Press "Enter" to skip to content

Month: February 2018

Reasons for Vitorino’s recommendations on private copying and reprography levies: the notion of harm

The current legal framework is silent on what constitutes ‘harm’. It merely refers to ‘harm’ as a valuable criterion in the calculation of the fair compensation (Recital 35 of Directive 2001/29/EC). The Court of Justice of the European Union, however, affirmed that the fair compensation must necessarily be calculated on the basis of the criterion of the ‘harm’ caused to authors of protected works by the introduction of the private copying exception. The Court did not clarify, however, what exactly should be understood under the notion of ‘harm’.

Comments closed

Russian ministry of culture proposed to block pirate web-site permanently without court order and any evidence

A new draft law, developed by Russian ministry of culture (MinCult), contains amendments to Russian law on information, its protection and informational technologies, aiming to simplify and streamline restriction of access to pirate web-sites and their mirrors. But there is one little detail.

Comments closed

Guidance on IPRED: ensuring the single market dimension for IPR enforcement

While the Directive does not provide a list of the specific rights which are considered intellectual property rights for its purposes, Recital 13 explains that its scope should be defined as widely as possible to encompass all the IPR covered by provisions of EU law in this field and/or by the national laws of the Member States.

Comments closed

UK IPO seeks evidence for consultation on implementation of the EU Trade Mark Directive

The UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) is responsible for the trade mark system in the UK. This includes examination of trade mark applications and the registration of trade marks for those applications which comply with the requirements of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (“TMA”) and the Trade Mark Rules 2008 (the “Rules”).

Comments closed

Russian prime-minister proposed to suspend Google‘s activity in Russia

Actually it was something between joke, allegation and dream. The prime minister Medvedev has said it on economic forum in Sochi. He said it as the answer to the call to support Russian companies in internal market and “to nurture ours”. And the answer was to suspend Google(‘s activity) in separately taken country.

Comments closed

Review of Copyright Online Infringement Amendment

The Department of Communications and the Arts in Australia is seeking views from stakeholders on the questions put forward in published paper. The Department welcomes single, consolidated submissions from organisations or parties, capturing all views on the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Act 2015 (Online Infringement Amendment).

Comments closed

SWD IA on EU copyright modernisation –options for problem with availability of EU AV on VOD

Baseline

No policy intervention. This option would rely on the natural evolution (естественной эволюции) of the VoD market. As VoD will become an increasingly important way to access AV works in the coming years, it is likely to gain in financial attractiveness for rightholders.

Comments closed

Third edition of USA copyright office compendium – serials

A serial is a work that is issued or intended to be issued in successive parts bearing numerical or chronological designations that are intended to be continued indefinitely.

Comments closed

Do street musicians have to pay VAT from donations made by passers-by

It appears from the case-file that Mr Tolsma plays a barrel organ on the public highway in the Netherlands. During his musical performance he offers passers-by a collecting tin for their donations; he also sometimes knocks on the door of houses and shops to ask for donations, but without being able to claim any remuneration by right.

Comments closed

Perfect 10 v Yandex

Plaintiff Perfect 10, Inc., a California corporation, creates copyrighted adult entertainment products, including photographs. Perfect 10 owns and operates the subscription-based internet website perfect10.com. Defendant Yandex N.V., a Dutch holding company headquartered in the Netherlands, owns a family of companies under the “Yandex” brand. It does not itself own or operate any internet search engines or websites that host user-generated content. It manages its investments, including its subsidiaries, defendants Yandex LLC and Yandex Inc.

Comments closed