scholarly journals CULINARY PRODUCTS AS UNTYPICIAL COPYRIGHT OBJECTS

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ольга Улітіна
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Literary Work ◽  
Fine Art ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Ordinary People ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
Specific Category ◽  
Original Works ◽  
Creative Contribution

Nowadays the process of cooking is becoming more creative, it acquires certain features of art. Cooking is developing not only at the level of the restaurant business because of the special creative contribution of the chefs, but also in the kitchens of ordinary people who are trying to add diversity to their dishes. Today, food should be not only delicious, butalso aesthetically pleasing. «Instagram dishes», «Instagram plating» are especially popular, because of their attractiveness and unusual look.The article is devoted to the study of the copyright protection of culinary products.The copyright legislation of Ukraine and some foreign countries, which in one or another way can be used for protection of the intellectual property rights to culinary products are analyzed. The article also considers the question of whether culinary products can be recognized as derivative works. It is determined whether the recipe can be protected by copyright and established how the concepts of culinary product and recipe relate.Author states that a culinary product as a category consists of four components: 1) idea (recipe/technological process of production), 2) name, 3) the process of cooking itself, and 4) platting (presentation of the dish). The concept of «recipe» is absent at the legislative level in Ukraine.According to the Ukrainian and foreign scientific sources the recipe can be protected by copyright as a literary work. However, in this case only the form in which the recipe is expressed (fixing in tangible medium of expression) is protected. The idea, the essence of the recipe will not be protected under the copyright protection. Therefore, the protection offered by the copyright law in this case cannot be used to protectthe rights to a culinary product made by the recipe. The finished dish is the final product of the recipe, the result of being fixed in a tangible medium, similar to the architectural projects and buildings in which the projects are «fixed».The author claims that some culinary products can be recognized as a derivative works which relates to the original works of fine art. A specific category of Ukrainian legislation – branded food can be protected by the norms of Ukrainian copyright law.

The Copyrightability of Opera Direction

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincenzo Iaia
Keyword(s):  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Dramatic Text ◽  
Creative Contribution ◽  
Consistent Solution

Abstract A judgment of the Italian Court of Cassation – No. 17565 of 18 June 2021 – offers an opportunity to investigate the legal protection options applicable to the direction of opera. As this issue is not addressed by EU law, EU Member States have adopted different approaches, from awarding copyright, to neighboring rights, to a mixture of the two. This opinion aims at finding the most consistent solution within the Italian legal framework. After an assessment of the alternative legal options, it argues that opera direction should be eligible for copyright protection via an analogical application of Art. 44 of the Italian copyright law, which indirectly includes cinematic direction within the area of copyrightable works. This conclusion is based on the fact that there are no substantial differences between the two types of direction justifying a diverse treatment. Otherwise, it would result in blatant and unsubstantiated discrimination because both categories of directors set out to convert a text – the dramatic text or the film script – to the medium of theatre or film respectively. Finally, this opinion suggests that even if the other creative roles involved in opera making are not addressed by the law, they too should qualify as co-authors if they make a creative contribution.

Copyright, Moral Rights, and the Right to One’s Image

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Bate ◽  
Gervase de Wilde
Keyword(s):  
Private Information ◽  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Literary Work ◽  
Copyright Owner ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
Domestic Sphere ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
Private Correspondence ◽  
Original Works ◽  
The Right

UK copyright is a right created by statute and is now contained in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA). Copyright is mainly regarded as a means of protecting the economic interests of creators of original works. However, it has a significant role to play in protecting privacy interests. Private correspondence and diaries are obvious examples of material that may attract copyright protection in the domestic sphere. In the commercial context, examples include corporate memoranda, other documents, and recordings containing confidential information. Copyright subsists in various descriptions of ‘works’, such as ‘literary works’, ‘films’ and ‘sound recordings’ and there may be more than one copyright work in any article. For example, a recording may include a ‘literary work’ as well as a ‘sound recording’ for copyright purposes. A copyright work may contain private information or the work may be unpublished and therefore private in that sense. Copyright is apt to protect privacy interests, because it gives the copyright owner the legal right to prohibit reproductions, ie copying, as well as other means of dissemination.

scholarly journals Copyright Protection and Role of Publishers: Perceptions of Indian Authors

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (3S) ◽  
pp. 475-479
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Copyright Protection ◽  
General Public ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Copyright Laws ◽  
Creativity And Innovation

Copyright laws provide the legal framework to the business of publishing, and authors and publishers have benefitted enormously over the last 100 years or more from the existing copyright regime. The objective of copyright law is to reward the creativity of authors while ensuring that the general public has access to the creativity and innovation of authors. Publishers invest in the content and intellectual property rights assigned to them by authors. What provides value to their investment is the protection provided by copyright laws to the seamless acquisition and transfer of the intellectual property asset. This paper, the first of its kind on authors and copyright in India, focuses on Indian author perceptions on the role of publishers in protecting copyright.

scholarly journals Restating Copyright Law’s Originality Requirement

2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Hughes
Keyword(s):  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Good Time ◽  
Close Analysis ◽  
Original Works ◽  
American Law ◽  
Black Letter ◽  
The Law

