Some stakeholders have put forward ideas to replace the current hardware based levy systems with other forms of fair compensation. But, the alternatives that were put forward have not been sufficiently worked out in detail, and therefore do not justify the “phasing out” of hardware based levies in the immediate future. In particular, the link between the persons causing the harm and benefitting from the exception and the persons financing a system of fair compensation should not be severed.
Month: January 2018
IPRED refers in its Articles 9(1)(a) and 11 to the possibility of issuing injunctions against ‘any intermediary whose services are used by a third party to infringe IPRs’. The Directive does not specify which economic operators are to be considered as intermediaries for the purpose of the Directive.
Option 1 – Mandatory collective management of rights to retransmission of TV / radio broadcasts by means of IPTV and other retransmission services provided over “closed” electronic communications networks
Option 1 would enhance the level of legal certainty for the benefit of a specific category of retransmission services – those provided over “closed” electronic communications networks – and can be expected to contribute to a better offer of such services, depending on market situations in particular MS.
Research The U.S. Copyright Office cannot register (draft) a claim in research, because it suggests that the applicant may be asserting a claim in the facts…
This directive should make the life and welfare of certain creative persons better. The Member States had to bring their national legislation in accordance with provisions of this directive. Intellectual property office of United Kingdom has organised consultation on the implementation of Directive 2011/77/EU Amending Directive 2006/116/EC. In this consultation paper the very interesting things can be found.
A blanket license is a license that gives the licensee the right to perform all of the works in the repertory for a single stated fee that does not vary depending on how much music from the repertory the licensee actually uses. ASCAP licenses the non-dramatic, public performance rights in copyrighted musical works. ASCAP licenses approximately 45% of all of the musical works that are played on-line.
Between May 2004 and September 2007, Globus Circus, in its capacity as organiser of circus and cabaret performances, publicly disseminated musical works for commercial purposes without obtaining a ‘non-exclusive’ licence from UCMR – ADA (collective management organisation which handles music copyright) and without paying the appropriate copyright fees. On the view that Globus Circus had infringed its rights, UCMR – ADA brought proceedings before Tribunalul Bucureşti (District Court of Bucharest).
It was apparent from the documents before the Court that protected works, namely photographs, were made available to users of websites such as Filefactory.com and Imageshack.us without the consent of the copyright holders, but that infringement of copyright was not at issue in the main proceedings.
In this case plaintiffs, consisting of individuals and associational organizations, assert claims for copyright infringement for the alleged unauthorized reproduction and distribution of books owned by the Universities. Defendants have entered into agreements with Google, Inc. (“Google”), that allow Google to create digital copies of works in the Universities’ libraries in exchange for which Google provides digital copies to defendants (the “Mass Digitization Project” or “MDP”).