The more people will come to see the Russian movie outside of Russia, means the Russian movie fund works more effective. Now it is not enough to increase the quantity of Russian movies, it is also important to make excellent movies in order to make people pay for the ticket in cinema.
Comments closedCategory: Distribution
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.
Comments closedA 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.
Comments closed
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”).
Comments closed
The legal uncertainty as to whether all rights relevant for the retransmission have been cleared faced by the retransmission service providers other than cable is expected to persist under the baseline option. As a result, those service providers can be expected to continue limiting their retransmission offers. Moreover, in view of the legal uncertainty, some market players might hesitate to launch innovative retransmission services or delay the launch in order to deal with licensing.
Comments closedNew draft paper takes an economic perspective on the neighbouring rights debate and tries to find an explanation for this market outcome. First of all, it examines the economic impact of news aggregation platforms on news publishers. The available empirical evidence shows that news aggregators have a positive impact on news publishers’ advertising revenue. That explains why publishers are eager to distribute their content through aggregators.
Comments closed
Russian ministry of culture (MinCult), including its chief Vladimir Medinsky, made a lot to protect Russian cinematograph in Russia and now such measures entail consequences. One Russian distribution company has obtained permission to distribute cartoon movie Paddington 2 in Russia.
Comments closed
Wolk, an independent artist of fantasy images and sports art, licenses her images through an exclusive licensing agent. Some of the images can consume as much as a year of Wolk’s professional time to create and produce in final form. The sole source of income for Wolk is the sale or licensing of her art, and Wolk runs an online store that exclusively sells her art. Photobucket is a photo-sharing ISP that operates a website located at www.photobucket.com.
Comments closed
Non-regulatory options are not considered because they would not be sufficient to achieve the objectives. Their effectiveness would be similar to the baseline scenario, and they would not provide the necessary degree of legal certainty.
Comments closedIn the view of the Portuguese Republic, the person who makes the work directly available to the public and who therefore effects an ‘act of communication’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 is the person who places the work on the server from which the internet user is able to access it. The Portuguese Republic submits that it is not the ‘hyperlinker’ — who merely makes a secondary or indirect ‘communication’ — that ensures that ‘members of the public may access [the works] from a place and at a time individually chosen by them’. The act which actually produces that effect is undertaken by the person who effected the initial communication.
Comments closed