Subject Matter, Scope, and User Rights in Copyright Law

2015 ◽  
pp. 59-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abraham Drassinower
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Copyright Law

scholarly journals An Autonomous EU Functionality Doctrine for Shape Exclusions

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (6) ◽  
pp. 567-577
Author(s):  
Uma Suthersanen ◽  
Marc D Mimler
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Property Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Functionality Doctrine

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.

scholarly journals Beyond Invention: Patent as Knowledge Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J Madison
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Cultural Influences ◽  
The United States ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Intellectual Property Law ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Invention Patent ◽  
Patentable Subject Matter

The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Bilski v. Kappos, concerning the legal standard for determining patentable subject matter under the American Patent Act, is used as a starting point for a brief review of historical, philosophical, and cultural influences on subject matter questions in both patent and copyright law. The article suggests that patent and copyright law jurisprudence was constructed initially by the Court with explicit attention to the relationship between these forms of intellectual property law and the roles of knowledge in society. Over time, explicit attention to that relationship has largely disappeared from the Court’s opinions. The article suggests that renewing consideration of the idea of a law of knowledge would bring some clarity not only to patentable subject matter questions in particular but also to much of intellectual property law in general.

3. Subject matter

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Bently ◽  
B. Sherman ◽  
D. Gangjee ◽  
P. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Dramatic Works ◽  
The Third ◽  
European Court ◽  
Musical Works ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Exhaustive List

This chapter is concerned with the subject matter, or types of creation, protected by copyright law as stipulated by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Eight categories of work are examined: literary works, dramatic works, musical works, artistic works, films, sound recordings, broadcasts, and published editions (or typographical works). The chapter considers the definitions of these categories of work in the case law and through the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. It also discusses three important issues. First, that legal categories do not necessarily correspond to the objects usually associated with copyright law. Second, that all types of subject matter that are protected by copyright are referred to as ‘works’. The third issue, and the most problematic, is whether the list of works must be treated as an exhaustive list.

Painting on Walls

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta Iljadica
Keyword(s):  
Real Estate ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Physical Environment ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Spray Painting

Although graffiti images are copyright eligible in the abstract, the inherently illicit act of spray painting private property without permission complicates efforts to rely on formal law. Marta Iljadica’s empirical research on the graffiti subculture in London demonstrates that despite its illegality, graffiti writing has rules. Those rules address questions of subject matter, originality, and copying common to any expressive work. But they also extend to concerns unique to the graffiti context. Because graffiti is inextricably tied to the physical environment, it raises questions of placement: which structures are appropriate canvasses for graffiti writings and which are off-limits? And because available real estate is limited, graffiti writers must confront scarcity: Under what conditions is it permissible to cover another artist’s work with your own? So while the rules of graffiti writing parallel those of formal copyright law in some ways, they also go beyond it to confront a set of problems graffiti writers are themselves best suited to address.

My film in your pocket: an analysis of user interactions with films and copyright law

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-216
Author(s):  
Oğulcan Ekiz
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Cultural Landscape ◽  
Digital Age ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
User Interactions ◽  
Public Speech ◽  
User Expectations ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Future Technologies ◽  
Scope Of Protection

This article questions the author-centred conceptualization of copyright's subject matter in defining the scope of protection. It focuses on films, the medium's communicative nature, and user interactions with films in the digital age. The analysis starts with Kant's definition of a book as a ‘public speech’ and adapts it to films. The article states that the publicness of the medium comes with user expectations. It states that, in many cases, the audience's interaction with films starts with the expectation of a further communication through the work. The article then explores the intercommunication of the audience, its transformation in the digital age, and its role in shaping our cultural landscape. The conclusion is that, in order to answer the demands of the new habits of communications, new ways of research, and any novelty that comes with future technologies, copyright law needs to acknowledge the participatory nature of user interactions with cultural works and how those interactions shape our culture.

scholarly journals Method and Madness in Copyright Law

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Burk
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Careful Examination ◽  
Underlying Process ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Black Letter

Black letter copyright law holds that methods and processes, as well as facts and ideas, are excluded from the subject matter of copyright. This doctrine extends back at least to the iconic Supreme Court decision in Baker v. Selden. But recent copyright cases have protected as copyrightable subject matter compilations of numerical values that are the products of calculation processes, such that protection of the final results seems tantamount to protection of the underlying process. These cases not only tread the line between fact and original expression, but underscore the difficulty of separating process from product in copyright. A careful examination of these decisions uncovers powerful but questionable philosophical assumptions embedded in copyright jurisprudence, and reveals hidden lacunae within the copyright statute that call into question the continuity and viability of current copyright doctrine.

scholarly journals 3D printing Jurassic Park: Copyright law, cultural institutions, and makerspaces

