Webcasters’ protection under copyright – A comparative study

This paper studies the fourth generation ‘peer-2-peer’ (P2P) file sharing technology which is also known as streaming technology from the technology point of view. It critically analyses the nature of streaming technology and assesses similarities to broadcasting for the purpose of copyright protection in the name of webcasting. In addition, it considers the possibility of protecting webcasting within the framework of broadcasting under copyright and the extent of broadcasters’ rights applicable to webcasters. Based on the conclusions derived from the discussion of UK, New Zealand, Italian and US law on streaming, WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) draft documents will be critically analyzed. The Last part of this work will offer suggestions as to how to protect webcasting (streaming technology) under the umbrella of copyright.     

融媒体时代网播组织的法律保护困境与应然路径选择——兼评新《著作权法》第47条

在当今媒体融合时代,网播组织已成为文化产品的主要提供者。现实中网播组织主要有两种类型:传统广播组织的互联网衍生平台和独立网播平台。互联网衍生平台依托于传统广播电台、电视台,具有天然的内容资源优势,而独立网播平台播放的节目通常依据其与第三方签订的合同而定。由于网播组织目前在我国版权法上的地位模糊不清,实践中网播组织遭遇信号盗播时或以传统媒体的被许可人身份起诉,或以独立的著作权人身份起诉,但在司法实践中均遭遇维权困境。为顺应技术发展趋势,保护并促进网络产业发展,我国《著作权法》应将网播组织纳入广播组织权的主体保护范围。     

All talk and no bite: Copyright infringement and piracy trends in India

The Copyright Act 1957 presents the face of modern copyright protection afforded to different intellectual works and is a key statement of intellectual property rights (IPR) in the Indian legislation governing this domain, as well as being compliant to the TRIPS Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. This Act has been acceptably referred to on many occasions on global platforms, on account of its being one of the most elaborate and well-structured pieces of legislation in the field of intellectual property law. However, this well encompassing, highly creditable and widely acknowledged legislation seems to fall down in its practical implementation rendering its theoretical purpose partly futile. The situation so stands, that India continues to project major piracy rates with little regression in the trend despite the fact that this law is still very much in force. The reasons which deny effective copyright protection in India, for works of miscellaneous categories, have much to do with the lack of an equally strong enforcement mechanism. This paper provides an insight into the inadequacies of the Indian legal and administrative systems which have ultimately diminished the effectiveness of the copyright regime contrary to that envisioned by the law.     

Part II of David Bainbridge's study of the copyright (computer software) amendment act 1985

The considerable amount of piracy of computer programs which has taken place recently has shaken the software industry's confidence in legal methods of protecting their products. If nothing more, the new Act should restore some of this confidence, but the industry must be prepared to take the legal measures now available. The stronger criminal sanctions provided for by section 3 of the Act emphasise the criminality of software piracy and it is hoped that the police will also begin to take software theft seriously. But there are some grey areas in copyright law as amended by the new Act; the precise scope of ‘material form’ and ‘adaptation’ are unclear - will the making of a duplicate of a program stored on magnetic cassette tape infringe copyright? A wide definition of ‘material form’ could have put protection beyond doubt whilst allowing for future developments in computer storage media. The new Act is seen as an interim measure pending a comprehensive review of copyright law (per Lord) Lucas of Chilworth, Hansard House of Lords, 10 May 1985 p. 873; he said that the Government hoped to bring forward a comprehensive Copyright Bill no later than the 1986/7 session). Furthermore, the whole area of computer storage of more traditional works of copyright such as literary and musical works, is not specifically mentioned in the new Act. Other questions such as the ownership of works including computer programs produced by or with the aid of a programmed grammed computer (first identified as being a likely problem as early as 1977 by the Whitford Committee) are not dealt with all by the Act. Lord Macmilland of Ovenden recently called for new legislation to deal with the copyright problems caused by new technology (The Times 18th September 1985 p.3), and it is hoped that full consideration will be given to the effect of computers on all forms of intellectual property when copyright law is rationalised and re-codified.     

Hyperlinks citations, reproducing original works

A hyperlink (or simply a link) is a citation of an electronic address where further information can be found but, additionally, navigates the surfer almost instantaneously to material hosted anywhere on the Internet at a mere click of a mouse. Controversy arises because either the composition or functionality of the hyperlink can potentially infringe property rights of the claimant. Many have written about the hyperlink as a navigation tool authorising or contributing to infringement of copyright by a third party.¹This article concentrates on the composition of an external hyperlink, as a citation. Part 2 outlines the nature of Internet communication and explains why hyperlinks are often controversial. Part 3 asserts when copyright subsists in original literary works, but because a hyperlink may incorporate diverse formats, this part also addresses the protection of other works including the issue of composite works covered under section 1(1) of Copyright, Design and Patents Act, 1988. Applying copyright principles, it suggests that a hyperlink reproducing an identifiable part of a web page capable of standing apart from its context can infringe copyright in the web page containing the part. That said the claimant might face difficulty in demonstrating that the work is substantive or, where the hyperlink consists of diverse inputs, in categorising the subject matter. Part 4 acknowledges the significance (electronic) collections and therefore defines a database falling within the Databases Directive.² It then highlights challenges presented by copyright and sui generis right relating to databases concluding that reproducing an identifiable part of author compiled work can infringe copyright and/or sui generis right therein but the same is not true of search engine generated returns. Part 5 concedes that, in practice, subsistence of copyright and/or sui generis right is open to challenge because the part reproduced in a hyperlink may not be substantive, may not easily fit into the category of protected subject matter or lacks ‘substantial investment.’ Nevertheless, it argues that proving infringement in an identifiable part of a web page reproduced in a hyperlink remains the most viable option for indirectly controlling access to the target page, which may itself be unprotected by copyright.     

