Mandatory 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 closedDekuzu Posts
Traditionally, 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 closedWhen Russian president has mentioned his concerns about the scales of counterfeits in Russian light industry, the Prosecutor General’s office has reported its achievements and statistics demonstrating what has been done. According to office it was revealed 19 thousands violations of law, including organization of illegal migration and violations of rules in the field of public procurement.
Comments closed
Among the options proposed in consultation paper for reform to the copyright board of Canada it could be outlined some of them with regard to collective rights management and tariff setting procedure, including the practice of individual agreements or the analogue of interim license in USA.
Comments closedSports.ru and Match TV are big “friends” in sport world. Sometimes they express “compliments” with each other. This time it was turn of Sports.ru. The web-resource revealed payola conditions of Match TV. If you are football club and need promotion – pay and receive broadcasting time. The prices are good – it is big Russian federal channel.
Comments closed
The Internet has favoured the entry of new market players and the development of new services (e.g. music streaming services, Video on Demand – VoD – platforms, etc.) providing access to a large quantity and variety of content online. Digital technologies also offer new opportunities to cultural heritage institutions (CHIs) willing to digitise and disseminate parts of their collections that would otherwise remain confined to their premises with limited access to the public.
Comments closedThe term “de minimis” comes from the legal principle “de minimis non curat lex,” which means “the law does not take notice of very small or trifling matters.” As the Supreme Court stated, “copyright protects only those constituent elements of a work that possess more than a de minimis quantum of creativity.” Works that contain no expression or only a de minimis amount of original expression are not copyrightable and cannot be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.
Comments closed
Russian ministry of culture (MinCult) has proposed amendments to the Russian law on “State support of Russian cinematography”. These amendments reflect the idea to protect Russian cinema market from Hollywood’s “occupation” and to provide more opportunities in internal Russian marketplace for movies produced in Russia.
Comments closedVideo-on-demand services have the potential to play a decisive role in the dissemination of audiovisual works across the European Union. However, the availability of those works, in particular European works, on video-on-demand services remains limited. Agreements on the online exploitation of such works may be difficult to conclude due to issues related to the licensing of rights.
Comments closedThe last few years the administration of Kazan annually organizes “Aksenov festival” in the memory of Russian writer Vasily Aksenov. For this event, “Aksenov Fest”, theatrical performances have been funded and Aksenov’s literary works have been published in Tartarian language. But Aksenov heirs are not involved in it. They did not receive royalties and were not asked about any permission to exploit Aksenov’s intellectual property. That is what the heirs of Aksenov don’t like.
Comments closed