Catch-up and Time shift as ways to use copyright and related rights

Zerov K. Catch-up and Time shift as ways to use copyright and related rights. Based on the provisions of the current Ukrainian legislation and the legislation of the European Union, the legal nature of the Catch-up right and the Time Shift right is investigated, and their place among other ways of using objects of copyright and related rights is determined as a combination of the right of reproduction and the right of communication to the public. The right of reproduction is applicable in the case of Catch-up right and Time Shift because when recording on the server of the software service provider of the broadcasting and (or) broadcasting program, theirnew fixation is created. The right of communication to the public is applicable in the case of Catch-up right and Time Shift because it combines «an act of communication» — uses a specific technical means different from that of the original communication, and is aimed at the «public.» In the case of Catch-up right and Time Shift, it is irrelevant whether the potential recipients access the communicated objects through a one-to-one connection because this technique does not prevent a large number of persons from having access to the same work at the same time.It was determined that these rights are granted to program service providers and other persons who retransmit programs of a broadcasting organization based on license agreements, which are paid and additional to the main contract for retransmission of a broadcasting organization's program. Moreover, the rights to Catch-up and Time Shift are limited in time (usually up to 7 calendar days for Catch-up and 24 hours for Time Shift from the moment of live broadcast). In the absence in the agreement of the conditions regarding the type of license, territory, and term of the agreement, the general provisions set out in Part 4 of Art. 1109, part 7 of Art. 1109 and part 3. Art. 1110 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, are appliable respectively. But usually these conditions may be different and more limited from the main license agreement for retransmission, for example Catch-up and Time Shift are geo-targeted to a specific area.Key words: Catch-up, Time Shift, communication to the public, reproduction, IPTV

Indexing

This chapter deals with indexing. Indexing is typically engaged in by internet service providers of different kinds, such as search engines, content aggregators, and online content sharing platforms, including social media. Indexing is the background process that tries to achieve greater accessibility of the content on the internet. However, this process may engage the right of reproduction and the right of communication to the public, and therefore, must be considered separately. Based on the indexing capabilities and to facilitate deeper analysis, this chapter classifies the providers into search engines, content sharing platforms, news aggregators and other content aggregators. The chapter explains how courts have tried to deal with this issue and argues for a greater role of implied licences to address the issues of copyright infringement. While indexing of content that is placed on the internet by or with the copyright owner’s consent can benefit from consent-based implied licence, indexing of the content that is placed on the internet without the copyright owner’s consent may benefit from a policy-based implied licence, saving them from liability for indexing infringing content under certain circumstances.

HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGULATION IN GALICIA AS A PART OF AUSTRIA AND AUSTRO-HUNGARY (1772–1918)

The article analyzes the features of the legal regulation of intellectual property in Ukraine, in particular in the Ukrainian lands of Austria and Austria-Hungary (1772-1918). The author shows that the main source of legal regulation of civil relations, in particular intellectual property, in Galicia as part of Austria and Austria-Hungary (1772–1918) was the Austrian Civil Code of 1811. Property rights under the Austrian Civil Code of 1811 were the right of ownership, the right of possession, the right to pledge, and easements. The author highlights that things were divided into corporeal, disembodied, movable and immovable, used and unused, with price and without price. The bodily things were those perceived by the sense organs. Disembodied things included, first of all, property rights - the right to fish, hunt, and so on. It is shown that in the Austrian Empire for the first time the provisions on the legal regulation of intellectual property were provided for in the Civil Code of 1811 (Articles 1164‒1170). The author shows that the Austrian legal acts of 1846 for the first time regulated the free use of works, including the right of translation, citation. According to the law of 1846, the artist had to reserve the right of reproduction and exercise it for 2 years under the threat of losing his rights. It is emphasized that the presence of Western Ukrainian lands in the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, in comparison with the previous period of the Commonwealth, contributed to the spiritual progress of the Ukrainian nation, intensified cultural and artistic processes in Ukrainian lands. The author reveals that an important and new normative act in the field of intellectual property regulation was the Austrian Copyright Act for works of literature, art and photography, adopted on December 26, 1895. Attention is focused on the fact that the development of industrial property rights was carried out under the influence of economic development, which in the western Ukrainian lands as part of Austria was slower than in the economically developed regions of Austria, and thus - Austria-Hungary. It is concluded that the development of legal regulation of intellectual property in Galicia as part of Austria and Austria-Hungary (1772-1918) formed a certain experience, which was characterized by the specification of objects, subjects, the definition of intellectual property, the consolidation of copyright and their defense in court.

