Search

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.

This chapter discusses the origins of the Berne Convention. Although the network of bilateral copyright arrangements in force prior to 1886 was extensive, the protection which this offered to authors in countries other than their own was far from comprehensive or systematic. Apart from the early treaties with the German and Italian states, multilateral copyright agreements in the true sense took time to emerge. Of these, the Berne Convention was to be the first, and the most important. However, the need for a more uniform and broader-based kind of international protection had been recognized some time before this by authors and artists. The chapter deals with this development, and the different stages by which this early recognition was eventually transformed into the Berne Convention.

This chapter examines the changes which have been made to the Berne Convention from its inception in 1886 until the adoption of its last revised text in Paris in 1971. Article 17 of the 1886 Act provided for periodic revisions, and these (apart from the first and last) have occurred at roughly twenty-year intervals during this period: in 1896, 1908, 1928, 1948, 1967, and then, finally, 1971. There was also one minor addition made in 1914, when, at Canada’s request, the UK Government drafted a protocol permitting the government of a Berne Union country to restrict protection in the case of authors from non-Union countries which failed to protect the authors from the Union country ‘in an adequate manner’. Since 1971, developments concerning the Berne Convention have largely happened ‘off stage’, or in different arenas, such as the World Trade Organization (established in 1994). Nonetheless, in this post-1971 period, the Convention has continued to be the centrepiece of the international copyright system and, in many ways, has become even more critical than it was in the pre-1971 period.

This chapter begins by describing the articulation of rights in national legislation and under the Berne Convention. Each successive revision of the Convention has seen the addition of a new right or rights. The original Berne Act contained exclusive rights only in relation to the making and public performance of translations of works. Rights in relation to cinematographic adaptations and the mechanical reproduction of musical works were added at the time of the Berlin Revision; broadcasting and moral rights at Rome; public performance and recitation and adaptation, together with the droit de suite, at Brussels; and reproduction at Stockholm. The present Act now contains provisions for the protection of both moral and pecuniary rights. Meanwhile, in addition to filling in some of the Berne Convention gaps, later multilateral instruments have endeavoured to address the challenges of digital communications. The chapter then focuses on moral rights in the Berne Convention, and their treatment in later multilateral instruments. Moral rights have been recognized in the Berne Convention since the Rome Act; they are now protected under article 6bis of the Paris Act.

This chapter reviews the general rules of public international law regarding the interpretation of treaties, and analyses their application to the Berne Convention and related agreements. It begins with a consideration of matters of terminology, and then looks at the overall structure of the Berne Convention. The chapter then examines specific problems of interpretation and the rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 (the VCLT) as applied to the Berne text. It also works through the interplay of the Berne Convention and later texts, specifically the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994 (TRIPs Agreement) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty (WCT). Finally, the chapter considers the concept of ‘Union’, which is a continuing Leitmotif throughout the text of the Convention and the meaning of which remains tantalizingly elusive.

This chapter traces the development of international copyright relations. Although the legal theories underlying copyright protection differ greatly from country to country, the origins of this form of protection in each are strikingly similar: the grant of exclusive printing rights or privileges which were made to printers and booksellers by national authorities soon after the introduction of printing in Europe in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The chapter then looks at the Act of Anne in the UK, which granted to authors and their assigns a short period of statutory protection for their books, as well as French copyright law. Despite the broad similarities, great differences still remained between the provisions of the various national copyright laws. The chapter provides a brief comparative survey of these national measures, considering the kinds of works protected, the duration of protection, the rights recognized, the restrictions on the exercise of these rights, and the formalities required for protection. It also addresses the problem of international piracy of foreign works.

