‘A businessman who forged a document and lied about its authenticity has won a legal battle against a major financial institution over copyright.’
OUT-LAW.com, 15th April 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A person who made protected subject matter available to the public on a website without the agreement of the copyright holder, for the purpose of article 3(2) of Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29/EC, was using the services of the Internet service provider of the persons accessing that subject matter, which had to be regarded as an “intermediary” within the meaning of article 8(3) of the Directive. The fundamental rights recognised by EU law did not preclude a court injunction prohibiting an Internet service provider from allowing its customers access to a website placing protected subject matter online without the agreement of the rightholders when that injunction did not specify the measures which that access provider had to take and when that access provider could avoid incurring coercive penalties for breach of that injunction by showing that it had taken all reasonable measures, provided that (i) the measures taken did not unnecessarily deprive Internet users of the possibility of lawfully accessing the information available and (ii) that those measures had the effect of preventing unauthorised access to the protected subject matter or, at least, of making it difficult to achieve and of seriously discouraging Internet users who were using the services of the addressee of that injunction from accessing the subject-matter that had been made available to them in breach of the intellectual property right, that being a matter for the national authorities and courts to establish.’
WLR Daily, 27th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘It was possible that an unregistered design could reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the “circles specialised in the sector concerned” operating within the European Union, within the meaning of article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, if images of the design were distributed to traders operating in that sector. However, it was possible that an unregistered design might not reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the European Union, even though it was disclosed to third parties without any explicit or implicit conditions of confidentiality, if it had been “made available”, within the meaning of article 7(1) of the Regulation, to only one undertaking in that sector or had been presented only in the showrooms of an undertaking outside the European Union.’
WLR Daily, 13th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Svensson and others v Retriever Sverige AB (Case C-466/12); [2014] WLR (D) 67
‘Under article 3(1) of Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29/EC of the of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, the provision on a website of hyperlinks to works freely available on another website did not constitute an “act of communication to the public”. Article 3(1) precluded a member state from giving wider protection to copyright holders by laying down that the concept of communication to the public included a wider range of activities than those referred to in the article.’
WLR Daily, 13th February 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Websites can link to freely available content without the permission of the copyright holder, the European Court of Justice says.’
BBC News, 14th February 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A pub landlord has to pay £65,000 in legal costs for breaching the Premier League’s copyright by showing football matches using a foreign satellite card authorised only for private use.’
BBC News, 30th January 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Changes to UK copyright law will come into force on 6 April 2014, the Government has announced.’
OUT-LAW.com, 19th December 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
‘As everyone knows, copyright restricts the acts listed in s.16 (1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (“CDPA”) in relation to a work in which copyright subsists (“a copyright work”). Those acts include copying, issuing copies, renting, lending or communicating the work to the public etc. Anyone who does any of those acts without the owner’s licence infringes that copyright. He or she may be sued or in an extreme case prosecuted.’
NIPC Law, 17th December 2013
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘Businesses that merely publish a link on their website to copyright infringing material online may not themselves be liable for copyright infringement, a High Court judge has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd November 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Businesses can replicate the way a rivals’ computer program operates by interpreting how it functions from reading user manuals or other accompanying documents their rivals produce without infringing copyright, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 22nd November 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“There has been a lot of discussion over the last couple of years in the media about what intellectual property exists in tattoos and who owns it. It is likely that tattoos, if original artistic works, will be subject to copyright and the owner of copyright works is generally the person who created them, i.e. the tattoo artist.”
Technology Law Update, 24th October 2013
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
Performing Right Society Ltd v B4U Network (Europe) Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1236; [2013] WLR (D) 385
“Where a composition fell within the terms of an agreement assigning copyright to the Performing Right Society the effect of section 2(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 was to vest copyright in the society as soon as the work was created, notwithstanding an agreement with those commissioning the work which purported to assign to them all rights in future works.”
WLR Daily, 16th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The market leader in the sale of liquid propane gas (LPG) in the UK has been found vicariously liable for the infringement of database rights belonging to a rival.”
OUT-LAW.com, 18th October 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
Performing Right Society Ltd v B4U Network (Europe) Ltd: [2013] EWCA Civ 1236; [2013] WLR (D) 385
“Where a composition fell within the terms of an agreement assigning copyright to the Performing Right Society the effect of section 2(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 was to vest copyright in the society as soon as the work was created, notwithstanding an agreement with those commissioning the work which purported to assign to them all rights in future works.”
WLR Daily, 16th October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Three UK broadcasters have won the right to prevent an online streaming service provider from retransmitting the TV programmes they show to users of mobile devices via any ‘mobile telephony network’.”
OUT-LAW.com, 15th October 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG (Case C-170/12); [2013] WLR (D) 367
“In the event of alleged infringement of copyrights protected by the member state of the court seised, the latter had jurisdiction to hear an action to establish liability brought by the author of a work against a company established in another member state and which had, in the latter state, reproduced that work on a material support which was subsequently sold by companies established in a third member state through an Internet site also accessible with the jurisdiction of the court seised. That court had jurisdiction only to determine the damage caused in the member state within which it was situated.”
WLR Daily, 3rd October 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“OPINION: ISPs are wrong to suggest that data protection laws prevent rights holders creating a database of suspected online copyright infringers. Any concerns ISPs have about invasion of customers’ privacy can be overcome by the use of safeguards.”
OUT-LAW.com, 20th September 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“The Government could fine collective licensing bodies up to £50,000 if they fail to implement a compliant code of practice governing their activities, according to plans outlined by the Intellectual Property Office (IPO).”
OUT-LAW.com, 17th September 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“Dance music brand Ministry of Sound is suing Spotify for copyright infringement, claiming the streaming music company has refused to delete users’ playlists that copy its compilation albums.”
The Guardian, 4th September 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024