Not only Russian copyright, broadcast and digital law
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
In the present case, the parties are in dispute in particular as to whether the principles developed in SGAE ruling, which concerned copyright and hotel bedrooms, can be applied by analogy to the related rights of phonogram producers and performers, where a radio broadcast in which phonograms are used is audible in a dental practice. The referring court wished to know, first of all, whether a dentist who makes radio broadcasts audible in his practice is required to pay equitable remuneration for the indirect communication to the public of phonograms communicated in the radio broadcasts.
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 closedYouTube, owned by Google, operates a website onto which users may upload video files free of charge. Uploaded files are copied and formatted by YouTube’s computer systems, and then made available for viewing on YouTube. Plaintiffs claimed that “Defendants had ‘actual knowledge’ and were ‘aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity was apparent,’ but failed to do anything about it.”
Comments closed
The Court was called upon to tell the national court explicitly whether, under European Union law, a national court is permitted to adopt a measure, ordering an internet service provider to introduce a system for filtering and blocking electronic communications.
Comments closedThe United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division (“DOJ”) appealed the judgment interpreting the consent decree between it and Broadcast Music, Inc. (“BMI”). The court ruled that the consent decree neither requires full-work licensing nor prohibits fractional licensing of BMI’s affiliates’ compositions. The dispute in this case is whether, under the consent decree, “fractional” interests BMI has acquired through its affiliates to a co-owned work are included in BMI’s repertory and may be included in the blanket license.
Comments closedSanoma, the publisher of the monthly magazine Playboy, commissioned a photographer, Mr Hermès, to conduct a photoshoot of Ms Dekker. Ms Dekker appears regularly in television programmes in the Netherlands. The photographer gave Sanoma full power of attorney to represent him for purposes of protection and enforcement of his intellectual property rights arising from the aforementioned commission.
Comments closedSocietà Consortile Fonografici (SCF) is a copyright management society for Italy and abroad. It represents performers and phonogram producers. SCF conducted negotiations with the Associazione Dentisti Italiani (Association of Italian Dentists) with a view to concluding a collective agreement quantifying the relevant equitable remuneration within the meaning of Articles 73 or 73a of the Law on copyright for the communication of phonograms, including distribution in private professional practices whatever the technique used.
Comments closedVeoh Networks (Veoh) operates a publicly accessible website that enables users to share videos with other users. Users can view videos uploaded by other users as well as authorized “partner content” made available by major copyright holders such as SonyBMG, ABC and ESPN.
Comments closed
According to indictment Kim Dotcom, Megaupload ltd and other affiliates were members of the “Mega Conspiracy”, a worldwide criminal organization whose members engaged in criminal copyright infringement and money laundering on a massive scale with estimated harm to copyright holders well in excess of $500,000,000 and reported income in excess of $175,000,000.
Comments closed