This chapter explores the development of the reproduction, adaptation, and distribution rights in the Berne Convention through to the 1971 Paris Revision. The reproduction right is one of the most basic, and earliest-recognized, rights in copyright. The author’s reproduction rights under Berne are not limited, however, to the exclusive right to copy the work in its original form. They also extend to complete or partial reproductions of the work into other forms, and thus encompass the broad realm of adaptations. Although reproduction and adaptation rights concern the incorporeal work of authorship, Berne also provides for certain rights pertaining to the physical copies. These tend to be specific to certain categories of works: distribution of cinematographic works (articles 14(1), 14bis(1)), resale right (droit de suite) in works of art and manuscripts (article 14ter), but article 16 provides for a general right to seize infringing copies imported into Union countries. The chapter then provides an analysis of the impact of later treaties, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994 (TRIPs Agreement), and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty (WCT), on the reproduction and distribution rights.

This chapter addresses articles 7 and 7bis, which concern the duration of copyright protection. The first permissive rule concerning duration of protection appeared in the Berlin Act (article 7(1)), and was made absolute and binding in the Brussels Act. It was accompanied by a number of supplementary rules relating to the term of protection in specific cases. Duration is one of the most important issues in international copyright relations, and in this respect the Berne Convention’s achievements have been impressive so far as impact at the national level is concerned. It is also a striking instance where the Convention has had an educative effect in bringing about such changes in the domestic laws of Union countries, rather than simply reflecting changes that had already occurred in those laws. But where the Convention had once set the prevailing (and generous) minimum term, more recently, many of the Union’s most significant member states, including the countries of the European Union and the USA, have adopted yet longer terms. The resulting disharmony has prompted bilateral negotiations as Union countries who have implemented longer terms seek to persuade those who have yet to exceed the Conventional minimum.

This chapter identifies the limitations and exceptions in the rights of authors under the Berne Convention. Although the need for limits on copyright protection is generally recognized, there have been lengthy debates throughout the history of the Convention as to how these are to be set. In ‘machinery terms’, this can be done in three main ways: subject matter limitations; restrictions on use; and uses subject to payment of compensation. The Berne Convention contains instances of all three kinds of provision. For the most part, these are not made mandatory, but are left as matters for the national legislation of member states to ‘permit’. The chapter then focuses on permitted uses and compulsory licences. It examines each of the relevant articles in turn, beginning with the most general, which deals with exceptions to the reproduction right (article 9(2)), then with specific exceptions, such as rights of quotation (article 10(1)), uses for teaching purposes (article 10(2)), press usage (articles 10bis(1) and (2), and 2bis(2)), reservations and conditions on the exercise of mechanical reproduction rights under article 13, and conditions for the exercise of broadcasting and other rights under article 11bis. The chapter also considers how the question of limitations and exceptions has been taken up and extended in the TRIPs Agreement and the WIPO Copyright Treaty.

This chapter studies the rights of communication to the public under the Berne Convention. It considers these rights under two main headings: public performance (including public recitation), in a place where the public is present, and communication to the public by transmission, through such means as broadcasting, and dissemination by wire, including cable and the Internet. Articles 11, 11bis, 11ter, 14, and 14bis deal with certain of the author’s pecuniary rights, that is, some of the ways in which they can exploit their work. None of the later multilateral instruments affect the scope of the Berne Convention provisions on public performance. Specifically, article 8 of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty (WCT) limits its focus to communication to a remote public by transmission.

This chapter investigates the various changes that have occurred in the circumstances surrounding the Berne Convention. A number of influences are to be seen at play here, but two have been particularly crucial. First, there has been the continuing effect of technological change, in particular the advent of digital technologies and the subsequent development of networked communications and the Internet. Second, there has been the linking of protection of intellectual property rights with trade issues, culminating in the adoption of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights in 1994 (TRIPs Agreement) as one of the annexed agreements of the newly established World Trade Organization (WTO). Underlying the adoption of the TRIPs Agreement, in turn, was widespread dissatisfaction with the way that existing intellectual property rights agreements such as Berne dealt with questions of enforcement and the absence therein of any effective dispute-resolution mechanism between states. Both these issues are closely connected, but for the purposes of exposition it is helpful to deal with the way they were resolved in the different forums of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and Berne, and then of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the WTO.

