Not only Russian copyright, broadcast and digital law
One media house has published several images on its web-sites in order to illustrate articles. The author and copyright owner of these images has not provided publishing house with permission to publish its images. Copyright owner has filed a lawsuit for copyright infringement.
Comments closed
A free and pluralist press is essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens’ access to information. It provides a fundamental contribution to public debate and the proper functioning of a democratic society. The sustainability of the press publishing industry should therefore be ensured.
Comments closedIn 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 closedRussian Ministry of Culture (MinCult) has proposed amendments to Russian copyright law in order to shut down pirate web-sites very fast and without bureaucracy. According to these amendments, operator of search engine must publish on web-site of search engine its trading name, place and address of residence and email address for communication.
Comments closed
SIA AKKA/LAA (SIA “Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/Latvijas Autoru apvienība” –Copyright and Communication Consulting Agency ltd./Latvian Authors Association) is a non-profit organisation founded in Riga by a separate non-profit organisation, the Latvian Authors Association, whose members are various Latvian artists.
Comments closedCopyright protection under the Copyright Act is not available for “any work of the United States Government,” regardless of whether it is published or unpublished. This includes legislation enacted by Congress, decisions issued by the federal judiciary, regulations issued by a federal agency, or any other work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. federal government while acting within the course of his or her official duties. It also includes works prepared by an officer or employee of the government of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or the organized territories under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Comments closed
As authors and performers tend to be in a weaker contractual position when they grant licences or transfer their rights, they need information, to assess the continued economic value of their rights, compared to the remuneration received for their licence or transfer, but they often face a lack of transparency. Therefore, the sharing of adequate information by their contractual counterparts or their successors in title is important for the transparency and balance in the system that governs the remuneration of authors and performers.
Comments closedUnder Russian copyright law, and not only under Russian law, the owner of copyright, the author, publisher has a property right to receive remuneration for exploitation of its rights in work. Economical rights of creators must be protected under national laws of different countries, including Russia, and under international law. But Russian government decided to simplify the law concerning mandatory licensing of public performance right and provided three-year term for economical rights of copyright owners.
Comments closedMandatory 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 closedTraditionally, 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