Press "Enter" to skip to content

Category: Intellectual property

Padawan case: European court’s decision – third, fourth and fifth questions

Background, and first two questions were earlier

The third and fourth questions

It is appropriate to examine third and fourth questions together. It must be held from the outset that a system for financing fair compensation such as that described in relevant part of this judgment is compatible with the requirements of a ‘fair balance’ only if the digital reproduction equipment, devices and media concerned are liable to be used for private copying and, therefore, are likely to cause harm to the author of the protected work. There is therefore, having regard to those requirements, a necessary link between the application of the private copying levy to the digital reproduction equipment, devices and media and their use for private copying. Consequently, the indiscriminate application of the private copying levy to all types of digital reproduction equipment, devices and media, including in the case expressly mentioned by the national court in which they are acquired by persons other than natural persons for purposes clearly unrelated to private copying, does not comply with Article 5(2) of Directive 2001/29.

Comments closed

Padawan case: European court’s decision – first and second questions

The first question

It should be borne in mind that under Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 Member States which decide to introduce the private copying exception into their national law are required to provide for the payment of ‘fair compensation’ to rightholders. It should be noted at the outset that neither Article 5(2)(b) nor any other provision of Directive 2001/29 refers to the national law of the Member States as regards the concept of ‘fair compensation’.

Comments closed

Reforming of copyright in EU and one of the questions concerned: user-generated content

User Generated Content (UGC) is understood as referring to cases where a pre-existing work is taken by a user as a starting point for his/her own expression, modified or transformed in one way or another, and then made available online. It may also include the merging of two pre-existing works (“mash-ups”). The threshold may be lower than “a certain amount of creative effort”. It excludes the case of “mere upload”, where a user merely distributes on the internet (by uploading and sharing it) pre-existing works without having intervened in any way on the work. It also excludes “creation from scratch”, i.e. the case where a user creates a new work “from scratch”, without relying on a pre-existing work.

Comments closed

White paper – Making available issue

There is no unitary copyright title in Europe, so works are protected on the basis on 28 national legislations. The use of a work in all EU Member States therefore requires the clearing of rights for 28 territories. The varying availability and accessibility of content services in the EU can thus be caused by the difficulties that service providers have in obtaining all the rights needed in all territories.

Comments closed

How Russian internet tax should be collected?

Despite the negative review of administration of Russian president and others state authorities, top managers of already accredited collecting societies can’t refuse from idea of internet tax. The decision concerning to internet tax must be made as soon as possible. Little bit about the draft itself.

Comments closed

Reforming of copyright in EU and one of the questions concerned: exceptions and limitations and the functioning of the internal market

In the light of coming copyright reforms in EU the draft impact assessment concerns some important copyright issues. One of them is exceptions and limitations and the functioning of the internal market.

Comments closed