This chapter reviews the regime set out in the Appendix to the Paris Act of the Berne Convention which contains special provisions regarding developing countries. In essence, these allow those countries to adopt compulsory translation and reproduction licences, subject to certain conditions. Compliance with the Appendix is required as a condition of adherence to the World Trade Organization (WTO) under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994 (TRIPs Agreement) as well as under the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty (WCT), regardless of whether the country in question is a Berne member. The chapter then looks at how the relationship between the Berne Convention and developing countries raises difficult and complex issues. It also considers the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled 2013 (the Marrakesh VIP Treaty or MT).

This chapter focuses on issues of signal importance to the international protection of works of authorship, but concerning which the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works is at best enigmatic. The Convention declares that its ‘protection shall operate for the benefit of the author and his successors in title’, but the Convention neither designates who is an ‘author’ nor establishes general rules concerning the transfer of title. As a result, it generally leaves the determination of authorship, ownership, and transfer of rights to national law. The chapter first explores the lacunae in the Conventional treatment of individual authors and joint works. It then addresses the special treatment the Convention reserves for the ‘makers’ of cinematographic works. The chapter considers the extent to which, despite the lack of explicit provisions on authorship, some definition of authorship may be inferred from the provisions on cinematographic works and from the treaty as a whole. Finally, it reviews questions of ownership and transfer of copyright, with particular attention to the elaborate rules set out for cinematographic works.

This chapter evaluates the international agreements that have sought to provide protection to the categories of ‘non-authors’ whose productions may nevertheless be seen as closely relating to, or neighbouring upon, the traditional categories of authors’ rights. It begins with an account of the first major treaty in this area, the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisation Organizations 1961 (the Rome Convention), and then considers the international agreements that have followed in the wake of Rome. These include Phonograms Convention 1971, the Satellites Convention 1974, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Performances and Phonograms Treaty 1996 (WPPT), the Beijing Treaty on Audio-visual Performances 2012 (BTAP), and the relevant provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994 (TRIPs Agreement). The chapter also looks at a number of other agreements touching upon authors’ and neighbouring rights. Several of these have never entered into force or have not yet reached the stage of a final text.

This chapter discusses the administrative and financial arrangements of the Berne Union. Although the Union could be regarded as an international organization, possessing a limited kind of international legal personality, it did not possess a permanent governing body, apart from the conferences of revision which met at irregular intervals. There was a permanent secretariat, the International Bureau, which, after 1893, was combined with the International Bureau of the Paris Union (later known as BIRPI). In 1962, co-ordination between the activities of the Berne and Paris Unions was enhanced by the constitution of an Interunion Coordinating Committee. Parallel changes were also made to the administrative provisions of the Paris Convention and the other industrial property conventions administered by BIRPI. At the same time, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) was constituted, becoming responsible for the administrative functions of both the Berne Union and the other industrial property unions. Finally, the financial and budgetary arrangements of each of the unions were revised. These provisions were retained unchanged in the Paris Revision of the Berne Convention, and, in the case of the administrative clauses, have provided the template for similar provisions in the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and subsequent treaties on copyright and related rights.

This chapter assesses the subject matter protected by the Berne Convention, that is, the meaning of the expression ‘literary and artistic works’. Understanding the reach of ‘literary and artistic works’ is crucial to treaty interpretation, because that characterization marks the threshold to national treatment and minimum rights. Member states incur no obligation to grant national treatment to claimants under the Convention if the work to be protected is not a ‘production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain’ in the sense of article 2. Similarly, no minimum rights attach to works falling outside the scope of ‘literary and artistic works’ within the meaning of the Convention, and the meaning of this expression is dealt with in both articles 2 and 2bis. The basic provision is to be found in article 2(1), while qualifications, as well as extensions, of the scope of the expression ‘literary and artistic works’, are to be found in the remaining paragraphs of article 2, and those of article 2bis.

