tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post7312400176819709757..comments2024-03-19T13:13:18.609+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Early thoughts on Deckmyn: fun is OK, but only if politically correctVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-37852720989907150062014-10-06T12:55:08.804+01:002014-10-06T12:55:08.804+01:00The new PETA campaign against Fortnum & Masons...The new PETA campaign against Fortnum & Masons also raises some concerns about the neccessity for an element of humour and mockery in the parody. The PETA campaign seeks to rely on the copyright exception for parody, but it clearly does not contain any humour. Mockery? Perhaps at a push. This, in my opinion, comes down to the distinction between parody and satire. Satire needs no element of humour because the intent of satire is to teach a lesson. Does the Deckmyn decision create a gap in protection for those who copy a copyright work in order to satirise it? Thoughts please.Georgenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-65302330614907346032014-09-04T08:12:48.240+01:002014-09-04T08:12:48.240+01:00@Anonymous on Wednesday, 3 September 2014 17:16:00...@Anonymous on Wednesday, 3 September 2014 17:16:00 BST: Thanks for your comment. See also ACI Adam for narrower exceptions.<br />As to the distinction between exceptions and limitations, I have my reservations about AG Sharpston's Opinion, as the phrase "exceptions or limitations" comes from the language of international copyright and has been historically linked to the different language (and understanding) of droit d'auteur (limitations) vs copyright (exceptions) traditions. See tinyurl.com/p6mh9fm, p 2.<br />There are exceptions (or limitations) in Art 5 that allow fine-tuning (eg Article 5(2)(c) which refers to <br />“specific acts of reproduction” to be defined at the national level) and other that do not (eg Art 5(2)(a), (b), (d) (e), and Articles 5(3)(d), (f), (h), (i), and (m)).<br /><br />@Howard: I guess that in the end much will depend on the sense of humour of the author of the parodied work ... Whether this is the right solution is debatable though. Eleonora Rosatihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05629420303968805446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-2042408884548605722014-09-03T22:38:05.287+01:002014-09-03T22:38:05.287+01:00Where did they get the idea that "the parody ...Where did they get the idea that "the parody cannot reasonably be ascribed to the author of the original work"? If you watch the Roobarb episode "When Custard Stole The Show" there is a bit at the end with Custard running, under the name "Custard", which is clearly a parody of the show's title sequence - but this is presumably from exactly the same author! Is the referring court really ignorant of such works of culture?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-8174900612565166502014-09-03T22:06:16.337+01:002014-09-03T22:06:16.337+01:00the slippery slope slides into a quick morass base...the slippery slope slides into a quick morass based on exactly who gets to decide what.<br /><br />1984 comes to mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-5459345272199880372014-09-03T18:03:23.198+01:002014-09-03T18:03:23.198+01:00Dear Eleonora:
Well, this could be a slippery sl...Dear Eleonora: <br /><br />Well, this could be a slippery slope. Could there potentially be developing a big humour gap between the EU and the rest of world – at least with the USA? One wonders how the CJEU, in light of this decision, would have looked at the raunchy and arguably anything but “politically correct” rap lyrics of the 2 Live Crew parody lyrics of “Pretty Woman” that pretty soon turns into “Big Hairy Woman” and go rapidly downhill from there….<br /><br />But it was fine for the US Supreme Court in 1994. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO.html<br /><br />I've offered the same comment over at Jeremy's 1709 positing on this decision.<br /><br />Best, <br />HowardHoward Knopfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-55805876228364227462014-09-03T17:29:14.593+01:002014-09-03T17:29:14.593+01:00Such a bad ruling in my opinion...what is the poin...Such a bad ruling in my opinion...what is the point of defining parody and prohibiting all those little additional conditions that member states have been adopting over time if the Court then opens the Pandora box of possible arguments to refuse the benefit of the exception ?<br /><br />The regime of exceptions aims at striking a balance between the interests of right holders and those of the public. It does certainly not mean that the "legitimate" interests of both parties must be balanced in every single application of each exception. <br /><br />This is even worse than the broadest application of the three-step tests in individual cases that we have had nightmares about. <br /><br />I wonder how this judgement will be analyzed from a fundamental rights point of view. It certainly creates (or makes apparent) a restriction to the freedom of expression, which has to respect the conditions of article 10,§2 of the ECHR. I'm not convinced it does. Comments on this point would certainly be very interresting. François Coppenshttp://www.francoiscoppens.benoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-50147602600810301182014-09-03T17:16:21.244+01:002014-09-03T17:16:21.244+01:00The above approach sounds very much like one would...The above approach sounds very much like one would expect from a fair dealing approach.<br /><br />I note that, importantly, the court has ruled that the work used in the parody does not itself have to be the subject of the parody.<br /><br />As for the contention that Member States do not have discretion over implementation of exceptions, I don't think this is what the Court means. Member State do have discretion to implement narrower exceptions, but cannot implement an exception which is wider than the categories set out in the Copyright Directive.<br /><br />Advocate General Sharpston, at paragraph 37 of her Opinion in the Wort case explains the situation thus:<br /><br />37. First, an exception or limitation to the reproduction right which goes farther than what is authorised by one or other of the provisions of Article 5(2) or (3) will be incompatible with the Directive. However, given the optional nature of the provisions and the possibility of introducing a limitation rather than an exception, a measure which goes less far will be compatible. For example, a Member State may not, on the basis of Article 5(2)(b), provide for an exception for all reproductions made by a natural person on any medium, without reference to the purpose for which they were made, since that would extend the scope of the exception beyond what is authorised by that (or any other) provision. Conversely, it may, still on the basis of Article 5(2)(b), lay down an exception for reproductions made by a natural person only when they are made on paper and exclusively for the purpose of private study, since the scope of that exception would be narrower than, but still fully encompassed within, what is authorised.<br /><br />This conclusion is also supported by the judgment in Wort, and various other cases.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-18194207321028650272014-09-03T13:57:17.580+01:002014-09-03T13:57:17.580+01:00Political Correctness is all politic and no correc...Political Correctness is all politic and no correct.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com