Court of 7 April 2014.
The Court rejected B’s application to establish his authorship of a film as a legal fact. Under Copyright Law no registration or other formalities are required to enjoy copyright protection. It follows that a person owns copyright upon creating a work and there are no special documents certifying the authorship. Therefore a court cannot turn into a copyright registry by establishing legal facts of authorship.
In a battle between the Zurich Eidgenössischen Technischen Hochschule (ETH) and three publishers (Elsevier, Springer, Thieme), the Zurich Commercial Court, in its decision of 7 April 2014, prohibited the library from providing a document delivery service (scanning and sending journal articles by email to the users). The Supreme Court reversed this ruling, in its decision of 28 November 2014 , and agreed with the ETH that such a service complies with copyright protection and may continue to be provided.
According to the Supreme Court, the library may rely on the exception for private use (Art. 19 CopA): users, who are entitled to make copies of journal articles for private use (Art. 19 (1) C [...]
The KluwerCopyrightBlog is part of Kluwer’s IP Kluwer IP Law portfolio. Whereas the blog serves as a platform where scholars and practioners can share their informed opinions on specific aspects of IP law and jurisprudence, the related Kluwer Copyright Cases Database aims to accumulate important case law in the field of copyright in one database.
To satisfy the increasing curiosity about what is happening in the copyright courts of other EU member states, we regularly publish short overviews of cases that were recently added to the database. The two recent judgements of Supreme Court of Latvia below were summarized and added to the database by Magda Papēde, Albert Ludwig University, [...]
The Swiss working group on Copyright (AGUR12) released his report on December 2013 related to management of rights at the digital age. This should lead to a legal basis for a notice and takedown procedure and thus reduce the supply of illegal content, while downloading from illegal sources should remain legal.
The original mandate goes back to a postulate referred by the Federal Council Simonetta Sommaruga on August 2012 to optimize the collective management of rights, in particular to adapt copyright law to technical developments. After more than a year of discussion, representatives of artists, economists and consumers made nine recommendations, addressed either to rightholders and collec [...]
“The report reflects the general tendency of Swiss legislative authorities to avoid legislative process and to favor a flexible approach of existing regulations.”
The Swiss Federal Council reported a few weeks ago, in response to a postulate referred by the National Council in 2011 related to the legal situation of social media, that Social networks such as Twitter, Facebook and blogs present legislation with new challenges but cannot be overcome by a separate special law. However a detailed examination will be carried out to determine whether new regulations are needed. This relates to the enforcement of the law, the liability of service providers and some aspects of data protection. Proble [...]
The Swiss Federal Council reported a few weeks ago, in response to a postulate referred by the National Council in 2011 related to the legal situation of social media, that Social networks such as Twitter, Facebook and blogs present legislation with new challenges but cannot be overcome by a separate special law. However a detailed examination will be carried out to determine whether new regulations are needed. This relates to the enforcement of the law, the liability of service providers and some aspects of data protection.
“The Cabinet of Ministers has failed to assess impact of technology development onto blank tapes and equipment to be used for reproduction and thus imposable with blank tape levy.” (Judgement Constitutional Court, 14.3).
Last year, the Satversmes tiesa, the Constitutional Court of Latvia, had to deal with the first copyright case since its establishment in 1996. The importance of the case, the Blank Tape Levy-case, lies especially in the dogmatic assessment of copyright in the light and the frame of the Constitution of Latvia (the Satversme). Article 113 of the constitution states that the State shall protect copyright.
The complainants were four of the five collective management organizatio [...]
Finland: Finreactor I, Supreme Court (Korkein oikeus), 30 June 2010.
Filesharing: The defendants were administrators of the Finreactor BitTorrent file sharing network. The networks’ users could illegally download copyrighted works. The network was built so that the files were not available on the Finreactor’s site but resided on users’ own computers. Finreactor had a tracker that kept track of which user had which files available for downloading.The administrators had removed torrent-links, given warnings and banned users from the site. The administrators were not aware of the content of individual files.The court held that the administrators’ criminal liability was not limited by the techni [...]
In the appeal of a case concerning allegations of infringement of IP rights in live football statistics sites, the Court of Appeal rejected the claimant’s copyright claim, affirming the high standard of subsistence in a database under Article 3(1) which must go beyond ‘mere data’ to involve some ‘creative skill’. Concerning the sui generis right, the Court of Appeal referred the question of where the making available of a database protected by a sui generis right under the Database Directive takes place to the CJEU, asking where the infringing acts of ‘extraction’ and ‘re-utilisation’ take place.
Kitchin J granted an order for security for costs under rule 24.6 CPR against the claimant in a copyright infringement case. While remaining sensitive to the right of access to the court of the claimant and acknowledging that security for costs should only rarely be ordered solely where the case appears weak, the judge considered an order necessary, the claimant being a nominal claimant (satisfying rule 25.13(2)(f)), with poor prospects of success and whose behaviour demonstrated a want of good faith.