This chapter examines the ‘final clauses’ of the Berne Convention and the later agreements. These cover a miscellany of matters, but are primarily concerned with questions of Union membership (eligibility and obligations) and the territorial application of each convention. The matter of membership raises some complex issues of international law, particularly in relation to the question of state succession. The relevant articles of the Paris Act which regulate these questions are: article 28, which is concerned with ratification of the Act by existing members of the Union; article 29, which is concerned with accessions by non-Union states; article 30, which deals with the reservations that may be made by countries ratifying or acceding to the Act; article 31, which is concerned with the application of the Act to dependent territories; and article 35, which is concerned with denunciations of the Convention. As it is the oldest of the conventions, most of the chapter’s discussion focuses on the Berne Convention, but interesting issues also arise with respect to those conventions of the ‘beyond Berne’ category, namely the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty (WCT); the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT); the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994 (TRIPs Agreement); and the Marrakesh and Beijing Treaties.

This chapter investigates the relationship between the Berne Convention and other related international conventions on copyright. Following World War II, seven major conventions on copyright and neighbouring rights have sprung from the side of, or alongside, the Berne Convention. These are the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC); the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations 1961 (Rome Convention); the Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms against Unauthorized Duplication of their Phonograms 1971 (Phonograms Convention); the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty (WCT); the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT); the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances 2012 (BTAP); and the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled 2013 (Marrakesh VIP Treaty). None of these later conventions stands in contradiction to the Berne Convention: on the contrary, each can be seen as an important supplement to the international system of protection established by that Convention. The chapter focuses on the UCC and its Pan-American predecessors. This is now a topic that is chiefly of historical interest, but the role that the UCC has played as a ‘stepping stone’ or bridge to Berne has been of considerable importance.

It is now six years since the American Law Institute (ALI) began work on its first ever Restatement of an area dominated by a federal statute: copyright law. To say that the Restatement of the Law, Copyright (hereinafter “Restatement”) has been controversial would be a gross understatement. Even in its inception, the ALI identified the project as an outlier, noting that it was likely to be seen as an “odd project” since copyright “is governed by a detailed federal statute.”1 Neither the oddity nor the novelty of the project, however, caused the ALI to slow its efforts to push the project forward, and despite the persistence of serious objections from within the membership of the project (including many of the project’s Advisers), the first draft of the Restatement is scheduled to go to a vote seeking adoption by the organization’s full membership in the middle of 2021.

To a US appraiser, article 17 of the Digital Single Market Directive suggests the EU has learned from American mistakes (and from its own) in the allocation of internet intermediaries’ liability for hosting and communicating user-posted content. Before the DSM Directive, art. 14 of the 2000 eCommerce Directive set out a notice-and-takedown system very similar to the regime provided in 17 U.S.C. section 512(c). Both regimes replaced the normal copyright default, which requires authorization to exploit works, with a limitation on the liability of service providers who complied with statutory prerequisites. Because the limitation ensured that service providers would not be liable in damages, both regimes effectively codified “Seek forgiveness, not permission.” Part I of this Chapter will outline the text and judicial interpretation of the US Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act’s (OCILLA) notice and takedown provisions in order to explain the regime that one might view DSM Directive art. 17 as correcting. Part II will analyze the subsections of art. 17 in order to explain how art. 17 works, including how it changes the prior EU legal regime, and what it leaves untouched. Part III will compare art. 17 with US law in order to consider what the US might learn from the EU.

