Press "Enter" to skip to content

Category: Law review

Australian Government Response to the Productivity Commission Inquiry into Intellectual Property Arrangements

The Government recognises the inefficiencies and uncertainty that can arise from agreements which seek to exclude or restrict legal copyright exceptions and wants to ensure that statutory rights tofairly deal with copyright material are protected.

Comments closed

The Russian ministry of culture has changed its mind about 5 mln roubles for permission to show movies on a big screen

Russian ministry of culture (MinCult) initially proposed to require 5 mln roubles for permission to distribute movies in Russian cinemas. Hollywood companies would survive it unlike other independent Russian companies, receiving funds for production from Russian state. “5 mln proposal” would exclude from distribution market many Russian companies and distributors, many premiers would be in internet, and the Hollywood would stay a “favorite of big screen”. That was not the purpose of MinCult.

Comments closed

SWD Impact assessment on the modernisation of EU copyright rules – options to achieve the objectives (option 2)

Application of country of origin to the clearing of rights for broadcasters’ online services ancillary to their initial broadcast

Introduce a rule providing that as concerns the licensing of rights for certain online transmissions by broadcasting organisations, the copyright relevant act takes place solely in the MS where the broadcasting organisation is established. As a result, in order to provide certain services in the Union, rights would only need to be cleared for the “country of origin” (CoO) of the broadcasting organisation (and not for the countries of reception).

Comments closed

Third edition of USA copyright office compendium – Identifying the work covered by a registration

The U.S. Copyright Office does not issue copyrights, but instead simply registers claims to copyright. The copyright in a work of authorship created or first published after January 1, 1978 is protected from the moment it is created, provided that the work is original and is fixed in a tangible medium of expression.

Comments closed

Tackling illegal content online

A harmonised and coherent approach to removing illegal content does not exist at present in the EU. Indeed, different approaches exist in the EU depending on Member States, content category, or type of online platform. A more aligned approach would make the fight against illegal content more effective. It would also benefit the development of the Digital Single Market and reduce the cost of compliance with a multitude of rules for online platforms, including for new entrants. It is important to stress that what constitutes “illegal” content is determined by specific legislation at the EU level, as well as by national law.

Comments closed

Third edition of USA copyright office compendium – who may file an application for copyright registration

The only parties who are eligible to be the copyright claimant are (i) the author of the work, or (ii) a copyright owner who owns all of the exclusive rights in the work. A person or entity who owns one or more—but less than all—of the exclusive rights in a work is not eligible to be a claimant.

Comments closed

Extended collective licensing (ESL): guidance for relevant licensing bodies applying to run ECL schemes

Collective licensing works on the basis of rights holders mandating collecting societies to manage certain rights on their behalf. As such, those rights holders actively opt in to collective licensing schemes and become collecting society members.

Comments closed

Music Choice’s public comment on collective management rules review

In evaluating the rhetoric and proposals advanced by the PROs, and music publishers, it is important to be mindful of the distinction between a “fair market” and a “free market”. The copyright owners use these terms interchangeably, yet these terms are not synonymous. At the most basic level, “free market” rates are the rates that a seller would obtain in an idealized market, free from any government intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies, or regulation.

Comments closed

US Copyright Office on “full-work” licensing – Concerns Regarding 100-Percent Licensing

Mandatory 100-percent licensing of jointly owned works would contravene the basic rule adopted in the 1976 Act that ownership of copyright, and the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, are divisible without limitation. The Act provides that a copyright may be transferred to another person “in whole or in part,” and that exclusive rights, “including any subdivision of any of the rights,” may be transferred and owned separately. Thus, as one court has described it, a copyright may be “chopped up and owned separately, and each separate owner of a subdivided exclusive right may sue to enforce that owned portion of an exclusive right, no matter how small.”

Comments closed

Public consultation on copyright management eco-system in Singapore

Traditionally, in areas where there are many creators and users of copyrighted works, collective licensing bodies or collective management organisations (“CMOs”) have managed the copyrighted works for the creators. This is because it is impractical for a creator to negotiate and license the use of his or her works to numerous users individually.

Comments closed