Copyright law in the European Union, with special reference to Germany

2005 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-132
Author(s):  
Gabriele Beger
Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati

This chapter discusses the impact of CJEU copyright case law on national copyright regimes, even beyond the wording of EU directives as transposed into national legal systems. To this end, it focuses on the UK and, following a discussion of what immediate changes the departure from the EU and the EEA (Brexit) would have (also with regard to issues of exhaustion), it explores to what extent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has changed UK copyright law. EU decisions have had an impact in areas such as: copyright subsistence, subject matter categorization, primary/accessory liability, standard of infringement, exceptions and limitations, and enforcement (with particular regard to website blocking jurisprudence). Overall, this chapter shows the legacy of CJEU case law, and how pervasive the impact of such case law is.


Author(s):  
Tim Press

This chapter defines copyright as arising whenever a work is created under qualifying conditions. The Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) defines eight types of work that fall under two categories: works that must be original or ‘authorial works’, including literary works, dramatic works, musical works, and artistic works; and works that need not be original or ‘entrepreneurial works’: films, sound recordings, broadcasts, and the typographical arrangement of published editions. Copyright is infringed by copying or communicating the whole or a substantial part of a work—referred to as primary infringement—or by dealing in infringing copies of a work-referred to as secondary infringement. There are some major and many minor defences to copyright infringement including the ‘fair dealing’ defences and the public interest. Many aspects of copyright law have been harmonized by the European Union.


2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (6) ◽  
pp. 567-577
Author(s):  
Uma Suthersanen ◽  
Marc D Mimler

Abstract Exclusionary subject matter are often underpinned by public interest considerations. In the case of shapes of products, the Court of Justice of the European Union has aligned the interpretation of the relevant exclusionary provisions within design and trade mark laws. More recently, European jurisprudence within copyright law in relation to conditions of protection has imported the same considerations so as to regulate the protection of shapes of products. This article explores the multitude of doctrinal and policy reasons underpinning shape exclusions and argues that the Court is consciously creating an EU autonomous functionality doctrine within intellectual property law. We also argue that the Court is building a European macro-rationale within these laws namely to ensure that protection does not unduly restrict market freedom and competition.


Spatium ◽  
2004 ◽  
pp. 35-40
Author(s):  
Tijana Crncevic

In July 2001, the European Union (EU) adopted the Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 27 June 2001 on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment, known as the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive. The EU countries will have three years, until July 2004, for the integration of the SEA Directive into national laws. The SEA Directive introduces procedural and technical requirements, according to which environmental assessment is compulsory for certain plans and programs but not for policies, except if they are a part of a plan, as well for plans and programs of national defence, civil emergencies, finance and budgets. According to the scope of the SEA Directive, environmental assessment is compulsory for plans and programs for infrastructure corridors ? transport, telecommunication and energy systems. In addition to the overview of the general framework for Strategic Environmental Assessment and the main requirements of the SEA Directive, the current situation in Serbia regarding the present condition of SEA is presented with special reference to the infrastructure corridors. One of the conclusions of this paper is that the main limitation for the implementation of SEA for plans and programs covering infrastructure corridors is the current legal situation. The main law which is supposed to introduce SEA has not been adopted yet, while the scope of the SEA within the new Planning and Construction Act includes SEA only for urban plans and does not cover, among others, plans for infrastructure corridors.


2020 ◽  
Vol 175 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-116
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Gil ◽  

This contribution aims to bring clarity about the existing R&D&I State aid rules, being focused on R&D&I tax incentives as a form of State aid. Even if they may fall into the scope of art. 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), a justification for their compatibility with the internal market can be found on art. 107(3) TFEU. Thus, the author explores both the GBER and the R&D&I Framework to determine the criteria for the compatibility of R&D&I tax incentives. Finally, as the Commission has approved temporary State aid rules for R&D related to COVID–19, a special reference to the temporary measures and its relationship with the existing State aid rules in the area of R&D&I will be made.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document