In 2015, the American Law Institute (ALI) launched a project to create a Restatement of the Law, Copyright.  Concern, objection, and disagreement about the ALI’s Restatement projects is not new, but the Restatement of Copyright project seems to be particularly controversial among industries dependent on copyright protection.  The drafting group has now worked through several versions of some proposed sections; a handful of these have been approved by the ALI Council and are ready to go before the ALI general membership. So now is a good time for close analysis of the chunks of the projects that have crystallized. This Article reviews the 2020 draft Restatement’s presentation of American copyright law’s threshold requirement for protection: that copyright protects only “original works of authorship,” and how that “originality” requirement should be understood in light of the Supreme Court’s 1991 decision in Feist v. Rural Telephone.  Copyright’s originality requirement is a challenging subject for a Restatement because what is unquestionably agreed is that black letter law is  limited, formulaic, and opaque.  Not surprisingly, the Restatement’s handling of this topic hews close to the words of the Supreme Court’s modern pronouncement on the issue, sometimes to the detriment of a richer, potentially more enlightening discussion. The discussion here is based principally on “Tentative Draft No. 1” of the Restatement, released on April 8, 2020,3 but the discussion will also include consideration of the earlier “Council Drafts”4 that led to the 2020 proposal. Part I of the Article briefly describes the controversial beginnings of this Restatement project—and, as of 2021, the continuing animosity of copyright stakeholders to the project. Part II lays out the 2020 draft Restatement’s core provisions on copyright originality, the modest evolution of these provisions since the 2017 draft, and some concerns with what these sections, Comments, and Reporters’ Notes say. In broad strokes, the draft Restatement’s take on copyright originality is faithful to the Supreme Court’s 1991 Feist v. Rural Telephone decision, perhaps too much so. Part II.A explores the draft Restatement’s presentation of Feist’s “modicum of creativity” requirement, raising some issues both with what the Reporters have said so far and equally with what the draft Restatement seems unwilling to say about minimal creativity.  Part II.B discusses the draft Restatement’s presentation of Feist’s “independent creation” requirement; here the concern is that the draft may conflate independent creation with minimal creativity in a way that does not contribute to coherence in copyright law.

Eliminating ‘Aesthetics’ from Copyright Law: The Aftermath of Cofemel

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koray Güven
Keyword(s):  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Applied Art ◽  
Copyright Laws ◽  
The One ◽  
Works Of Applied Art ◽  
Functionality Doctrine ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The recent Cofemel judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union extended the European Union’s (EU) originality criterion (i.e. the author’s own intellectual creation) to the realm of works of applied art. The Court excluded ‘aesthetically significant visual effect’ as a condition of copyright protection. It was condemned as subjective and incompatible with the EU originality criterion. The decision may signal a shift in several national copyright laws, under which requirements relating to ‘aesthetics’ are laid down as a condition to acquire protection. This article will demonstrate that the ‘aesthetics criterion’, as it emerged historically and has been employed in national copyright laws, is associated with a different meaning than it conveys at first glance. The aesthetics criterion designates the elbow room remaining to the author after functional constraints have been taken into account, and thus represents a form of the functionality doctrine in the domain of copyright law. However, to some extent it also excludes – though not uniformly – commonplace designs from the scope of copyright protection. Against this background, this article suggests that the aesthetics criterion can arguably be reconciled with the EU originality criterion. The aesthetics criterion represents a balance struck between the need for copyright protection in the field of applied arts, on the one hand, and competition, on the other. In order not to upset this careful balance, a robust application of the EU originality criterion is advocated, precluding protection not only to functionality, but also to commonplace creations.

scholarly journals Peran Lembaga Manajemen Kolektif Sebagai Bentuk Perlindungan Hukum Pencipta Lagu Dan Pemilik Hak Terkait

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (01) ◽  
pp. 37-54
Author(s):  
Elly Hernawati
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
Business Climate ◽  
Management Agency ◽  
Collective Management ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Right

Copyright is one of the Intellectual Property Rights components and should be paid attention to. Even more in technology era that developing, copyright protection needed to be enhanced, so that the right of creator, Copyright holder or owner of relevant rights can be protected and urge people to create. Indirectly, good and healthy business climate could be fostered.  Not all people have skill to create, that is why those people who have skill to create must be protected and even awarded, hoping that people urged to create. One of the creations that protected are song and music. In creating song or music, creator involve recording producer, music director or arranger. Regarding the creation, creator holds moral and economy rights, while parties involved hold the relevant rights to it. Collective Management Agency is an agency that help creator or relevant rights owner in managing and distributing the creation which is song or music that being commercialized. Yet the creator must be the member of the agency beforehand. Commercialization of a song or music by user can rise problem. Protection to the song or music is for the whole thing, including lyric, notation, arrangement and song title. The utilization of a song or music should be still protecting the parties that hold the copyright and the relevant right to it.

scholarly journals Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Ukraine in the Light of European Integration Processes

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 203
Author(s):  
Andrii Neugodnikov ◽  
Tetiana Barsukova ◽  
Roman Kharytonov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
European Integration ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
General Public ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
Lesser General Public License ◽  
General Public License

