Press "Enter" to skip to content

Category: Intellectual property

Some interesting things in Term Directive 2011/77/EU

This directive should make the life and welfare of certain creative persons better. The Member States had to bring their national legislation in accordance with provisions of this directive. Intellectual property office of United Kingdom has organised consultation on the implementation of Directive 2011/77/EU Amending Directive 2006/116/EC. In this consultation paper the very interesting things can be found.

Comments closed

Download of a musical work does not constitute a public performance of that work

A 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

What means communication to the public in Directive 2001/29?

Between May 2004 and September 2007, Globus Circus, in its capacity as organiser of circus and cabaret performances, publicly disseminated musical works for commercial purposes without obtaining a ‘non-exclusive’ licence from UCMR – ADA (collective management organisation which handles music copyright) and without paying the appropriate copyright fees. On the view that Globus Circus had infringed its rights, UCMR – ADA brought proceedings before Tribunalul Bucureşti (District Court of Bucharest).

Comments closed

How to regulate private copying levy in EU?

What proposes draft report (de) by Françoise Castex and why

Why

Cultural content plays a pivotal role in the digital economy. Digitisation is having a huge impact on the way in which cultural goods are being produced, distributed, marketed and consumed, and lower distribution costs and the appearance of new distribution channels can facilitate access to creative works and culture and improve the circulation of those works around the world. The implementation of exclusive rights does not guarantee all rightholders, and in particular performance artists, a fair and proportional share of revenue arising from the use of their works. Despite permanent access to online works, downloading, storage and private copying for offline use is continuing, a private copying levy system cannot therefore be replaced by a licencing system.

Comments closed

Fair use of books in institutes of higher education

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

Reasons for Vitorino’s recommendations on private copying and reprography levies: copies made in the context of licensed services

Usually, a service provider acquires a licence from the rightholder that covers all copyright relevant acts involved in the provision of the service, including the reproduction of copyright protected content by the end user. Such licensing agreements also reflect the view and the expectations of the end user.

Comments closed

Guidance on IPRED – presentation of specified evidence in control of the opposing party

Article 7(1) of IPRED provides for the possibility, in appropriate cases, to issue measures to preserve evidence without the other party having been heard (i.e. ex parte), in particular where any delay is likely to cause irreparable harm to the rightholder or where there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed.

Comments closed

SWD IA on EU copyright modernisation – impacts of baseline option for digital retransmission

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 closed

Third edition of USA copyright office compendium – numbers

Individual numbers are not copyrightable and cannot be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. Likewise, the Office cannot register a claim to copyright in values expressed in individual numbers, individual letters, or individual words. Individual numbers are never copyrightable for the same reason that an individual word cannot be protected by copyright.

Comments closed