LATEST COPYRIGHT CASES FROM THE ECDR


The March 2005 issue of Sweet & Maxwell's European Copyright and Design Reports contains seven cases, several being available for the first time in English. Cases include
* Bild-Kunst v Focus (Bundesgerichtshof, Germany): on whether the parodic use of a typically German representation of an eagle is permitted;

Watch the birdie -- but don't take too many liberties with it or you may be sued

* Paperboy (Bundesgerichtshof, Germany): another case dealing with the legality under copyright and database right of a website providing a news service that links through to copyright-protected third party web pages;

* Hundertwasser-Haus (Bundesgerichtshof, Germany): unauthorised postcards made from photos of buildings situated in public places;

* Copyright and Communications Advisory Agency v Latvian Radio (Supreme Court, Latvia): another spat over unpaid licence royalties owed to a collecting society.
Other cases in this issue are Case C-88/04 European Commission v United Kingdom (UK castigated for failing to implement Information Society directive in Gibraltar), Sawkins v Hyperion (copyright exists in edited version of ancient musical works) and Griggs v Evans (No. 2), a fascinating analysis of the extent to which a British court can make rulings that determine ownership of copyright outside the jurisdiction.
LATEST COPYRIGHT CASES FROM THE ECDR LATEST COPYRIGHT CASES FROM THE ECDR Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, March 25, 2005 Rating: 5

2 comments:

  1. Hi
    I've read your post about Hundertwasser. Do you know who has the copyrights from all hundertwasser products ? Can you post the contact ? Thks

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.