Article 5—Use of Works and Other Subject Matter in Digital and Cross-Border Teaching Activities

2021 ◽  
pp. 93-127
Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Teaching Activities ◽  
Sole Purpose ◽  
Exceptions And Limitations ◽  
Fair Compensation ◽  
Electronic Environments ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
Fair Balance ◽  
Copyright Directive

This chapter analyzes Article 5 of Directive 2019/790, copyright directive of the Digital Single Market in Europe. It discusses the use of works and other subject matter for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching through secure electronic environments that occur solely in the Member State where the educational establishment is founded. It also mentions the task of Member States to provide fair compensation for rightholders for the use of their works or other subject matter. The chapter explores the exceptions and limitations outlined in Directive 2019/790, which seek to achieve a fair balance between the rights and interests of authors, other rightholders, and users. It cites the protection of technological measures established in Directive 2001/29/EC that remains essential to ensure the protection and the effective exercise of the rights granted to authors and to other rightholders under the Union law.

Article 4—Exception or Limitation for Text and Data Mining

2021 ◽  
pp. 60-92
Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati
Keyword(s):  
Data Mining ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Digital Technologies ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Member States ◽  
Exceptions And Limitations ◽  
Fair Balance ◽  
Text And Data Mining ◽  
Copyright Directive

This chapter focuses on Article 4 of Directive 2019/790, the European copyright directive, which require Member States to provide for an exception or limitation for reproductions and extractions of works and other subject matter for the purposes of text and data mining. It talks about digital technologies that permit new types of uses that are not clearly covered by the existing Union rules on exceptions and limitations in the fields of research, innovation, education, and preservation of cultural heritage. It also describes the optional nature of exceptions and limitations that could negatively impact the functioning of the internal market. The chapter discusses the exceptions and limitations provided in Directive 2019/790 that seek to achieve a fair balance between the rights and interests of authors, other rightholders, and users. It clarifies that text and data mining can be carried out in relation to mere facts or data that are not protected by copyright.

Article 24—Amendments to Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC

2021 ◽  
pp. 409-410
Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati
Keyword(s):  
Information Society ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Single Market ◽  
Sole Purpose ◽  
Use Of Data ◽  
Article 9 ◽  
Commercial Purpose ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
Copyright Directive

This chapter cites Article 24 of the European copyright directive in the Digital Single Market, Directive 2019/790, which begins with an amendment of Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases. It looks at the replacement of Article 6 of Directive 96/9/EC, which deals with the use of data for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research. It also mentions the revision of Article 9 that covers the extraction for the purposes of illustration for teaching or scientific research, which is indicated and justified by a non-commercial purpose. The chapter highlights the amendment of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. It discusses the changes in Article 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC, which outlines specific acts of reproduction that are made by publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments, museums, or archives.

Article 18—Principle of Appropriate and Proportionate Remuneration

2021 ◽  
pp. 360-367
Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
End User ◽  
Member States ◽  
Rights And Interests ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Fair Balance ◽  
Copyright Directive

This discusses Article 18 of the European copyright directive, Directive 2019/790, which sets forth the principle of appropriate and proportionate remuneration. It instructs Member States to ensure that authors and performers are entitled to receive appropriate and proportionate remuneration their exclusive rights are licensed or transferred for the exploitation of their works or other subject matter. It also highlights the liberty of Member States to use different mechanisms and take into account the principle of contractual freedom and a fair balance of rights and interests. The chapter clarifies that authors and performers tend to be in the weaker contractual position when they grant a licence or transfer their rights for the purposes of exploitation in return for remuneration. It explains how protection does not arise where the contractual counterpart acts as an end user and does not exploit the work or performance itself.

The Construction of Exceptions and Limitations in the InfoSoc Directive

2019 ◽  
pp. 128-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati
Keyword(s):  
Step Test ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Strict Interpretation ◽  
Exceptions And Limitations ◽  
Eu Directives ◽  
The One ◽  
And Function ◽  
Article 5 ◽  
Fair Balance

The analysis moves on to consider exceptions and limitations under the InfoSoc Directive. In particular, attention focuses on three areas—parody, quotation, and private copying—which serve to outline how the application of certain key standards, notably (1) the one according to which concepts in EU directives that make no reference to the laws of individual EU Member States should be intended as autonomous concepts of EU law that must be given uniform application throughout the EU, (2) strict interpretation of exceptions and limitations, but also (3) effectiveness of exceptions and limitations and (4) achieving a fair balance in the protection of contrasting rights, have allowed the creation of an EU system of exceptions and limitations. In this sense, the role of the Court has been pivotal in strengthening, at least in part, the admittedly weak harmonizing force of the InfoSoc Directive. This chapter also discusses the nature and function of the three-step test as found in Article 5(5) of that directive.

