Search

The article is devoted to the definition of the peculiarities of observance in administrative proceedings of the principle of inadmissibility of abuse of procedural rights. The concept and essence of abuse of procedural rights in administrative proceedings are clarified, the meaning of the principle of inadmissibility of abuse of procedural rights is established. The legal basis of the principle of inadmissibility of abuse of procedural rights in administrative proceedings is investigated. Based on the analysis of the case law of the Supreme Court, the European Court of Human Rights established the content of the principle of inadmissibility of abuse of procedural rights. The opinion that the abuse of procedural rights is opposed to the conscientious abuse of procedural rights by the parties is substantiated. The author argues that the abuse of procedural rights may be recognized as actions or omissions of a party to the case, which are characterized by a sign of apparent legal legitimacy, but are used for the opposite or inconsistent with the pursuit of the relevant procedural right or obligation. Based on the analysis of the Constitution of Ukraine, international acts, laws of Ukraine and case law, it is proved that the main purpose of the principle of inadmissibility of abuse of procedural rights is to guarantee the fair use of their procedural rights. The author discloses the content of the fair use of the parties' procedural rights, which includes the use of the relevant rights for the purpose for which these rights are granted, and in the manner prescribed by procedural law, as well as conscientious performance of duties specified by law or court. The study made it possible to state that the introduction of the principle of inadmissibility of abuse of procedural rights is important for improving the effectiveness of administrative courts to protect the rights and interests of individuals, public interests and the interests of the state.

Unfiltered, unverified information flows freely on the web and is much more easily found and used than reliable sources. There are logical reasons for this, as quality, reliable information often c...

Andy Warhol Found for the Visual Arts, Inc v Goldsmith, 992 F.3d 99 (2d Cir 2021) The Second Circuit reversed the SDNY’s grant of summary judgment that Andy Warhol’s silk screen adaptation of a photographic portrait of entertainer Prince was a fair use; the 2d Circuit’s decision retreats both from its prior caselaw’s generous characterization of artistic reuse as ‘transformative’, and from the outcome-determinacy of a finding of ‘transformativeness’. The court also provided an important explanation of copyrightable authorship in photographs.

Many countries have restrictive copyright laws that prevent the reproduction of published works in accessible formats. In addition, these countries limit any fair use provisions to people with blindness, which excludes a variety of other print disabilities. In 2013, delegates from the World Intellectual Property Organization agreed to the Marrakesh Treaty, which has now been ratified by 79 countries. The Marrakesh Treaty focuses on expanding fair use exceptions in copyright law for reproducing works in accessible formats. Countries that ratify the Marrakesh Treaty agree to expand qualified individuals to include people with different kinds of reading disabilities. Countries that have ratified the treaty can also import or export accessible books. However, the treaty does not pressure countries to create inclusive policies for people with disabilities. Publishers are not affected by the Marrakesh Treaty and are allowed to continue producing their books in inaccessible formats. This paper explores the benefits and pitfalls of the Marrakesh Treaty and how the problem of inaccessible published works might be solved in the future.

This study describe the prescription problems in the case of Aisyah Istri Rasullullah song constitute infringement under Indonesian Copyright Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright; Karna Su Sayang song constitute infringement under Malaysian Copyright Law Act 332 1987 and the implementation of the law regarding the dispute settlement of the Aisyah Istri Rasulullah song and Karna Su Sayang song. The normative legal research method was used in this research. The results of this study shows that the Aisyah Istri Rasulullah song ingfrings Article 5 and 9 Indonesian Copyright Law stipulate that is prohibited to take the advantage of the copyright work without the owner permission and use it for commercial and Karna Su Sayang song infrings Section 13 and 36 Malaysian Copyright law; There are many similarities between the infringing copy and original work, there is a causal relationship between the infringing work and original works, and the infringing is an essential part of the original work. The recommendation for Indonesia’s and Malaysia’s lawmakers is to revise the Copyright law, so that the copyright infringement on YouTube related the use of fair use and pirates from uploading content will get the strengthen sanction. And create more comprehensive policy regarding the protection of song and Music in YouTube to made the enforcement of the policy to become more effective.

