|... And - believe it or not - |
private international law
provisions applied to the internet
can be even more confusing!
Other jurisdiction-related responses might come from the (hopefully) forthcoming CJEU decision in Case C-170/12 Pinckney, a reference from the French Court of Cassation seeking clarification on the interpretation of the Brussels I Regulation (Regulation 44/2001) as applied to online copyright infringement cases:
|Another case of Myth vs Fact analysis|
- fear that "a company can take [a photographer's] work and then sub-license it without [his/her] knowledge, approval or any payment." As explained in the note, "[t]he licences to use an orphan work will not allow sub-licensing."
- belief that "the stripping of metadata creates an orphan work", in that "the absence or removal of metadata does not in itself make a work “orphan” or allow its use under the orphan works scheme."
- that from now on photographers "will have to register [their] photos to claim copyright". As explained by IPO, "[c]opyright will continue to be automatic and there is no need to register a work in order for it to enjoy copyright protection."
- that "the UK is doing something radical and unprecedented with the Orphan Works powers." According to the IPO, "[t]he UK powers are largely based on what happens in Canada – which has been licensing orphan works since 1990." [yes, says Merpel, but Canada doesn't have to implement also an Orphan Works Directive by 29 October 2014, as does the UK ... You might want to consider possible overlaps (and points of conflict) between the various provisions, such as permitted uses of orphan works ...]