Copyright Candies

Any ideas? Following yesterday's excitement for the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-360/13 PRCA v NLA [here], the IPKat has received an email from a very distinguished and learned reader who asks the following question: "How is what the CJEU said in PRCA v NLA at [53]ff with regard to Article 5(5) [of the InfoSoc Directive] to be reconciled with what it said as recently as 10 April in Case C-435/12 ACI Adam [here and here] at [25] particularly the last sentence? Surely it cannot be explained by the fact that PRCA v NLA concerned Article 5(1() whereas ACI Adam concerned Article 5(2)(b) can it?". How would you respond? 

New UK exceptions are now in force and available Another highly distinguished reader has informed this Kat that amendments to UK copyright by SI are now in force and available: see here, here, here and watch The 1709 Blog for a more detailed analysis to be published shortly.

(What's the Story) Copyright Glory? is the title of this Kat's new copyright-focused event, which will take place next week, on Thursday 12 June to be more precise. This event has now also a beautiful venue: the London offices of stellar law firm Baker & McKenzie. If you wish to discuss recent CJEU decisions [including PRCA v NLA, also known as Meltwater], copyright revision and policy in the EU and beyond, orphan works, collective rights management, the parody caricature and pastiche exception, and all the things you love/hate about copyright, you can register here.
Copyright Candies Copyright Candies Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati on Friday, June 06, 2014 Rating: 5

No comments:

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:

Powered by Blogger.