{"title":"框架文本和图像:数字单一市场中的批判和死后版本","authors":"Cristiana Sappa, Bohdan Widła","doi":"10.1007/s40319-023-01394-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Although Art. 14 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive) was introduced mostly to deal with issues connected with non-original photographs of public domain works, it also impacts the protection of posthumous and critical editions. Whenever a work of visual art that belongs in the public domain becomes the object of an edition, Art. 14 CDSM Directive excludes its protection under neighbouring rights. In the case of complex works, embedding original contributions belonging to different genres, Art. 14 CDSM Directive applies only if visual elements are predominant in the given work and as long as it is not possible to exploit the work of visual art without using other contributions embedded in the complex work. At the same time, Art. 14 CDSM Directive indirectly confirms that an edition may be protected by copyright if it is original. The particularly low threshold of originality required makes the presence of copyright quite common in three-dimensional and two-dimensional reproductions of works in the public domain that can qualify as editions. Then, with reference to textual works, the limits of originality are challenged: although there is little doubt that the person preparing a critical edition faces choices, they may not necessarily be free and creative. Editorial interference with the text can be compared to findings made by historians during their research and, as such, remain unprotected by copyright. Such an edition may still be protected within the regime of the neighbouring right in those few member states that decided to implement it. Eventually, as is the case nowadays with many aspects of human activity, the future of IP protection of various editions will become murkier due to the advent of new artificial intelligence technologies. For example, models are already being developed to automate the arduous and difficult process of transcription of manuscripts, as well as to ensure appropriate restoration of works of visual art. In particular, the further rapid development of artificial intelligence may cause the neighbouring rights in editions to become at least partially obsolete if the process of preparation of editions becomes devoid of human input. And this would have an impact on the copyright presence as well.","PeriodicalId":44949,"journal":{"name":"IIC-INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND COMPETITION LAW","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Framing Texts and Images: Critical and Posthumous Editions in the Digital Single Market\",\"authors\":\"Cristiana Sappa, Bohdan Widła\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40319-023-01394-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Although Art. 14 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive) was introduced mostly to deal with issues connected with non-original photographs of public domain works, it also impacts the protection of posthumous and critical editions. Whenever a work of visual art that belongs in the public domain becomes the object of an edition, Art. 14 CDSM Directive excludes its protection under neighbouring rights. In the case of complex works, embedding original contributions belonging to different genres, Art. 14 CDSM Directive applies only if visual elements are predominant in the given work and as long as it is not possible to exploit the work of visual art without using other contributions embedded in the complex work. At the same time, Art. 14 CDSM Directive indirectly confirms that an edition may be protected by copyright if it is original. The particularly low threshold of originality required makes the presence of copyright quite common in three-dimensional and two-dimensional reproductions of works in the public domain that can qualify as editions. Then, with reference to textual works, the limits of originality are challenged: although there is little doubt that the person preparing a critical edition faces choices, they may not necessarily be free and creative. Editorial interference with the text can be compared to findings made by historians during their research and, as such, remain unprotected by copyright. Such an edition may still be protected within the regime of the neighbouring right in those few member states that decided to implement it. Eventually, as is the case nowadays with many aspects of human activity, the future of IP protection of various editions will become murkier due to the advent of new artificial intelligence technologies. For example, models are already being developed to automate the arduous and difficult process of transcription of manuscripts, as well as to ensure appropriate restoration of works of visual art. In particular, the further rapid development of artificial intelligence may cause the neighbouring rights in editions to become at least partially obsolete if the process of preparation of editions becomes devoid of human input. And this would have an impact on the copyright presence as well.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44949,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IIC-INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND COMPETITION LAW\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IIC-INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND COMPETITION LAW\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-023-01394-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IIC-INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND COMPETITION LAW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-023-01394-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Framing Texts and Images: Critical and Posthumous Editions in the Digital Single Market
Abstract Although Art. 14 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive) was introduced mostly to deal with issues connected with non-original photographs of public domain works, it also impacts the protection of posthumous and critical editions. Whenever a work of visual art that belongs in the public domain becomes the object of an edition, Art. 14 CDSM Directive excludes its protection under neighbouring rights. In the case of complex works, embedding original contributions belonging to different genres, Art. 14 CDSM Directive applies only if visual elements are predominant in the given work and as long as it is not possible to exploit the work of visual art without using other contributions embedded in the complex work. At the same time, Art. 14 CDSM Directive indirectly confirms that an edition may be protected by copyright if it is original. The particularly low threshold of originality required makes the presence of copyright quite common in three-dimensional and two-dimensional reproductions of works in the public domain that can qualify as editions. Then, with reference to textual works, the limits of originality are challenged: although there is little doubt that the person preparing a critical edition faces choices, they may not necessarily be free and creative. Editorial interference with the text can be compared to findings made by historians during their research and, as such, remain unprotected by copyright. Such an edition may still be protected within the regime of the neighbouring right in those few member states that decided to implement it. Eventually, as is the case nowadays with many aspects of human activity, the future of IP protection of various editions will become murkier due to the advent of new artificial intelligence technologies. For example, models are already being developed to automate the arduous and difficult process of transcription of manuscripts, as well as to ensure appropriate restoration of works of visual art. In particular, the further rapid development of artificial intelligence may cause the neighbouring rights in editions to become at least partially obsolete if the process of preparation of editions becomes devoid of human input. And this would have an impact on the copyright presence as well.
期刊介绍:
The International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC) is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition. Founded in 1970, IIC is one of the most respected journals in the fields of intellectual property and competition law, presenting contributions with the highest standards of academic research.
IIC publishes research on the most significant developments in IP and competition law from around the world. Our aim is to provide a European perspective on these important topics to an international audience.
The journal adopts a multidisciplinary approach and offers a platform for opposing ideas, providing for rich debate on a host of current IP and competition law issues.
The journal’s central feature is high-quality authored materials including articles, editorials, opinions, reports, case notes and book reviews. We also translate and publish the leading decisions from jurisdictions worldwide, including many non-mainstream jurisdictions.
The quality of IIC is grounded on a more than 50-year history of publication. Each volume builds on this tradition of academic excellence. Our established foundation provides a unique platform upon which our readers are able to research and explore emerging developments in IP and competition law in the decades to come.