Copyright Issues in the Context of the Digital Library

Libraries have a strong role on promoting culture and knowledge as intermediaries between creators and readers. In the analogical world, such usages didn't have relevant effects on the normal exploitation of copyrighted works. However, digitisation had a strong effect on rightholders' interests by facilitating and democratizing access to works, considering that libraries may reproduce them and promote their online accessibility. Litigation regarding the referred actions has dramatically increased in the last years as they may stress the normal exploitation of copyrighted works and the exclusive rights of reproduction and of distributing. Based on the European Union's legislation and jurisprudence, the present chapter analyses the lawfulness of public libraries digitisation of books from their collection in order to make them available to users without the right holder's consent, confronting them with the exclusive right of reproduction and the making available right.

Legality of the Parody Exception in Light of International Treaties and Domestic Copyright Laws

This chapter examines the legality of the parody exception in light of international treaties and domestic copyright laws. More specifically, it considers whether the parody exception may only be introduced into national copyright law if it satisfies the three-step test enshrined in international treaties. The chapter first traces the history and evolution of copyright law before explaining whether copyright law requires a specific parody exception and why a specific parody exception rectifies the balance between right-holders, users, and subsequent authors. It then discusses the three-step test, first incorporated into the Berne Convention to protect the ‘right of reproduction’, and its adoption in European Union texts and national legislations. It also outlines the differing interpretations of the three-step test and concludes with an analysis of whether the current parody exceptions in each of the five jurisdictions (France, Australia, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom) comply with this test.

Problem utworów osieroconych w świetle nowelizacji prawa autorskiego

The problem of orphan works in the light of amendment of the Copyright LawOrphan works problem is one of the most important elements of a debate on future of the copyright law. The whole debate focused on problems of large-scale digitization and creation of the European Digital Library. Amendment of the Copyright Law and Related Laws of 11th September 2015 is implementation of the Directive 2012/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on certain permitted uses of orphan works. It creates the legal framework to facilitate the digitization and dissemination of works for which no rightholder is identified or for which the rightholder, even if identified, is not located. Permitted uses of orphan works include right of reproduction and right of making available to the public provided. Indispensable condition for using orphan works is conducting adiligent search for rightholders.

KEBIJAKAN PELAYANAN KESEHATAN REPRODUKSI REMAJA

Indonesian adolescents are 37 per cent of the total of population of this country. The large quantity, however, is comparatively unequal to the right of reproduction health service they receive. They are often seen in the position as an "isolated tribe". Consequently, not only few adolescents, especially the female ones become victims of "Mimi Momo". This writing begins with a description of a case related to the reproduction health hitting an adolescent, then besides being related to the Cairo action program, it is also correlated with the recommendation on the policies of the reproduction service for adolescents.

Copyright Issues in the Context of the Digital Library

Libraries have a strong role on promoting culture and knowledge as intermediaries between creators and readers. In the analogical world, such usages didn't have relevant effects on the normal exploitation of copyrighted works. However, digitisation had a strong effect on rightholders' interests by facilitating and democratizing access to works, considering that libraries may reproduce them and promote their online accessibility. Litigation regarding the referred actions has dramatically increased in the last years as they may stress the normal exploitation of copyrighted works and the exclusive rights of reproduction and of distributing. Based on the European Union's legislation and jurisprudence, the present chapter analyses the lawfulness of public libraries digitisation of books from their collection in order to make them available to users without the right holder's consent, confronting them with the exclusive right of reproduction and the making available right.