This is a preprint. Please review and cite LRSQ published version. Harvard’s Perma.cc offers the solution to linkrot—the phenomenon that citations in academic journals to web materials disappears with the passage of time, resulting in “broken links” and disappearance of material from the Web. This article will describe Perma.cc and outline the kinds of copyright issues that may arise, including heavy use of copyright statutes and caselaw. It will examine the kind of preservation use of copyrighted materials, with reference to fair use, and the library prerogatives as exceptions to the exclusive rights of authors of materials found on the Web. This analysis includes detailed analysis of “transformative use” and the four factors of 17 U.S.C. § 107. It will consider the liability of Perma.cc and participating libraries and institutions under theories of contributory infringement and vicarious liability, including as modified by 17 U.S.C. § 512(c) and (d), governing takedown notices. The article concludes that Perma.cc’s archival use is neither firmly grounded in existing fair use nor library exemptions, that Perma.cc, its “registrar” library and institutional affiliates, and its contributors have some (at least theoretical) exposure to risk, and that current copyright doctrines and law do not adequately address web archival storage for scholarly purposes. In doing so, it will question what the role of the scholarly Perma.cc citation ought to play—confirmation of scholarly propositions or preservation of and access to web materials. The material and conclusions in this article are important for legal authors, law review editors, and librarians (especially those who use, support, or are considering partnering with Perma.cc); so that they might better assess copyright compliance, especially when selecting materials for archiving, such as articles from news sites, blogs, and professional and scholarly papers, articles or books.

The new Chinese Trademark Law in 2019 set forth several statutory limitation of trademark right, including descriptive fair use. However, it does not provide any defense for the nominative fair use. Absence of the nominative fair use defense against trademark infringement, China courts apply improper standard to determine such nominative use, and it results in frustrating purpose of trademark law and expanding trademark holder right. After many cases had been determined subject to the doctrine of nominative fair use, the United States well established the doctrine of nominative fair use, also there are statue basis of nominative fair use in the United States federal dilution statute. As this article will demonstrate, Chinese Trademark Law should adopt a nominative fair use defense. The main reason for allowing such use is that such use can reduce customer search costs and promote free flow of information in the market which is a goal of trademark law. So far there is not any satisfactory solution. The article proposes adoption of US common law nominative fair use doctrine with China civil law styled.

Judge Pierre Leval’s commentary on the centrality of transformativeness in interpreting fair use decisively changed the way the copyright doctrine was interpreted. He leveraged the forum successful...

En la reforma parcial de la legislación de derechos de autor introducida en Colom­bia mediante la Ley 1915 de 2018 resalta la inclusión de la parodia como nueva limitación al derecho de autor. No obstante constituye una novedad en el ámbito legislativo nacional, la parodia ya tenía un fuerte arraigo en la cultura popular y mediática en el país, con alcances mucho más amplios que los que la doctrina y la jurisprudencia comparada suelen conceder a esta figura desde la perspectiva jurídica. Como se explicará en este artículo, la costumbre local concibe y acepta el uso de la parodia con un contenido que en muchos de sus ejemplos puede llegar a confrontar los usos honrados traspasando los límites del límite. En este escrito se realizará un análisis de la limitación de la parodia partiendo del texto normativo y procurando su interpretación con ayuda de la doctrina y jurisprudencia comparada de casos relevantes provenientes de los dos sistemas, el derecho de autor continental y el copyright estadounidense, con especial referencia al caso Deckmyn fallado por el Tribunal de Justicia Europeo en el año 2014.