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Rimmer
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
3D Printing ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
The United States ◽  
Associate Professor ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
World Intellectual Property Organization ◽  
Cultural Institutions

Matthew Rimmer (2016) '3D printing Jurassic Park: Copyright law, cultural institutions, and makerspaces' Pandora's Box, 2016, pp. 1-12.3D printing is a field of technology, which enabled the manufacturing of physical objects from three-dimensional digital models.The discipline of copyright law has been challenged and disrupted by the emergence of 3D printing and additive manufacturing. 3D Printing poses questions about the subject matter protected under copyright law. Copyright law provides for exclusive economic and moral rights in respect of cultural works – such as literary works, artistic works, musical works, dramatic works, as well as other subject matter like radio and television broadcasts, sound recordings, and published editions. Copyright law demands a threshold requirement of originality. There have been sometimes issues about the interaction between copyright law and designs law in respect of works of artistic craftsmanship. In addition, 3D printing has raised larger questions about copyright infringement. There has been significant debate over the scope of copyright exceptions – such as the defence of fair dealing, and exceptions for cultural institutions. Moreover, there has been debate over the operation of digital copyright measures in respect of 3D printing. The takedown and notice system has affected services and sites, which enable the sharing of 3D printing designs. Technological protection measures – digital locks – have also raised challenges for 3D printing. The long duration of copyright protection in Australia and the United States has also raised issues in respect of 3D printing.There has been great public policy interest into how copyright law will address and accommodate the disruptive technologies of 3D Printing. As a public policy expert at Public Knowledge, and as a lawyer working for Shapeways, Michael Weinberg has written a number of public policy papers on intellectual property and 3D Printing. Associate Professor Dinusha Mendis and her colleagues have undertaken legal and empirical research on intellectual property and 3D printing. In 2015, Professor Mark Lemley from Stanford Law School wrote about intellectual property and 3D printing in the context of work on the economics of abundance. As a practising lawyer, John Hornick has examined the topic of intellectual property and 3D printing. Comparative legal scholar Dr Angela Daly has written on the socio-legal aspects of 3D printing in 2016. The World Intellectual Property Organization in 2015 highlighted 3D printing.3D printing has provided new opportunities for cultural institutions to redefine their activities and purposes, and engage with a variety of new constituencies. 3D printing has also highlighted deficiencies in copyright law in respect of cultural institutions. Culturally and technologically specific exceptions for libraries, archives, and cultural institutions have proven to be ill-adapted for an age of 3D printing and makerspaces. The Australian Law Reform Commission has highlighted the need to modernise Australia’s copyright laws for the digital age. Likewise, the Productivity Commission has considered the question of copyright exceptions in its study of intellectual property arrangements in 2016. The Turnbull Government has contemplated somewhat more modest copyright reforms, with the draft legislation in the Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill 2016 (Cth). Libraries, galleries, museums, and archives would all benefit from flexible copyright exceptions for cultural institutions to take full advantage of the possibilities of digitisation and 3D printing.

“Innovate First, Permission Later”

Google Rules ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 41-64
Author(s):  
Joanne Elizabeth Gray
Keyword(s):  
Technological Innovation ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Traditional Approach ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Social Progress ◽  
Policy Framework ◽  
Policy Agenda ◽  
Technological Advancement ◽  
Copyright Policy ◽  
Public Rights

This chapter provides a thorough exploration of Google’s copyright policy agenda. The traditional approach to copyright assumes permission from rightsholders is required to use copyright subject matter, unless the law provides otherwise. Google challenges this assumption. Google views copyright law from the perspective of an innovator and submits that a “permission first, innovate later” approach to copyright chills innovation. According to Google, to ensure continued technological advancement, copyright must be limited. Google’s copyright policy framework prioritizes public rights to access and engage with information and content, including strong and flexible exceptions to copyright and limitations on liability. Underpinning Google’s framework is a philosophy that technological innovation is virtuous, supporting economic and social progress.

Words

PMLA ◽  
1935 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 1320-1327
Author(s):  
Colbert Searles
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Assistant Professor ◽  
The Subject

THE germ of that which follows came into being many years ago in the days of my youth as a university instructor and assistant professor. It was generated by the then quite outspoken attitude of colleagues in the “exact sciences”; the sciences of which the subject-matter can be exactly weighed and measured and the force of its movements mathematically demonstrated. They assured us that the study of languages and literature had little or nothing scientific about it because: “It had no domain of concrete fact in which to work.” Ergo, the scientific spirit was theirs by a stroke of “efficacious grace” as it were. Ours was at best only a kind of “sufficient grace,” pleasant and even necessary to have, but which could, by no means ensure a reception among the elected.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document