Spontaneous oral communications, impromptu speeches and fixation in copyright law: a comparative analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (10) ◽  
pp. 806-819
Author(s):  
Eugene C Lim
Author(s):  
Yuliia Kedia

Kedya Y. Work of collaboration in the creation of literary works under the legislation of Ukraine and France. This article highlights particular legal frameworks, definition and practice of applicability of co-authorship (works done in collaboration) by publishers and co-authors. In addition, we will cover the differences between the co-authorship upon creation of a work and collective works. The analysis is based, inter alia, on comparison of French Ukrainian laws, thus, giving an opportunityto crystalize particular shortcomings and advantages of set forth by Ukrainian laws related to above matters.The research formulates a comprehensive overview of the defining and basic rulesof co-authorship, comparative analysis of (a) collective works with (b) works of collaboration,as well as analysis of shortcomings and advantages set forth by Ukrainianlaws. The author reviews and analyzes main provisions in Ukrainian legislation, suggestspossible solutions of the main problems, deliberates ways of laws developmentin future. The paper is based on author’s professional experience.Main conclusions of comparative analysis of legal regulation definition of co-authorship definition in Ukraine and France are as follows: •According to Intellectual Property Code of France only physical persons may be considered co-authors, including literary works. At the same time, Ukrainian law is silent on this matter. It must be noted that according to the Law of Ukraine «On Copyright and Related Rights» (the «Copyright Law»), co-authors are persons whose joint work creates a literary work. At the same time, the definition given to the author by said law limits creative participation to physical person;•The Copyright Law defines the concept and set forth the pre-conditions for co-authorship. However, unlike the French Code of Intellectual Property (Article L113-2), no due attention has been paid to the concept of a collective work. The authors believe that it is advisable to supplement Article 19 of the Copyright Law by (i) the definition of a collective work and (ii) to distinguish between the concepts of a composite work and a collective work;•It is necessary to harmonize the conclusion of an agreement between co-authors in the Civil Code of Ukraine and the Copyright Law;•Research uncovered certain flaws in the conclusion of agreements between co-authorson creation of a collective work;•Examining the Intellectual Property Code of France was helpful for finding the difference between collective works and co-authorship of a particular work.Key words: work of collaboration, composite work, collective work, copyright, intellectual rights, literary work


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Linke

"Artificial Intelligence“ (AI) is experiencing a boom which has undoubtedly impacted copyright law. “AI“-generated works such as “The Next Rembrandt" raise the question whether, against the conventional anthropocentric focus of copyright law, such works are eligible for protection de lege lata. Moreover, the question regarding the protectability of “AI“ has not yet been answered conclusively. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, this thesis examines these questions as well as how creative “AI“ is and what is understood by “AI“. This thesis also considers options for action and the need for adaptation whilst offering a comparative analysis by examining the legal situation in the UK and the US.


ASHA Leader ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 9 (16) ◽  
pp. 6-19
Author(s):  
Jennifer Horner
Keyword(s):  

2007 ◽  
Vol 177 (4S) ◽  
pp. 398-398
Author(s):  
Luis H. Braga ◽  
Joao L. Pippi Salle ◽  
Sumit Dave ◽  
Sean Skeldon ◽  
Armando J. Lorenzo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document