This article analyses solutions proposed to the problem of orphan works. Orphan works are copyrighted works whose owners are difficult or impossible to identify and/or locate after carrying out a diligent search. The first and foremost aim of providing a solution for the problem of orphan works is to regain the goal of copyright protection, which is to enable the public to access and benefit from protected works. This article examines various solutions that have been adopted by different countries. It also analyses solutions that are under examination for introduction into law, such as limited liability in the United States. The authors reveal that the adoption of a solution by any country requires careful study to introduce the most appropriate approach. It was also found that solving the problem of orphan works would benefit both users and copyright holders.

Kenyan superior courts missed an opportunity to discuss and authoritatively settle the law on the nature of copyright in broadcasts and the effect of the must carry rule in digital broadcasting through their decisions in the Royal Media Services case. The Supreme Court, in arriving at its decision, failed to be guided by Kenyan law on copyright in broadcasts and the must carry rule in three key areas. First, the Supreme Court relied on the Philippines’ decision on the definition of a broadcasting organisation without considering the provisions of the Copyright Act (Chapter 130) and the Kenya Information and Communication Act (Chapter 411). Second, the Supreme Court relied on the doctrine of fair use as envisaged in the Philippines copyright regime, yet Section 26 of the Kenyan Copyright Act provides for fair dealing. Third, the Supreme Court relied on the public interest defence without discussing its basis and establishing its parameters, especially since public interest is not provided for in Copyright Act. The Supreme Court erred in determining that rebroadcasting of local broadcasts by subscription television licencees was not an infringement of copyright in broadcast.

The remix has emerged as a dominant force of creation in the digital and Internet age. The solutions under current copyright law such as fair use as well as voluntary, compulsory and public licenci...

El objeto de este proyecto es hallar con certeza cuál es el alcance y la configuración actual de los límites a los derechos de autor, analizando en primer lugar su origen, y abordando después las principales regulaciones de esta figura en Europa y España., The aim of this project is to establish with certainty the scope and current configuration of the limits to copyright, firstly by analysing its origin, and then by addressing the main regulations of this figure in Europe and Spain., Máster Universitario en Acceso a la Profesión de Abogado (M155)

Like many academic libraries, the University of Central Florida (UCF) Libraries has faced the difficult challenge of ensuring access to information and supporting the research, scholarship, and teaching needs of faculty, staff, and students during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. Copyright and licensing matters have played a key role as the UCF Libraries has helped faculty and students navigate the rapid transition from face-to-face courses to online and conducting academic work in a wholly online environment. This article provides a case study of how the UCF Libraries developed an expanded suite of copyright support services and resources in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It will explore how each of these services or resources provided specific support to faculty and students in teaching and learning. Services and resources developed in consultation with the Office of General Counsel include a detailed research guide with information about remote access to resources, including temporary access to licensed content from publishers; a series of professional development online workshops on topics such as copyright, fair use, and emergency circumstances and library support for course materials; and additional opportunities for individual consultation support through virtual office hours and other modes of communication, such as chat, email, and phone. The aim of this article is to provide academic libraries with examples of copyright services from a large metropolitan library during COVID-19 so that they can be used as a model when implementing copyright support at their respective institutions during these exigent circumstances and beyond.

This study compares the copyright and use policy statements posted on the websites of the special collections of Association of Research Libraries member libraries. In spring 2018, 99 academic special collections websites were viewed, and data was collected based on the following: 1) presence and content of a general copyright statement; 2) mention of copyright owners besides the special collections; 3) presence and accuracy of statements regarding fair use and public domain; 4) policies for patron-made copies; 5) whether the special collections required its permission and/or the copyright owner’s permission to publish; 6) whether any use or license fees were charged and how clearly fees were presented. Authors analyzed whether these policies reflect copyright law or went beyond it, unnecessarily restricting the use of materials or imposing fees where rights are in question. A majority of the sites included general copyright statements, mentioned other copyright owners, and mentioned fair use, but only a minority mentioned the public domain. Just more than half restricted how patrons could use patron-made copies. About half required the special collections’ permission to publish a copy, and a fifth said any third-party owner’s permission was also required for publication.

