tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post7482696004322255157..comments2024-03-28T09:05:22.006+00:00Comments on The IPKat: BREAKING NEWS: AG Cruz Villalón thinks that there can only be "analogue" exhaustion and suggests that the right of adaptation has not been harmonisedVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-25129380868505143352014-09-11T22:48:19.886+01:002014-09-11T22:48:19.886+01:00I would have thought that any process in which the...I would have thought that any process in which the original image is subsumed into the new image and there is no residue from the original image, cannot be said to be reproduction or copying. Such a process might constitute defacement or derogatory treatment if the final product lacks the quality of the original, but as that only infringes the unharmonised droit d'intregite, it should not be relevant to the CJEU's decision.Andy Jnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-10859057435206623052014-09-11T22:09:07.125+01:002014-09-11T22:09:07.125+01:00The argument of Villalón is so illogical that one ...The argument of Villalón is so illogical that one can only hope the Court will wholly disregard it. To him, exhaustion does not apply to the work as incorporated in a tangible support, but only to the "tangible support" as such (as if there is a "distribution right" in the first place for tangible supports, namely paper, blank CDs, canvas, etc.). In an almost identical case, the Canadian Supreme Court concluded convincingly that transferring the ink from one support to another is not “reproduction”, as there is no production of further copies (Théberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain). But for Villalón there is reproduction indeed, since the defendant does not sell an “image” of the painting, but an “equivalent” of the “painting as such”. This argument may be valid for patent infringement, but doesn’t make any copyright sense. Why should it be lawful to re-distribute a copy of a work, but not exact the same copy once transformed in something “equivalent”?Mauriziohttp://www.cippm.org.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-42460432695955526932014-09-11T16:51:59.931+01:002014-09-11T16:51:59.931+01:00Does this mean that a painting first sold in one f...Does this mean that a painting first sold in one frame can't be resold in another without the copyright owner's permission?<br /><br />All seems rather baffling.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com