Injunctions and the Public Interest in Fair Use Cases After eBay

The indeterminacy of the fair use doctrine can frustrate those who wish to use copyrighted material to create something new. When coupled with the ready availability of injunctive relief for plaintiffs in infringement suits, this uncertainty can cause a chilling effect that prevents artists, scholars and others from asserting their fair use rights to the fullest. This article examines procedural changes regarding the award of injunctions that were mandated by the Supreme Court of the United States in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. and extended to copyright cases by the Second and Ninth United States Circuit Courts of Appeals. It concludes that the procedural safeguards instituted in these cases will help shift the balance of power in fair use cases away from copyright plaintiffs to protect defendants with credible fair use claims and better serve the public interest.     

Flooding the Permafrost: The Role of Environmental Claims in the Effort to Regulate Global Warming Emissions

This article focuses on the role that public and private claims play in spurring, supporting, supplementing, and, at times, impeding, climate change initiatives. Sections 1 and 2 describe the essential features of greenhouse gases and briefly detail the history of federal initiatives and the collapse of will that precipitated many of the claims filed by states, municipalities, and environmental groups. Section 3 discusses plaintiffs' early challenges and efforts to compel regulatory action; nuisance actions that have been filed by states, public interest groups, and individuals; and the possible trajectory of future claims. Section 4 discusses the role of climate change claims in enforcing compliance, improving corporate responsibility, and promoting interorganizational benchmarking in governmental and market-based standards programs. Section 5 concludes with a discussion of the precautionary principle and ways in which companies can protect themselves against future climate change-related claims.     

著作权法中“合理使用”与公共利益研究

一般认为著作权法是私法,以保障著作权人的利益为归依.然而,随着网络时代著作权人专有权的不断扩张,作为限制著作权人权利的合理使用制度越来受到重视.一方面,合理使用制度保障了公众对作品的接近、增进了知识和学习、促进了民主文化;另一方面,公共利益又是判定某一使用作品的行为是否为合理使用的重要指标.从公共利益视角审视合理使用制度,分析两者之间的关系,具有重要的学术意义和实践价值.     

论版权法上使用者利益的保护

使用者利益是版权生态中的重要组成部分,但在版权法中的地位却日趋边缘化。它常常被其他议题所淹没,也尚未得到版权理论的系统梳理与阐释。版权法上的作品使用者具有不同的面孔,它们是作品载体的所有者,是消费者,也是重要的创作者。作为不同身份的使用者,存在不同的利益需求。这些使用者利益分别得到了默示许可、首次销售和合理使用原则的庇护。但是,这些规则均有适用范围上的局限性。适用范围广于首次销售的权利穷竭原则为成文法和司法判例所共同确认,它通过三要素来确定使用者利益是否应得到保护。因而,权利穷竭原则也属于保护使用者利益的重要制度之一,它与其他规则一起促进了版权生态的健康发展。     

Bad medicine: prescription drugs, preemption, and the potential for a no-fault fix

For decades, federal regulation of pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices has worked hand in hand with state tort claims to protect the health and safety of the American public. Now, a new trend toward preemption endangers this scheme. In recent years, the Supreme Court has given increasing deference to agency assertions about their preemptive authority and has found preemption in an increasing number of cases. In the process, the Supreme Court has preempted claims for medical device injuries and left claims for pharmaceutical harms in a precarious position. The elimination of common law claims for drug and device harms will leave holes in the FDA's regulatory scheme, endangering the health and safety of Americans. It will also prevent ordinary Americans from seeking compensation for their injuries--even those injuries caused by manufacturer malfeasance. This Article proposes that Congress create a no-fault compensation scheme for drugs and medical devices to close these gaps. Such a scheme could be both practical and politically possible, satisfying manufacturers, tort reformers, patients, and plaintiffs' lawyers alike.     

著作权法第三次修改草案的立法方案和内容安排

著作权法第三次修改草案公布后,各方都基于自己的立场提出了不同意见和观点.总的来说,本次草案兼具了国际化与本土化,平衡了产业利益与公共利益.但在一些具体规则的设计上,由于缺乏配套规范的支撑,因此可能会损害部分权利人的利益,应在后期加以完善.     

Content and Access Agreements: An Analysis of Some of the Legal Issues Arising from Linking and Framing

This paper examines the subject of content and access agreements with a detailed analysis of the legal issues that arise from linking and framing. The law is examined from a UK perspective with a detailed study of significant developments in the USA. The main focus of the discussion is on copyright and contract, but the subject of trespass is also considered to cover those situations where contract and copyright remedies may not be available. The copyright analysis reveals uncertainty in the extent of the protection offered and this has had the effect of encouraging the use of contractual licences. Detailed consideration is given to the use and enforceability of such contractual licences and to the actual and potential problems of their increasing use. The paper shows that there are advantages and disadvantages associated with both copyright and contract and certain conceptual difficulties in the use of trespass are discussed. Nevertheless the factors identified and the expected continuation of existing trends show that the use of licences and formal agreements relating to linking and access will increase, especially where commercial actors have perceived strong interests to protect.     