This article examines the implication of Copyright Law and Book Law implementation of the service in the library. The research method used is normative juridical legal. Thecorrelation between the Book Law, Law on Handover of Print and Recorded Worksand the Library Law, both are lex specialist derogate generalist of the CopyrightLaw or not, according to the author is the adoption or depiction of the fair use andfair dealing doctrine as which is the social function of copyright. The CopyrightLaw provides protection for Author and Copyright Holder with exclusive rights tobe exploited. Related to the Law on Handover of Print and Record Works whichgives the obligation of the Author or Copyright Holder to deposit their work for thepurpose of preservation and other social purposes to the library which is regulatedin the Library Law

This case note examines the long‐standing litigation against Georgia State University in relation to the posting, by faculty and library staff, of unauthorised copies of book extracts on the University's electronic reserves and virtual learning environment. The central question in this litigation has been whether these acts of copying fall within the fair use doctrine in US copyright law. In answering this, a key question for the US courts – and one relevant to other jurisdictions with free exceptions for education, such as the UK – has been whether existing and potential licensing activity is relevant to the question of whether an exception applies. This case note discusses how market effect has been analysed in Georgia State, including the recent rejection by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit of a strongly empirical approach to market harm.

This Article presents an empirical study of digital sampling’s effect on the sales of sampled songs and — based on the collected data — argues that a reassessment of fair use in this area is needed. To conduct the research, a group of previously sampled songs was identified and sales information for these works collected. The analysis found, to a 99.99% degree of statistical significance, sales of sampled songs increased after being repurposed in a new work. The Supreme Court instructs that the most important consideration in analyzing fair use is the effect on the market for the original. Evaluating a set of songs sampled by works appearing in the Billboard Music Year End Charts for 2006-2015 found increases in sales for the earlier works post-sampling. These gains were enhanced where the sample included lyrics from the original or was pervasively used throughout the new song. Findings of this nature favor judicial determination that sampling constitutes a fair use (and thus no license is needed), but they are not conclusive. In evaluating fair use, courts must also review the influence that a new work has on extant licensing markets to create derivatives of the original. Thus, to the extent a market for licensing copyrighted songs properly exists, influence on this market should be considered in addressing sampling and fair use. This paper argues that the current sample-licensing market is a product of aberrant anti-sampling caselaw and a want of relevant information (such as the data in this study) which incented risk-averse actors to purchase unnecessary licenses. Evaluating digital sampling and copyright law through this lens warrants a whole-cloth review of whether the practice is a fair use. Based on evidence provided herein, this article asserts that sampling should be a presumptive fair use in certain instances that maximize the new work’s capacity to increase sales of the original. Such a presumption furthers the goal of encouraging creative activity without hindering the copyright owner’s capacity to financially gain from their work. Lastly, while the genesis of this investigation was application of the fair use doctrine to sampling, the findings are applicable outside this limited purpose. The article applies its results in the realm of private law through a law and strategy lens. Forward thinking music firms should reframe their approach to sample licensing to achieve a competitive advantage. This goal can be achieved by deviating from the norm of zealous sample policing, and instead offering costless sample licenses to maximize the free advertising and increased sales associated with therewith.

As the result of technological, cultural and social developments, continental copyright law is now faced with a need for greater flexibility in the implementation of its exceptions. In order to introduce such flexibility, some propose introducing a mechanism similar to American fair use. Others recommend a broader solicitation of the fundamental rights and freedoms. This article sets out to analyse the way in which the French system of exceptions is inspired, or could be better inspired, by British fair dealing and, more broadly, by standards such as the “rules of the genre”, “brief quotations” and the “three-step test”.

