Lawtify Premium: Public。资源。Org (T-185/19),对标准化和公众获取法律的司法看法

Alexandru Soroiu, Mateus Correia de Carvalho
{"title":"Lawtify Premium: Public。资源。Org (T-185/19),对标准化和公众获取法律的司法看法","authors":"Alexandru Soroiu, Mateus Correia de Carvalho","doi":"10.7590/187479822x16589299241754","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Public. Resource. Org, the General Court ('GC') was called upon to balance the tension between the copyright claimed by a European standardisation organisation ('ESO') over four harmonised standards; and the request of free access to those standards, made by two NGOs. The GC, privileging\n the former, ruled (1) that ESOs are private bodies able to legitimately license and sell their products; (2) that harmonised standards are the result of creative and original work performed by ESOs and, therefore, worthy of copyright protection, and (3) that privileging the access to the content\n of the standards could be prejudicial to the ESO's business model. In this context, this case note argues that, whatever the outcome of the case could be, the GC failed to give adequate consideration to (1) the constitutional role and public regulatory functions that harmonised standards fulfill;\n (2) the extent to which harmonised standards may actually be considered a product of free, creative, and orginal choices of their authors, and (3) whether harmonised standards in fact are a substantial part of the work and income of ESOs and whether they are not already sufficiently compensated\n for their work.","PeriodicalId":294114,"journal":{"name":"Review of European Administrative Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lawtify Premium: Public. Resource. Org (T-185/19), a Judicial Take on Standardisation and Public Access to Law\",\"authors\":\"Alexandru Soroiu, Mateus Correia de Carvalho\",\"doi\":\"10.7590/187479822x16589299241754\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Public. Resource. Org, the General Court ('GC') was called upon to balance the tension between the copyright claimed by a European standardisation organisation ('ESO') over four harmonised standards; and the request of free access to those standards, made by two NGOs. The GC, privileging\\n the former, ruled (1) that ESOs are private bodies able to legitimately license and sell their products; (2) that harmonised standards are the result of creative and original work performed by ESOs and, therefore, worthy of copyright protection, and (3) that privileging the access to the content\\n of the standards could be prejudicial to the ESO's business model. In this context, this case note argues that, whatever the outcome of the case could be, the GC failed to give adequate consideration to (1) the constitutional role and public regulatory functions that harmonised standards fulfill;\\n (2) the extent to which harmonised standards may actually be considered a product of free, creative, and orginal choices of their authors, and (3) whether harmonised standards in fact are a substantial part of the work and income of ESOs and whether they are not already sufficiently compensated\\n for their work.\",\"PeriodicalId\":294114,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of European Administrative Law\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of European Administrative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7590/187479822x16589299241754\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of European Administrative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7590/187479822x16589299241754","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在公共场合。资源。组织,普通法院(“GC”)被要求平衡欧洲标准化组织(“ESO”)在四个协调标准上声称的版权之间的紧张关系;以及两个非政府组织提出的免费使用这些标准的要求。最高法院给予前者特权,裁定(1)eso是能够合法许可和销售其产品的私人机构;(2)统一标准是ESO创造性和原创性工作的结果,因此值得版权保护,以及(3)特权访问标准内容可能会损害ESO的商业模式。在此背景下,本案例说明认为,无论案件的结果如何,政府谘询委员会都没有充分考虑(1)统一标准所担当的宪制角色和公共规管功能;(2)协调标准在多大程度上可以被认为是其作者自由、创造性和原创性选择的产物,以及(3)协调标准实际上是否是eso工作和收入的重要组成部分,以及他们的工作是否已经得到足够的补偿。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Lawtify Premium: Public. Resource. Org (T-185/19), a Judicial Take on Standardisation and Public Access to Law
In Public. Resource. Org, the General Court ('GC') was called upon to balance the tension between the copyright claimed by a European standardisation organisation ('ESO') over four harmonised standards; and the request of free access to those standards, made by two NGOs. The GC, privileging the former, ruled (1) that ESOs are private bodies able to legitimately license and sell their products; (2) that harmonised standards are the result of creative and original work performed by ESOs and, therefore, worthy of copyright protection, and (3) that privileging the access to the content of the standards could be prejudicial to the ESO's business model. In this context, this case note argues that, whatever the outcome of the case could be, the GC failed to give adequate consideration to (1) the constitutional role and public regulatory functions that harmonised standards fulfill; (2) the extent to which harmonised standards may actually be considered a product of free, creative, and orginal choices of their authors, and (3) whether harmonised standards in fact are a substantial part of the work and income of ESOs and whether they are not already sufficiently compensated for their work.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信