著作权滥用的有关争议、误读及澄清

“著作权滥用条款”在著作权法第三次修订过程中引起了巨大争议。尽管昙花一现,但著作权滥用问题获得了前所未有的关注。本文对我国当前关于著作权滥用问题存在的争议乃至误区进行了分析与澄清,提出著作权滥用有着不同于专利权滥用的自身特性,构成著作权滥用并不以违反反垄断法为前提,《民法典》中禁止权利滥用原则的规定并不妨碍著作权法中规制著作权滥用规则的构建。“草案一审稿”中的“著作权滥用条款”规定过于粗糙与模糊,未来待时机成熟仍然应该在著作权法内部寻求著作权滥用的规制方案。     

行政法上请求权的理论构造

公法请求权根源于并服务于基础性公法权利,但具备独立实体权利的要素,具有相对的独立性。确保或回复基础性公法权利不受干扰状态的干扰防御请求权和作为受益权核心内容的给付请求权是公法请求权的两种典型形态。公法请求权的确认和保护,对基础性公法权利的实现具有重要意义,只有实现对公法请求权的全面保护,方可实现对基础性公法权利的全面保护。我国应当通过立法和司法的革新措施促进公法请求权的行政法制保护,以提升公法权利的行政法保障水平：一方面,行政立法应当树立对公法请求权予以直接立法确认的理念;另一方面应通过行政诉讼制度的改革促进公法请求权的司法保护。     

What's in a name: the Vermont Genetically Engineered Food Labeling Act

On May 8, 2014, Vermont passed the Vermont Genetically Engineered Food Labeling Act (Act) requiring labels on certain genetically engineered foods. Once the bill takes effect July 1, 2016, all Vermont-retailed foods with more than 0.9% of their total weight in genetically modified ingredients must be labeled with language stating, “may be partially produced with genetic engineering.” As genetically engineered food are considered scientifically equivalent to their traditional counterparts and are not subject to federal labeling by the FDA, the Act presents several legal questions. Several of the legal questions have been raised in a recent lawsuit filed by the Grocery Manufactures Association that claims the Act violates the First Amendment, Supremacy Clause, and Commerce Clause. This paper will discuss why the Second Circuit could strike down the Act as unconstitutional as to each claim.     

Public/private information sharing in healthcare fraud investigations

Private insurers have good reason, both in their private interest and in the public interest, for pursuing and rooting out fraud in the healthcare system; moreover, they often have sophisticated data systems, substantial investigative information, and management expertise that can be useful to prosecutors. It makes sense, as a public policy matter, to undertake steps to encourage insurers to be aggressive in pursuing legitimate fraud cases, and to provide a framework for effective cooperation and information sharing with law enforcement. At the same time, prosecutors are responsible for enforcing equal justice under the law; thus, any such relationship must be handled in an appropriate manner, with safeguards to protect privacy and the reputation of investigative subjects. While the courts have not yet explored many of the relevant legal and factual issues in this area, the author surveys existing guidance under governing laws and policies applicable to state and federal prosecutors, and suggests techniques to prevent inappropriate communication or use of such information.     

The French Supreme Court limits the scope of an important legal principle protecting authors

The formalistic rules of contract which protect the authorswho assign or licence copyright may be limited to publishingcontracts, contracts of public performance, and audio-visualproduction contracts.     

Procreative torts: enhancing the common-law protection for reproductive autonomy

Roe v. Wade's twenty-fifth anniversary is likely to herald widespread scholarly commentary on the decision's continued vitality and the future of abortion in the United States. However, if such commentary focuses solely upon the constitutional dimensions and political aspects of a woman's right to privacy, an important dimension of this right will be overlooked. Few commentators have considered the extent to which tort law safeguards a woman's interest in reproductive autonomy. In this article, Professor Northern argues that the interest in reproductive autonomy has not yet received the full protection to which it is entitled and that tort law is poised to evolve distinct causes of action for the interference with procreative autonomy interests. Professor Northern begins with an overview of the medical and psychological literature on abortion-related risks. She goes on to discuss current trends in abortion malpractice litigation. The author then reviews the three basic types of malpractice causes of action--battery, negligence, and lack of informed consent--and explores their application to abortion malpractice claims. The focus of the article then shifts to the development of specialized procreative torts, and Professor Northern contends that courts should go beyond previous decisions to redress any substantial interference with procreative autonomy. Finally, the author asserts that legislative alternatives to the common-law development of procreative torts, such as right-to-know statutes, are less protective of women's interests. Professor Northern concludes that tort law could and should be used to more fully protect women's interests in procreative autonomy.     