Copyrighted works are greatly entwined with the concept of the sharing economy because of their status as informational public goods. Unlike commercial sharing models that address tangible goods such as bikes and houses, the sharing of which is limited by their physical nature, sharing models for intangible copyrighted works such as Google Books and live game webcasting must account for the comparatively unfettered ability for these to be shared. Accordingly, these models are more focused on exploiting such works to their full commercial potential. However, these sharing models are to a large extent based on the unauthorised exploitation of copyrighted works and will be unworkable if the related copyright issues cannot be solved. The interest that copyright owners have in exclusivity must thus be balanced with the public's interest in further exploitation of copyrighted works. Article 22 of the Copyright Law of China outlines an exhaustive list of copyright exceptions; such a restrictive list is incompatible with the sharing economy. The Chinese courts have realised this problem and have gone beyond the law in their judgments, taking a cue from their US counterparts. However, many of these decisions appear to be inconsistent with one another. To address the aforementioned problems, this paper examines the latest proposed amendment to the Copyright Law of China and proposes several legislative and judicial actions that could help promote the sharing economy. At the legislative level, enacting legislation based on a refined open-ended fair use model is necessary to promote the development of the sharing economy. At the judicial level, Chinese courts should employ the concept of transformative use to correctly interpret legislation based on the proposed open-ended model. With transformative use as the cornerstone of copyright policy, the public gains the freedom to share others’ works, participate in the innovation process, and create works with new value. Moreover, authors would retain an incentive to create works under such a legal regime because market substitution will not occur if a work is used for a different expressive purpose than that for which the work was originally created. Thus, a balance can be achieved between promoting the sharing economy and protecting the exclusivity of copyright in China.

Courts have recently clarified some aspects of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act safe harbor system, yet other aspects remain hazy. In this haze, ISPs are incentivized to over-block content, and...

This article considers the quotation exception to copyright infringement under EU and UK law. It challenges the broad interpretation of the exception offered by academic commentators to date, as ap...

The copyright status of the fictional universes that form the foundation of many interactive and conventional entertainment franchises is unclear, making it difficult to determine how to assess copyright infringement claims when the universe is appropriated for use by an unauthorized work. A recent American case, Paramount Pictures v. Axanar Productions, represents one of the only known examples of such a case that does not involve the corresponding use of major plot elements or characters from within the main franchise works. This paper uses the Paramount Pictures v. Axanar Productions case as an example of the effect that decisions about how to identify the infringed work have on both the substantial similarity and fair use inquiries. The aggregation approach adopted by the court is critiqued, and an alternative approach – treating the fictional universe itself as a copyright protected work – is suggested as an alternative consistent with existing law. However, even that approach is likely to have potential pitfalls. Ultimately, those interested in copyright as applied to multi-work franchises should be aware that this is an area of lingering uncertainty, with both the nature and the extent of the copyright protection afforded to fictional universes undefined at the current time.

In York University v The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (2020), the Federal Court of Appeal was confronted with two issues at the heart of ongoing debates in Canadian copyright law. First, whether tariffs of copyright collective societies are mandatory. Second, and the main focus of this case comment, how should the fair dealing doctrine be interpreted with respect to the purpose of education. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the Federal Court decision that York University Fair dealing Guidelines did not meet the fair dealing requirements in copyright law. This case comment highlights how the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal failed to consider important contextual elements of York University Guidelines that might have led to different conclusions. It provides some guidance on how fair dealing for the purpose of education should be interpreted. While fair dealing has been characterized as a “user right” by the Supreme Court of Canada in CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada (2004) and subsequent decisions, this case comment points to some of the shortcomings of fair dealing as a vehicle to promote greater access to educational materials. It concludes by highlighting the challenges that lie ahead on the application of fair dealing to educational institutions, and by broadening the debate of access to educational materials beyond the fair dealing doctrine.

This chapter summarizes the current state of copyright laws in the United States and European Union that most affect Digital Humanities research, namely the fair use doctrine in the US and research exceptions in Europe, including the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, which has been finally adopted in 2019. This summary begins with a description of recent copyright advances most relevant to DH research, and finishes with an analysis of a significant remaining legal hurdle which DH researchers face: how do fair use and research exceptions deal with the critical issue of circumventing technological protection measures (TPM, a.k.a. DRM). Our discussion of the lawful means of obtaining TPM-protected material may contribute to both current DH research and planning decisions and inform future stakeholders and lawmakers of the need to allow TPM circumvention for academic research.

