Do YouTube and cyberlocker Uploaded directly perform copyright-restricted acts? And, following from
this: what is the relationship between the InfoSoc right of communication to the public and Article 17 of the DSM Directive? At what conditions is the hosting safe harbour available? And what about intermediary injunctions?
There is no need to say that the ruling is keenly awaited and will have far-reaching implications.
Last year, The IPKat and the British Literary and Artistic Copyright Association (BLACA) joined forces to deliver Episode 1: a live webinar discussing the Advocate General’s Opinion in these joined referrals.
Now, it’s high time for Episode 2.
Together with the Institute for Intellectual Property and Market Law (IFIM) at Stockholm University, The IPKat and BLACA are delighted to announce that they will host a rapid response panel discussion in the afternoon of Thursday, 1 July to analyse the content and meaning of the CJEU judgment.
Moderated once again by Jeremy Blum (Bristows), the panel will feature copyright experts and speakers with direct knowledge of the background national and CJEU proceedings. They are (in alphabetical order):
- Ursula Feindor-Schmidt (Lausen)
- Georg Nolte (Google)
- Lauri Rechardt (IFPI)
- Julia Reda (Gesellschaft für Freiheitscrechte)
- Eleonora Rosati (The IPKat and IFIM)
Attendance is free, but registration is required. To register, please click here.
Joint IPKat-BLACA-IFIM live webinar on CJEU YouTube/Cyando judgment on 1 July: join us!
Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati
on
Wednesday, May 12, 2021
Rating:
Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati
on
Wednesday, May 12, 2021
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
Posts
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: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html