This Comment addresses minimum and maximum substantive international protections set out in the Berne Convention and subsequent multilateral copyright accords. While much scholarship has addressed Berne minima, the maxima have generally received less attention. It first discusses the general structure of the Berne Convention, TRIPS, and the WCT regarding these contours, and then analyzes their application to the recent “press publishers’ right” promulgated in the 2019 EU Digital Single Market Directive.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1994 adoption of “transformative use” as a criterion for evaluating the first statutory fair use factor (“nature and purpose of the use”), “transformative use” analysis has engulfed all of fair use, becoming transformed, and perhaps deformed, in the process. A finding of “transformativeness” often foreordained the ultimate outcome, as the remaining factors, especially the fourth (impact of the use on the market for or value of the copied work), withered into restatements of the first. For a time, moreover, courts’ characterization of uses as “transformative” seemed ever more generous (if not in some instances credulous). Lately, however, the fair use pendulum’s outward swing may have arrested, as courts express greater skepticism concerning what uses actually “transform” content copied into new works or repurposed into copyright-voracious systems. As a result, courts may be reforming “transformative use” to reinvigorate the other statutory factors, particularly the inquiry into the impact of the use on the potential markets for or value of the copied work. The restored prominence of the fourth factor should also occasion renewed reflection on its meaning. As digital media bring to the fore new or previously under-examined kinds of harm, courts will need not only to continue to refine their appreciation of a work’s markets, but also to expand their analyses beyond the traditional inquiry into whether the challenged use substitutes for an actual or potential market for the work. Courts should acknowledge that the statute’s designation of “the value of the copyrighted work” identifies an independent kind of harm, and entails considerations distinct from market substitution. Those include creators’ economic and moral interests in being recognized as the authors of the copied works.

Aereo was a US-based service that made unique copies of broadcast programs from individual antennae for each requesting user, for individual retransmission near-live or at some point in the future. To the uninitiated, it makes no sense for a company to design a television transmission service that utilises thousands of tiny antennae and thousands of copies to deliver signals to users. Wouldn’t it be much more efficient to use just one of each? And surely, when it comes to copyright liability, wouldn’t more copies result in more infringement, not less? However, Aereo’s strategy made a lot of sense when viewed through the prism of US copyright law as then interpreted. In this paper we argue that US judicial decisions focusing on the “wrong” questions in assessing liability for copyright infringement directly encouraged Aereo’s business model. We then discuss the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that Aereo’s transmission of signals “near-live” does fall within the scope of the exclusive right of public performance, and argue that, in correcting the Second Circuit’s erroneous inquiries, the Supreme Court raised some “wrong” questions of its own. We also examine the legal responses to Aereo’s predecessors in Singapore, Japan, Australia, Germany, France and the EU to determine whether similarly “wrong” questions have distorted copyright analysis elsewhere. Finally, we use the insights from that international study and Aereo to identify what the “right” questions might be.

Machines, by providing the means of mass production of works of authorship, engendered copyright law. Throughout history, the emergence of new technologies tested the concept of authorship, and courts in response endeavored to clarify copyright’s foundational principles. Today, developments in computer science have created a new form of machine — the “artificially intelligent” system apparently endowed with “computational creativity” — that introduces challenging variations on the perennial question of what makes one an “author” in copyright law: Is the creator of a generative program automatically the author of the works her process begets, even if she cannot anticipate the contents of those works? Does the user of the program become the (or an) author of an output whose content the user has at least in part defined? This article frames these and similar questionsthat generative machines provoke as an opportunity to revisit the concept of copyright authorship in general and to illuminate its murkier corners. This article examines several fundamental relationships (between author and amanuensis, between author and tool, and between author and co-author) as well as several authorship anomalies (including the problem of “accidental” or “indeterminate” authorship) to unearth the basic principles and latent ambiguities which have nourished debates over the meaning of the “author” in copyright. We present an overarching and internally consistent model of authorship based on two basic pillars: a mental step (the conception of a work) and a physical step (the execution of a work), and define the contours of these basic pillars to arrive at a cohesive definition of authorship. We then apply the conception-and-execution theory of authorship to reach a series of conclusions about the question of machine “authorship.” We contend that even the most technologically advanced machines of our era are little more than faithful agents of the humans who design or use them. Asking whether a computer can be an author therefore is the “wrong” question; the “right” question addresses how to evaluate the authorial claims of the humans involved in either preparing or using the machines that “create.” We argue that in many cases, either the upstream human being who programs and trains a machine to produce an output, or the downstream human being who requests the output, is sufficiently involved in the conception and execution of the resulting work to claim authorship. But in some instances, the contributions of the human designer and user will be too attenuated from the work’s creation for either to qualify as “authors” — leaving the work “authorless.”