Accidental infringement of copyright is a pervasive and largely ignored problem. In the twenty-first century, it has become increasingly easy to infringe copyright unintentionally. When such accidental infringement occurs, copyright law holds the user strictly liable. Prior literature has questioned whether the strict liability standard is normatively defensible. In particular, prior literature has asked whether the strict liability standard ought to be reformed for economic reasons. This Article examines the accidental infringement problem from a new perspective. It considers whether it is fair to hold copyright users strictly liable for accidental infringements of copyright. This Article argues that the strict liability standard is not fair because it results in copyright users being held liable for accidents for which they are not morally responsible. Using the moral philosophy literature on responsibility, this Article explores our intuitions surrounding copyright’s liability standard in order to better understand why strict liability in this context seems “harsh” and “inequitable.” In turn, this provides an argument for reforming copyright’s liability rule and adopting a negligence standard. This Article then argues that, within the United States, the proposed reform to copyright’s liability rule should be accomplished by modifications to the existing fair use doctrine.

This paper argues that the parody provisions in American and Canadian laws need to be reformed to stimulate creativity and enable free expressions.

This article highlights the importance of an analysis of copyright law from a human development perspective. Drawing on Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum’s Capabilities Approach, it outlines why copyright scholarship and policymaking should address human capabilities. It also explores several vital questions that a human development approach to copyright raises, including questions about the distributional effects of copyright law. It examines Mary Sue fan fiction through the lens of the Capabilities Approach to illustrate how the approach differs from the standard utilitarian approach to copyright. Furthermore, it argues that several factors associated with a country’s level of development, particularly its social, economic, and institutional contexts, affect the relationship between copyright and human capabilities. Therefore, rather than making broad generalizations about whether or not copyright law is good or bad for human development, it concludes that aspects of copyright law can enhance human development in the presence of certain other factors (such as strong indigenous industries and institutions). Conversely, aspects of copyright law can have a significant negative impact on human capabilities in certain environments, such as a weak institutional environment, or a socio-economic environment that is fraught with inequality. To illustrate this point, the article examines the issue of piracy through the lens of the Capabilities Approach. Resumo Este artigo destaca a necessidade de uma análise da legislação de direitos autorais a partir da perspectiva do desenvolvimento humano. Com base na abordagem das capacidades de Amartya Sen e Martha Nussbaum, o artigo descreve por que os estudos acadêmicos e as políticas públicas sobre direitos autorais devem abordar as capacidades humanas. São exploradas também várias questões vitais que uma abordagem baseada no desenvolvimento humano para os direitos autorais suscita, incluindo aquelas sobre os efeitos distributivos da lei de direitos autorais. Examina-se a fanfiction de Mary Sue pelas lentes da abordagem das capacidades, para ilustrar como esta difere da abordagem utilitarista padrão dos direitos autorais. Além disso, argumenta-se que vários fatores associados ao nível de desenvolvimento de um país, particularmente seu contexto social, econômico e institucional, afetam a relação entre direitos autorais e capacidades humanas. Portanto, em vez de fazer amplas generalizações sobre se a lei de direitos autorais é boa ou ruim para o desenvolvimento humano, conclui-se que aspectos da legislação de direitos autorais podem melhorar o desenvolvimento humano na presença de certos fatores (como fortes indústrias e instituições locais). Por outro lado, certos aspectos das legislações de direitos autorais podem ter um impacto negativo significativo sobre as capacidades humanas em certos ambientes, como em um ambiente institucional fraco ou socioeconomicamente repleto de desigualdades. Para ilustrar esse ponto, o artigo examina a questão da pirataria pelas lentes da abordagem das capacidades.