LSN: International Intellectual Property Protection (Topic)最新文献

{"title":"Determining the Term of Protection for Films: When Does a Film Fall Into The Public Domain in Europe?","authors":"C. Angelopoulos","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2145895","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2145895","url":null,"abstract":"Copyright is extremely important in the film and television sector. It is the legal basis for financial compensation for all creative work that goes into audiovisual productions and therefore for claims for remuneration for such contributions. Most claims continue after the death of the holders of such copyright and related rights and can be inherited. However, in contrast to tangible goods, intellectual property rights expire after a certain period of time, when audiovisual works enter the public domain and can be used by anyone without the need for a license, including online.This IRIS plus examines, in relation to the various relevant scenarios, when copyright protection for films and audiovisual works ends in the European Union, one of the world’s most economically powerful audiovisual markets.","PeriodicalId":362846,"journal":{"name":"LSN: International Intellectual Property Protection (Topic)","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120945479","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Public Domain","authors":"G. Greenleaf","doi":"10.4324/9780080927640-18","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080927640-18","url":null,"abstract":"This paper is the transcript of a speech given at a conference to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Australia’s Copyright Act 1968, held at Old Parliament House, Canberra, in 2009. It starts with the question “What rights do the public have to use works or other forms of creativity”. Four main categories of rights are identified: uses of works which are outside the exclusive rights of the copyright owner; uses of works where there is no copyright owner; the many different types of statutory rights that are given to members of the public to use works in different ways; and those defacto uses of the owner’s exclusive rights which, as a matter of practice, go unchallenged. These “public rights” are defined as all those aspects of copyright law and practice that provide the ability of the public to use works without obtaining a licence on terms that are set and changeable (even if only at the end of the licence term) by the copyright owner. The origins of these public rights are both global and national. The national influences are not unique to Australia, but some of them are unusual, like our long history of legal deposit requirements. In combination, Australian law is relatively inhospitable to the creation of public rights.What do we need to do to try to more effectively protect this whole range of public rights? First, those who are interested in some of these aspects of copyright law need to recognise that they have a common interest in all these aspects of public rights. If there is a common thread, perhaps it’s the recognition that all forms of creativity must draw on and rely upon previous creations, ‘standing on the shoulders of giants’. Second, we need to better articulate a set of principles on which the protection of public rights in copyright are based. Ten ‘Principles for Public Rights in Australian Copyright’ are proposed: 1. Balance2. Limits on exclusive rights3. Minimum term 4. Preservation of Australian publications5. Fair & flexible exceptions6. Fair compulsory licences7. Support for voluntary licensing8. Protection from technology & contracts9. Proportionality in enforcement10. Free/open access to publicly-funded contentThird, there is a need for a thorough-going law reform review of the Copyright Act, with its principal focus being the public rights side of copyright. Fourth, public rights need a peak body in Australia, and there may be a nucleus of such a public body in the Australian Digital Alliance. Finally, public rights need a good public image and perhaps a mascot. The best candidate is Norman Lindsay’s Magic Pudding: the inexhaustible self replenishing resource, similar to our public domain, on which further creativity can be built, non-rivalrous and inexhaustible.","PeriodicalId":362846,"journal":{"name":"LSN: International Intellectual Property Protection (Topic)","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132102548","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The TRIPS Agreement and an Experimental Use Exception for 'Research Tools'","authors":"Chris Dent","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2626323","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2626323","url":null,"abstract":"The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is central to the operation of the global patent system. One criticism of the Agreement is that it too focused on the rights of intellectual property holders. A key aspect of this concern is the manner in which scientists and other researchers can use patented inventions in their research efforts. It is clear that the Agreement allows for some limited exceptions to the rights granted by national statutes, however, there has been very little in-depth academic discussion of the limits of a TRIPS-compliant exception. The question at the core of this article is whether the TRIPS Agreement allows for a research use exception to be broad enough to include research with an invention — what loosely may be described as a ‘research tools exception’.","PeriodicalId":362846,"journal":{"name":"LSN: International Intellectual Property Protection (Topic)","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133810403","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Contentious Issues: Copyright Reform in the Age of Digital Technologies","authors":"S. Baird","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1520161","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1520161","url":null,"abstract":"Author offers a timely, sweeping and