私权在行政执法中的地位——以一则行政案件为分析工具

传统观念认为,公共利益优先于私人利益。但在当前更加强调尊重和保护私权的背景下,该种观念的正当性值得进一步检讨,不能认为私权相对于公权始终处于附属地位。在特定情况下,行政权力依法行使的内涵中应包含尊重私权,国家公权在行使过程中应注意对民事主体私权利的保护。     

著作权合同中作者权益保护的规则取舍与续造

著作权合同规则和集体协商所需中介组织的双重缺失,导致我国作者在著作权合同领域面临诸多不公平待遇时处于无法可依的境地。比较法上作者权益保护的制度安排,又因不同国家相关产业力量对比差异而有不同路径。在缺乏本土基本规则支撑的情况下,更符合我国产业特点的解决路径,一方面是根据比较法经验来重新校准作者权益的保护范畴,避免以事后规则直接保障作者收益,通过事前规则增助作者的自治能力;另一方面是运用法教义学的方法从著作权法合同章和民法典合同编两个领域完成对作者权益保护的解释学续造。应将著作权法合同章中规定的许可或转让的权利种类作为合同成立的“必要之点”,要求合同条款明确列举每项权利的使用范围、目的、期限和版税标准。应在区分无偿和有偿的著作权专有许可合同的基础上,类推适用民法典合同编中合同终止的一般规则和相关有名合同终止权来完成对作者利益保护规则的续造。     

Holding Back the Tide— a Review of Recent Developments in Copyright Law in the United Kingdom

This article surveys recent developments in UK copyright law. It sets these developments in the context of broader trends in copyright law and policy. Significant decisions concerning subsistence of copyright, authorship, infringement, defences, remedies and collective licensing are analysed. The author notes that copyright, and other intellectual property rights, have been given extra force as a result of recent legislative developments. He argues that, against this background, it is possible to discern increasing judicial concern to ensure that such an expansion in monopoly power does not operate against the public interest.     

论境外影视作品版权的二元保护

原《著作权法》第4条规定＂依法禁止出版、传播的作品,不受本法保护＂。该规定对境外影视作品未予以充分保护,不仅违背了＂版权自动取得＂原则,而且招徕版权国际纠纷。中美争端案让我们开始反思境外影视作品的保护模式,并加快了对境外影视作品保护的研究进程。本文对一元版权保护模式作出了反思,并以二元理论为视角对境外影视作品的版权及其保护作出论证。希冀在二元保护模式下提高对境外影视作品法律保护的能力,减少版权国际纠纷,促进我国版权国际化的发展。     

违法合同的效力判定路径之辨识

《合同法》第52条第5项及其司法解释对于纠正违法即无效的错误认识曾起到了历史性作用。但现有的学说及现行立法在就违法合同效力的判定路径上却存在着方向性的偏差,于司法实践并不具有真正的指导意义:区分民法内的强制规范与民法外的强制规范而异其效力,在我国并不可行;通过语义分析尚难以发现强制规范之所在;而将违法之法简单缩限为法律、行政法规上的效力性强制性规定,并不妥当,亦难以操作,且于价值及逻辑层面多有疑问;此外,将违法与损害社会公共利益予以并列,在逻辑上也有不合。故应将违法合同的效力判定纳入《合同法》第52条第4项,通过规范目的的发现及利益的衡量来最终确定违法合同的命运。     

论不公平条款制度——兼论我国显失公平制度之于格式条款

为防止格式条款阻却正义、伤害社会,德国和欧盟法确立了不公平条款制度,通过对违背诚信原则、导致合同权利义务严重失衡的格式条款的否定来控制格式条款的内容,保护弱势合同当事人。我国应当借鉴德国和欧盟法,在格式条款制度之下建构不公平条款制度,而不应将其整合到现行颇具争议的显失公平制度之中。我国不公平条款制度除了建立公平性审查的一般规则外,亦应当建立不公平条款"黑名单"与"灰名单"以及公平性审查之"豁免"规则,为法官、当事人、行政机关和相关社会团体提供法律指引,为格式条款自律、行政监督、公益诉讼和司法审查提供制度支撑。     

论侵害债权制度

我国合同法并未规定侵害债权制度,但是侵害债权的现象在社会生活中是客观存在的,而且在理论上也是成立的。合理适用该制度有助于保护债权人利益,维护交易安全,减少不正当竞争行为,因此,有必要构建合理的侵害债权制度,以达到债权人、债务人、第三人之间的利益平衡。