The article provides an assessment of the state of legislation of Ukraine on the protection of intellectual property at the present stage. The most important problematic aspects and prospects of improving the legal regulation of intellectual property protection on the way to European integration are described in detail. The experience of foreign countries in ensuring the protection of intellectual property is analyzed. Particular attention is paid to the features of computer program protection, which is especially relevant nowadays. Features of the use of license agreements by the owner of computer programs, namely BSD License, Apache License, GNU General Public License, GNU Lesser General Public License, were analyzed. The conclusion is drawn that a system of continuous analysis of decisions made by European countries in the field of intellectual property law, as well as on issues related to general state policy on the administration of intellectual property, in order to implement developed approaches to legislation and law enforcement practice, could improve the protection of intellectual property rights in Ukraine.

Artistic Verisimilitude (II)

Dialogue ◽  
1962 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 278-304
Author(s):  
J. P. Day
Keyword(s):  
Literary Work ◽  
Fine Art

We are now in a position to answer the question of importance or relevance : the question, namely, whether it is true, as it is often claimed to be, that works of fine art which are ∼ AN, in particular tragedies and novels, should be AV; and, if so, why. Briefly, it seems to me that the claim is true for a variety of reasons which I shall now detail.I pointed out earlier that a literary work is not a tragedy or a work of fiction at all unless it is ∼ AN. (Subsecs. 2.1.1., 2.1.3.) But if it is AV, then it is of course ∼ AN, so that this condition is met. Moreover, it is met n i the most satisfactory way; for, although a work is also ∼ AN if it is ∼ AV, it is evident that the better way of being ∼ AN is to be AV.

時尚設計著作權可分離性論戰──以美國Star Athletica案為核心

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (18) ◽  
pp. 215-281
Author(s):  
許炳華 許炳華
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Apparel Industry ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Fashion Industry ◽  
Single Test ◽  
New Approach ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Difficult Area

美國著作權法之概念上分離自1954年起即引發時尚業及司法實務之混亂，在著作權法之範疇，將美感與實用放在一起總是引發違和之感覺，實用性物品之可著作性為今日著作權法最艱難的爭議之一，「可分離性」原則即被用以處理上開疑難，然而該等原則描述容易，適用卻是困難，而多種現存之概念上分離的標準，使得著作權對於實用性物品之保護成為著作權法中最困難之領域，單一之標準容或降低司法實務間之緊張關係，而得以提供穩定之先例及可預測之結果。美國聯邦最高法院在最近之Star Athletica, L. L. C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc.案即被認為有釐清上開難題之機會，Star Athletica案提出可分離性之新途徑，著作權法並未定義可分離性，Star Athletica案可謂司法意欲填補該等模糊空間最新之嘗試，然而仍被批評所提出之標準缺乏明確性及清晰之指引，多數意見僅僅對法條加以釋義，且對於功能性之理論視若無睹。不過，Star Athletica案亦被認為對於時尚及配件產業，可謂恩賜，如果寬鬆地適用Star Athletica案最高法院所提出之新標準，有可能具備藝術特徵之實用性物品獲得著作權保護之機會將大增。 Conceptual separability in U. S. copyright law has been causing confusion in the fashion industry amongst American since 1954. In copyright law, the marriage of beauty and utility often proves fraught. One of the most difficult issues arising under the Copyright Act today is the copyrightability of useful articles. Seperability doctrine is used to deal with the issues. The doctrine has been easy to state but difficult to apply. The numerous existing tests for conceptual separability have made copyright protection of useful articles an exceedingly difficult area of copyright law. A single test for conceptual separability would alleviate conflict and tension with the judicial system, which would provide firm precedent and predictable outcomes. In Star Athletica, L. L. C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., the U. S. Supreme Court had an opportunity to clarify the issues. In Star Athletica case, the Supreme Court recently unveiled a new approach to separability. The Copyright Act does not define separability, and Star Athletica is the latest judicial effort to try to fill that void. But the reasoning of Star Athletica still lacks clarity. The majority did little more than paraphrase the statue, and downplayed the functionality concern. Even so, Star Athletica decision is predictrd to be a boon to the fashion and apparel industry.

International Protection of Intellectual Property Rights: Special Refrence with Intangible Properties and Copyright Laws.

LAW REVIEW ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohit P Singh ◽  
Shiv Kumar Tripathi
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
International Protection ◽  
The Public ◽  
Copyright Laws ◽  
Rapid Pace

In view of the rapid pace of technological, scientific and medical innovations in India and abroad, the intellectual property rights i.e., copyright, patent and other neighboring rights, have been recognized in Indian and foreign jurisdiction. Moreover, its scope and content have expanded pursuant to statutory amendments over the years. Growing recognisiont, expansion and protection of IPRs needs to harmonised with the public interest. Within this backdrop, copyright law, patent law etc. have made elaborate provisions and endeavours have also been made at international level to strike a balance between protection of individual’s IPRS and social interest. The present article tries to examine the contours of protection of IPRS at national and international levels with special reference to copyright law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document