detailed survey of current events, public and public interest reaction to and media coverage of copyright reform efforts to address illegal file-sharing of copyrighted works. Prepared for the ongoing copyright reform consultation in Hong Kong, the article provides background on the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and WIPO Performances and Phonogram Treaty (WPPT) and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) with a particular focus on circumvention of technical protection measures (TPM) and fair use (fair dealing), and the DMCA Section 1201 Triennial Review. Against that background, the author surveys current reform efforts including \"graduated response\" (or \"three strikes and you are out\") proposals, including Internet Service Provider (ISP) liability and responsibilities, in the United Kingdon (including Digital Britain Report and subsequent government actions), New Zealand, Australia, South Korea, and elsewhere, events surrounding broader reform proposals in Canada, and those events in the EU with regard to copyright reform (with attention to the efforts to characterize internet access as a human right, including telecommunications act amendments), and in EU Member States including France (the enactment of the HADOPI law), Sweden (in which arrests and convictions of founders of the peer-to-peer Pirate Bay website have led to political action and supported the formation of the Pirate Party), tracing the incubation and initial successes of the Pirate Party in Sweden and Germany, and efforts to expand the party globally, The paper also looks at reaction to Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement negotiations, copyright term extension, and the Google Books settlement with publishers and authors. The author concludes that although there is notable public reaction in some jurisdictions, (1) copyright law has never been a populist area of law, and popular reaction should not be a barrier to good policy making and preservation of the rule of law, (2) reform is demanded by both creators and users, but changes to the law should be made in light of the distinction between user rights and user expectations, the latter being better met by the marketplace, and reforms should protect both the interests of copyright rights holders and the rights of the users of those copyrighted works (such as attention to due process with regard to legal procedures to restrict Internet access).","PeriodicalId":362846,"journal":{"name":"LSN: International Intellectual Property Protection (Topic)","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129963098","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Commercialization of Genetic Resources: Leveraging of Ex Situ Genetic Resources to Shape Downstream IP Protection","authors":"Dana Beldiman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2324417","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2324417","url":null,"abstract":"Ex situ collections that hold genetic materials operate as contractual points of articulation between countries of origin and recipients and/or prospective developers. In that capacity, collections are in a position both to negotiate clarification of Convention on Biological Diversity obligations and, by virtue of their control over biological materials, to impose IP-related conditions on recipients.This paper proposes the concept of a \"rebundling\" of IP rights: the prospective patentee would relinquish its entitlement to full exclusivity under patent law, in exchange for freedom to operate from a patent perspective plus access to other material recipients' technology. The \"rebundling\" could take the form of a patent pooling arrangement and would give multiple players a chance to participate in the market.","PeriodicalId":362846,"journal":{"name":"LSN: International Intellectual Property Protection (Topic)","volume":"432 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127844977","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Protection of Well-Known Trademarks in Malaysia: Compliant with Paris Convention, TRIPS and TPP?","authors":"Pankhuri Agarwal","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3704696","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3704696","url":null,"abstract":"The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (“TPP”) was concluded in New Zealand on February 3, 2016 by twelve countries, namely, Australia, Brunei, Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States of America and Vietnam. The TPP chapter on intellectual property, among other things, required the parties to provide protection for well-known trademarks. In wake of this there's a need to examine if the current protection for well-known trademarks in Malaysia is consistent with that mandated by TPP. Part II of this paper discusses the rationale behind providing special protection to trademarks that are well-known. Part III sets forth the standard of protection mandated by Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (“Paris Convention”) and the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS”) and then examine if Malaysia’s law on well-known marks in Malaysia fully complies with this standard and suggest amendments required if any. Part IV describes the level of protection required by TPP, examines if the current protection that Malaysia provides is consistent with these requirements and suggests changes in the law to resolve inconsistencies if any. In the process of assessing Malaysia’s compliance with these international conventions with respect to the protection of well-known marks, the law of other countries like Singapore and U.K. have been looked into. Also, the recommendations have been made keeping in mind the consideration that other traders in Malaysia are not unduly disadvantaged.","PeriodicalId":362846,"journal":{"name":"LSN: International Intellectual Property Protection (Topic)","volume":"144 2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133696888","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}