scholarly journals AI Caravan Moves On. Does It Need Copyright Incentives?

2021 ◽  
pp. 320-323
Author(s):  
Kateryna Militsyna
Keyword(s):  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Current Level

The Article aims to ascertain whether there is a genuine demand for granting copyright incentives with respect to AI-results.At first, the Article analyses whether AI-assisted and AI-generated objects are subject to copyright protection and, drawing onthe anthropocentric nature of copyright, answers in the negative. This conclusion does not apply when AI remains merely a tool in thehands of a human author.Then the Article evaluates arguments for and against the change of copyright law to provide AI with copyright incentives. Giventhe current level of AI, the Article finds granting copyright incentives and, consequently, protection to AI-assisted and AI-generatedobjects as premature and unjustified, at least now.The Article shifts the discussion on incentives from copyright to sui generis right. Such regime is expected to encourage deve -lopment of the AI industry as well as disincentivize unfair practices.

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.

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.

scholarly journals Copyright protection and the new stakeholders in online distance education: The Play’s the Thing

First Monday ◽  
2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce L Mann
Keyword(s):  
Distance Education ◽  
Instructional Design ◽  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Theatrical Production ◽  
Online Distance Education ◽  
Current Climate ◽  
Web Course ◽  
Online Distance ◽  
The University

This paper analyzes the university as an Internet intermediary in the current climate of online distance education, classifies the stakeholders associated with the university in Web course management, and explores the need for an “Instructional Design Copyright Law”. The situation is likened to a theatrical production, with front-of-house preparations, backstage operations, and tragic characters.

scholarly journals Protection of Animated Cartoon Character: Copyright or Trademark?

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 446
Author(s):  
I Gusti Ngurah Bayu Satriawan ◽  
Marwanto Marwanto
Keyword(s):  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Trademark Law ◽  
Animated Cartoon ◽  
Cartoon Character ◽  
Animated Film ◽  
Cartoon Characters ◽  
Analytical Approaches

Animated cartoon character is a character created or depicted in an animated story with the aim of supporting the story in an animated film. Currently, many children's clothes, bags, shoes or accessories include animated pictures from cartoons with the aim of attracting buyers' attention to increase sales of these products. The purpose of this writing is to identify, analyse and elaborate legal protections for animated cartoon characters based on the provisions in the copyright law, as well as legal protection for animated cartoon characters used as brands. This was normative legal research using a statutory, conceptual and analytical approaches. Animated cartoon characters as one of the objects of copyright protection, namely images, receive automatic protection based on the Copyright Law and can also be registered as Trademarks, as long as the image has distinctive power and has no similarity in substantial or in its entirety. However, if any parties who intend to use the animated cartoon characters that already classified as a well-known trademark, that party can propose a License to the owner of the trademark as regulated under the provision of Article 42 paragraph (1) of Trademark 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.

Interface Between Right to Education and IPR

2020 ◽  
pp. 57-75
Author(s):  
Akanksha Jumde ◽  
Nishant Kumar
Keyword(s):  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
Educational Materials ◽  
Right To Education ◽  
The Right ◽  
International Instruments

The chapter seeks to explore the extent to which copyright law impedes the fulfillment of the right to education and discuss the alternatives that seek to balance these conflicting rights. The chapter is divided into three parts: the first part of the chapter discusses the embodiment of the right to education in several national and international instruments, the extent of problem of the lack of access to educational materials due to copyright protection. The next part of the chapter discusses the flexibilities provided in international copyright law and efficacy of the same, primarily the doctrine of fair use. The last part of the chapter discusses alternatives to fair use and impact of these supplementary mechanisms.

Copyright Protection for Software 2.0?

2021 ◽  
pp. 323-340
Author(s):  
Hao-Yun Chen
Keyword(s):  
Neural Network ◽  
Neural Networks ◽  
Network Structure ◽  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Computer Programs ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Copyright Laws ◽  
Neural Network Structure ◽  
Over Time

Traditionally, software programmers write a series of hard-coded rules to instruct a machine, step by step. However, with the ubiquity of neural networks, instead of giving specific instructions, programmers can write a skeleton of code to build a neural network structure, and then feed the machine with data sets, in order to have the machine write code by itself. Software containing the code written in this manner changes and evolves over time as new data sets are input and processed. This characteristic distinguishes it markedly from traditional software, and is partly the reason why it is referred to as ‘software 2.0’. Yet the vagueness of the scope of such software might make it ineligible for protection by copyright law. To properly understand and address this issue, this chapter will first review the current scope of computer program protection under copyright laws, and point out the potential inherent issues arising from the application of copyright law to software 2.0. After identifying related copyright law issues, this chapter will then examine the possible justification for protecting computer programs in the context of software 2.0, aiming to explore whether new exclusivity should be granted or not under copyright law, and if not, what alternatives are available to provide protection for the investment in the creation and maintenance of software 2.0.

A RESPONSE TO FORCEHIMES' ‘DOWNLOAD THIS ESSAY: A DEFENCE OF STEALING EBOOKS’

Think ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (38) ◽  
pp. 51-57
Author(s):  
Sadulla Karjiker
Keyword(s):  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Public Libraries ◽  
Copyright Law

Forcehimes argues that any argument concerning copyright law which favours the existence of public libraries will necessarily also justify the downloading of ebooks without the copyright owners’ authorisation. As the justification for copyright protection is an economic one, it is submitted that, economically, there is a material difference between permitting public libraries making physical books available and allowing such online distribution of ebooks. Prohibiting the online distribution of ebooks without the copyright holders' consent, while permitting access to physical books via public libraries, is a policy which, at present, is consistent with the rationale for copyright protection.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document