The Flexible Copyright Exception for ‘Non-Enjoyment’ Purposes ‒ Recent Amendment in Japan and Its Implication

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatsuhiro Ueno
Keyword(s):  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
Theoretical Justification ◽  
Fair Dealing ◽  
The Us ◽  
General Clause ◽  
Copyright Exception ◽  
The Uk ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Text And Data Mining

Abstract After the long discussions in Japan over the introduction of a general clause on copyright exceptions since 2007, the ‘flexible’ provisions on copyright exceptions (Arts. 30-4, 47-4 and 47-5) were finally introduced into the Japanese Copyright Act in 2018 and came into effect in 2019. They differ widely from the US fair use clause and the UK fair dealing provisions. This article focuses on Art. 30-4, which comprehensively allows an exploitation of a work that is aimed at neither enjoying nor causing another person to enjoy the work. In particular, any exploitation for text-and-data mining (TDM) is widely permitted by any means under Art. 30-4, including for commercial purposes. The underlying theory behind this relates to the nature of copyright, or the justification for copyright protection that an exploitation not for ‘enjoyment’ purposes is beyond the inherent scope of copyright because it does not prejudice the opportunities of the copyright holders to receive compensation. While this might sound unusual, it is interesting to note that some similar theories can be found in Europe, some of which try to widely exclude TDM activities from the scope of copyright based on the idea of ‘a use as a work’. Considering such common characteristics of the theories regarding copyright and ‘enjoyment’ of a work, Art. 30-4 of the Japanese Copyright Act and the theoretical justification for it might have implications for other jurisdictions regarding copyright exceptions or the substantive scope of copyright.

scholarly journals Debunking the Fair Use vs. Fair Dealing Myth: Have We Had Fair Use All Along?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariel Katz
Keyword(s):  
Fair Use ◽  
Conventional Wisdom ◽  
First Century ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Fair Dealing ◽  
Canadian Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Application Adaptation ◽  
General Standard

According to conventional wisdom, a fundamental difference exists between the American fair use doctrine and the Canadian (or Commonwealth) fair dealing doctrine: while American fair use can apply potentially to any purpose, Canadian fair dealing could only apply to those purposes enumerated in the statute. Accordingly, fair dealing cannot apply to dealings for other purposes even if they would otherwise be fair. This conventional wisdom is false. When the UK Parliament codified the doctrine of fair use a century ago and enacted the fair dealing provision, it had no intention to restrict or limit its application, adaptation and adjustment by the courts. The UK Parliament (and that of Canada ten years later) sought to codify a principle, an open, flexible, and general standard, not precise rules, and had no intention to prevent its application to purposes beyond those specifically mentioned in the statute. Unfortunately, the English courts, in a series of early post-codification failed to recognize this point have sentenced fair dealing to a hundred years of stagnation. Fortunately, at the turn of the twenty-first century the Supreme Court of Canada declined to follow that restrictive path. The Canadian Parliament's decision to explicitly recognize additional purposes in 2012 and add other specific exceptions moves Canadian law in the same direction. The Court's rulings and Parliament's action have entrenched fair dealing and provided a necessary correction that allows fair dealing to resume the role it was always supposed to play. However, if conventional wisdom is correct, some uses, present or future, are still categorically excluded. This is not a recipe for progress. In a legal environment that outlaws novel ways of using, reusing and disseminating works outright, fewer new forms of expression will emerge. Fortunately, there is no serious indication that this is what Parliament intended when it legislated fair dealing, and there are very good reasons to challenge the view that it did have such intentions. This chapter, adapted from an earlier piece written in 2013, explains why and includes additional evidence to that discussed in the earlier piece. It debunks the Fair Use vs. Fair Dealing Myth and shows that an open, flexible, and general fair dealing is already here. It always has been.

scholarly journals There Is Life After the UK Clozapine Central Non-Rechallenge Database

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ebenezer Oloyede ◽  
Cecilia Casetta ◽  
Olubanke Dzahini ◽  
Aviv Segev ◽  
Fiona Gaughran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Hematological Parameters ◽  
The United States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Uk ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Health Trust