Cet article examine la rhetorique et la politique des premieres lois francaises et americaines sur le droit d'auteur, ainsi que l'application de ces lois dans la pratique; sont evoques les privileges en librairie sous l'Ancien Regime, le regime anglo-americain du droit d'auteur tel qu'etabli a l'orgine, les discours parlementaires et les textes des decrets francais de 1791 et 1793, et les decisions rendues jusqu'en 1814 par les juridictions francaises qui interpreterent les lois revolutionnaires sur le droit d'auteur

This Chapter addresses arguments for and against property rights in news, from the outset of national law efforts to safeguard the efforts of newsgathers, through the various unsuccessful attempts during the early part of the last century to fashion some form of international protection within the Berne Convention on literary and artistic works and the Paris Convention on industrial property. The Chapter next turns to contemporary endeavors to protect newsgatherers against “news aggregation” by online platforms. It considers the extent to which the aggregated content might be copyrightable, and whether, even if the content is protected, various exceptions set out in the Berne Convention permit its unlicensed appropriation.

This Study endeavors to reconstruct the Vatican’s precursor system of copyright, and the author’s place in it, inferred from examination of over five hundred privileges and petitions and related documents—almost all unpublished—in the Vatican Secret Archives.

Copyright and trademarks often overlap, particularly in visual characters. The same figure may qualify as a pictorial, graphic or sculptural work on the one hand, and as a registered (or at least used) trademark on the other. The two rights, though resting on distinct foundations, tend to be licensed together. Trademarks symbolize the goodwill of the producer, and are protected insofar as copying that symbol is likely to confuse consumers as to the source or approval of the goods or services in connection with which the mark is used. For famous marks, the dilution action grants a right against uses of the mark that are likely to “blur” or “tarnish” the distinctiveness of the mark, even in the absence of confusion. In either event, the object of protection is the producer’s goodwill (in theory, as a proxy for consumer source identification), not (again, in theory) the mark per se. Copyright, by contrast, is a right “in gross” allowing its owner to prohibit the copying of the work without regard to source confusion. Copyright protects the work of authorship itself, not the identification of that work with a single, if anonymous, source of origin. Pursuant to the Constitutional grant to Congress of power to secure authors’ exclusive rights “for limited times,” copyright lasts for a term of years; trademarks are protected for so long as they continue to represent a single producer’s goodwill. Subject to that prerequisite, registered trademarks maybe renewed indefinitely. The durational disparity prompts the question whether a trademark owner may effectively perpetuate the life of the copyright in, and thus control the licensing of, a visual character by controlling the use of the trademark in the same image(s). The difference in the rights’ purpose gives rise to another problem: if the trademark owner is not also the copyright owner, for example, because rights granted may have reverted to the artist, can the holder of one kind of right exercise that right, for example, through licensing, without infringing the rights of the holder of the other kind of right? While those questions address trademarks and copyright as potential antagonists where exercise of trademark rights threatens to frustrate copyright policies (and perhaps vice versa), there is another side of the coin. To an increasing extent, we are seeing trademark symbols become characters and acquire value not only as source-indicators, but also as artistic (or audiovisual) works. The strategy seems the logical endpoint of the progression, since at least the 1970s, which recognizes that the thing of value is the trademark, independently of any particular goods or services with which the mark has been associated. How does turning the trademark into a copyright add to the value of the object of the license?This Chapter will first consider the exercise of trademark rights in copyrighted works, which either have fallen into the public domain or for which the trademark owner no longer owns the copyright. It also will consider adoption as a trademark of a public domain character in which the trademark claimant never held a copyright interest or for which it was a licensee for uses ancillary to the principal entertainment-related uses of the character. Finally, the Chapter will turn to the exploitation of trademarks as works of authorship.

The agreement between Columbia Law School of New York and the Faculty of Law of Sapienza University of Rome, signed in March 2010 by the Deans of both schools, and whose faculty directors are respectively Prof. Jane Ginsburg and Prof. Laura Moscati, provides for the annual exchange of three students from each of the two institutions.

Article en français, en anglais et en espagnol; International audience