Article 9—Cross-border Uses

2021 ◽  
pp. 203-207
Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Member State ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Prior Authorisation ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Article 9 ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Copyright Directive

This chapter examines Article 9 of Directive 2019/790, the copyright directive in Europe. It discusses licences that allow the use of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter by cultural heritage institutions in any Member State. It also clarifies the uses of works and other subject matter that are deemed to occur solely in the Member State where the cultural heritage institution undertaking that use is established. The chapter cites cultural heritage institutions that benefit from a clear framework for the digitisation and dissemination of works or other subject matter that are out-of-commerce for the purposes of Directive 2019/790. It describes characteristics of the collections of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter involved in mass digitisation projects, wherein obtaining the prior authorisation of the individual rightholders can be very difficult.

Article 7—Common Provisions

2021 ◽  
pp. 151-157
Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
European Directive ◽  
Special Cases ◽  
Exceptions And Limitations ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Common ◽  
Rights And Interests ◽  
Fair Balance

This chapter discusses the common provisions in Article 7 of Directive 2019/790, the European directive on copyright. It explains the application of the Directive to special cases that do not conflict with the normal exploitation of works or other subject matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholders. It also seeks to achieve a fair balance between the rights and interests of authors, other rightholders, and users. The chapter mentions the protection of technological measures established in Directive 2001/29/EC, which remains essential to ensure the protection and the effective exercise of the rights granted to authors and other rightholders under Union law. It stresses the maintenance of protection while ensuring the use of technological measures that do not prevent the enjoyment of the exceptions and limitations provided in Directive 2019/790.

Situation-Oriented Designation of the International Criminal Court’s Jurisdiction by Non-Member States

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-29
Author(s):  
Mohammad Hadi Zakerhossein
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Specific Situation ◽  
State Party ◽  
Member States ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
Article 5

Abstract Rule 44 of the icc Rules of Procedure and Evidence stipulates that non-state parties to the Rome Statute may accept the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the crimes referred to in Article 5 of relevance to the situation by lodging a declaration under Article 12(3) of the Statute. The ending phrase of this provision gives rise to the speculation that a non-member state has a power to accept the Court’s jurisdiction in a partial way, namely over a specific situation. To examine this feasibility, the present article will: (i) explain the functions of the Article 12(3) mechanism; (ii) discuss the possibility of making a situational acceptance; and (iii) contemplate the meaning of the concept of situation. This article suggests that a non-state party can exclusively accept the Court’s jurisdiction over a specific situation, and that is a concrete crisis within a territory.

Paris Embraces Modern Art – But Not in Court: Opinion on the Cour d’Appel de Paris Decision – Jeff Koons v Franck Davidovici

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moritz Sutterer
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Modern Art ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Traditional Notion ◽  
The Us ◽  
Exceptions And Limitations ◽  
The Subject ◽  
First Time ◽  
Jeff Koons ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Abstract In February 2021 the Paris Court of Appeal (Cour d’appel de Paris) rendered a decision against the US artist Jeff Koons, holding that he had infringed copyright relating to an advertisement photography that was more than 30 years old. Jeff Koons is famous for his Neo-pop Appropriation art – kitsch for some, a provocative breach with the traditional notion of art for others. It was not the first time Koons has had to defend his work in court. The French decision is particularly interesting, however, as it shows a very narrow understanding of the copyright exceptions. It is an illustrative example of the issues resulting from CJEU’s approach in Pelham, Spiegel Online and Funke Medien, where the Court held that once the recognisability of original elements has been established, the only way out of the infringement leads through the formal exceptions and limitations of the InfoSoc Directive. Based on the decision, I will reflect on the openness of copyright for art-specific forms of referencing and in particular analyse the subject matter and scope of the parody exception and contrast it with less formal approaches to consider new creative elements. I will also analyse the question of applicable law in internet cases.

Article 8—Use of Out-of-commerce Works and Other Subject Matter by Cultural Heritage Institutions

2021 ◽  
pp. 158-202
Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Single Market ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Communication To The Public ◽  
The Public ◽  
Collective Management ◽  
Management Organization ◽  
Copyright Directive

This chapter talks about Article 8 of Directive 2019/790, the European copyright directive in the Digital Single Market, which outlines provisions on the use of out-of-commerce works and other subject matter by cultural heritage institutions. It mentions the collective management organization that may conclude a non-exclusive licence for non-commercial purposes with a cultural heritage institution for the reproduction, distribution, and communication to the public or making available to the public of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter that are permanently in the collection of the institution. It also mentions the guarantee that all rightholders have equal treatment in relation to the terms of the licence. The chapter points out the liberty of rightholders to exclude their works or other subject matter from the licensing. It describes a work or other subject matter that is deemed to be out-of-commerce when it can be presumed that is not available to the public through customary channels of commerce.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document