Abstract Background and Aims In the United Kingdom, patients on clozapine whose hematological parameters fall below certain thresholds are placed on the Central Non-Rechallenge Database (CNRD), meaning that they cannot be prescribed clozapine again except under exceptional circumstances. This practice was discontinued in the United States in 2015 by expanding the hematological monitoring guidelines, allowing more patients to receive clozapine. Our objective was to investigate the implications this policy change would have on clozapine utilization in the United Kingdom. Methods This was an observational, retrospective analysis of patients registered on the CNRD in a large mental health trust. The first objective was to compare the number of patients placed on the CNRD under the United Kingdom and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria. The second objective was to explore the hematological and clinical outcomes of CNRD patients. The third objective was to investigate the hematological outcomes of patients rechallenged on clozapine after nonrechallengeable status. Results One hundred and fifteen patients were placed on CNRD from 2002 to 2019, of whom 7 (6%) met the equivalent criteria for clozapine discontinuation under the FDA guidelines. Clinical outcomes, as measured by the Clinical Global Impression-Severity scale, were worse 3 months after clozapine cessation than on clozapine (t = −7.4862; P < .001). Sixty-two (54%) patients placed on CNRD were rechallenged. Fifty-nine of those (95%) were successfully rechallenged; 3 patients were placed back on CNRD, only one of which would have had to stop clozapine again under FDA criteria. Conclusion Implementation of the updated FDA’s monitoring criteria in the United Kingdom would significantly reduce clozapine discontinuation due to hematological reasons. The evidence suggests an urgent need for revising the UK clozapine monitoring guidelines to improve outcomes in treatment-resistant schizophrenia.

Copyright Issues Arising from Tweets and Re-tweets: A Jordanian Prospective

2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramzi Madi
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Original Image ◽  
Fair Dealing ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Us

Abstract This article presents an overview of the copyright issues arising from tweets and re-tweets from a Jordanian prospective. While this is not a comparative study, the author refers in brief to other jurisdictions, in particular to the US Copyright Act and the United Kingdom Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, in addition to selected cases from the above-mentioned jurisdictions. This article addresses the following three main questions. The first issue questions whether the 140-character limit enjoys copyright protection? And, therefore, would a re-tweet constitute copyright infringement? The second issue concerns whether posting an original image on a Twitter post can be considered a copyright infringement. The final issue to be discussed in this article is whether reposting a Tweet constitutes fair dealing.

‘To see oursels as ithers see us’: Reflections on Scottish Independence from the United States

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 381-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Euan Hague ◽  
Alan Mackie
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Us ◽  
Scottish Independence ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Scottish Diaspora

The United States media have given rather little attention to the question of the Scottish referendum despite important economic, political and military links between the US and the UK/Scotland. For some in the US a ‘no’ vote would be greeted with relief given these ties: for others, a ‘yes’ vote would be acclaimed as an underdog escaping England's imperium, a narrative clearly echoing America's own founding story. This article explores commentary in the US press and media as well as reporting evidence from on-going interviews with the Scottish diaspora in the US. It concludes that there is as complex a picture of the 2014 referendum in the United States as there is in Scotland.

Identity Politics and Migration

2008 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-158
Author(s):  
Vytis Čiubrinskas
Keyword(s):  
National Identity ◽  
Identity Politics ◽  
Host Country ◽  
Social Anthropology ◽  
The Us ◽  
And Migration ◽  
The Uk ◽  
A Current ◽  
Respective Host

The Centre of Social Anthropology (CSA) at Vytautas Magnus University (VMU) in Kaunas has coordinated projects on this, including a current project on 'Retention of Lithuanian Identity under Conditions of Europeanisation and Globalisation: Patterns of Lithuanian-ness in Response to Identity Politics in Ireland, Norway, Spain, the UK and the US'. This has been designed as a multidisciplinary project. The actual expressions of identity politics of migrant, 'diasporic' or displaced identity of Lithuanian immigrants in their respective host country are being examined alongside with the national identity politics of those countries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document