Protection of databases in India and sui generis protection

Legal context: Historically, databases are protected under copyright law. India(which has been a major beneficiary of electronic commerce)provides copyright protection to databases. The adequacy ofthis protection is analysed in this paper, which considers thedevelopments in digital technology that make most of the databasemanufacturers susceptible to free-rider competition. The paperaims to demonstrate that adoption of the Feist doctrine by theIndian courts leads to inequitable results. The solution advocatedis the adoption of a sui generis legislation which clearly prescribesthe property rights and limitations, to database creators inIndia. Key points: The present legal environment in India grants protection todatabases under the Copyright Act 1957. The judiciary has interpretedthis protection utilizing the ‘sweat of the brow’theory as applied in Feist Publications, Inc. v Rural TelephoneService Co. The article argues that this is a thin layer ofprotection and acts as a significant deterrent to a databaseauthor's economic interests. The solution which the articlesuggests is a statutory sui generis database right. Practical significance: With the increased digitization of data, India is increasinglyseen as the back office of the world. This outsourcing of workto India has brought in an economic boom particularly in InformationTechnology Enabled Services. The creation and exploitation ofdatabases is a natural component of such services. Without thegranting of an adequate standard of protection to the authorsof the databases, the economic boom will not be sustainable.     

视听作品画面与内容的二分思路

在现行著作权法下,视听作品的著作权保护是否或如何覆盖非连续画面内容,并不十分清楚。实务中,如何看待视听作品所含内容对视听作品独创性和权利归属的影响,也一直存在争议。决策者应当接受画面与内容二分思路指引,消除视听作品著作权规则的模糊性。在二分思路下,视听作品独创性体现在画面制作的三个环节,即过程事件的可视化、连续画面的拍摄和后期制作环节。视听作品著作权保护限于连续画面本身。非画面内容应按照传统作品类型分别予以保护。内容贡献者如果没有参与上述任一画面制作环节,则没有对视听作品的独创性做出贡献,也不影响视听作品的权利归属。二分思路可以很好地解释复杂的网络游戏画面著作权争议,展现了宽广的应用前景。     

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。     

数字网络环境中著作权实现的困境与出路——基于P2P技术背景下美国音乐产业的实证分析

数字网络技术给著作权的保护带来了巨大的挑战。技术保护措施、侵权诉讼以及逐级响应机制等既有网络著作权保护方式已陷入困境。网络著作权与传统财产权、著作权的差异、新技术发展的不可预测性以及来自盗版的竞争,要求网络环境下必须采取以授权为中心的整体性著作权实现机制。随着云技术、大数据以及3D打印技术等新兴技术的发展,整体性著作权实现机制在网络环境中将发挥越来越重要的作用。     

The Hermeneutics of the Concept of Misrepresentation: Addressing the Quagmire of Damages and Compensation in Cases of Misrepresentation in Formation of a Contract Under Indian and English Law

In England, fraudulent misrepresentation is governed by English common law and damages are provided under the Tort of Deceit whereas negligent and innocent misrepresentation is governed by the Misrepresentation Act, 1967. In India, fraud is governed by s 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA) and misrepresentation by s 18 of the ICA. Notably, unlike in England where the remedies for fraud and misrepresentation are provided at separate avenues, in India, the relief to the innocent party in both cases is provided under s 19 of the ICA. This article discusses fraudulent misrepresentation & negligent/innocent misrepresentation and the quantification of damages thereof in contracts under the two legal regimes mentioned above. To that extent, the authors attempt to illustrate certain nuanced differences between the two legal regimes while also highlighting the similarities between English law and Indian law. For the purposes of this article, the authors refer to the Misrepresentation Act, 1967 and the seminal judgments of Derry v Peek, Doyle v Olby, East v Maurer and Smith New Court Securities Ltd. v Scrimgeour Vickers and discuss the “date of transaction rule” as enunciated by Lord Steyn while juxtaposing it with the judgments of the High Court of Delhi, and the Supreme Court of India. In the Indian context, the authors highlight the position of law as is apparent from two recent judgments of the Delhi High Court in NHAI v Pune Sholapur Road Development and Daiichi Sankyo v Malvinder Mohan Singh and Ors and also focus on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Avitel Post Stuidoz v HSBC Holdings (Mauritius).

     

交易成本和价格歧视理论在著作权合理使用中的定位与适用

经济学交易成本理论和价格歧视理论是数字时代强化著作权保护,限制合理使用的主要理论依据.由于某些合理使用是为克服交易成本过高的市场失灵而设,交易成本理论和价格歧视理论对合理使用范围的缩小具有一定的解释力.但是,它们不是确定合理使用范围的唯一标准.除交易成本外,外部性的内部化和公共利益也是影响合理使用适用的重要因素.当存在正外部性无法有效内部化的市场失灵,或者基于维护公共利益,也应考虑适用合理使用规则,以确保作品正外部性的充分释放.     

Copyright or Copy Wrong: An Analysis of University Claims to Faculty Work

Most universities claim to own at least some faculty-created works. An examination of copyright cases touching on faculty ownership of their intellectual property, of the teacher exception to the work-for-hire doctrine and its relationship to academic freedom, and of university copyright policies demonstrates that faculty have little protection for their intellectual property. Indeed, the greatest protection for faculty who stake claims on their work may be university copyright policies that do not alter the traditional work-for-hire arrangement set up by the Copyright Act.     

CONTU revisited: the case against copyright protection for computer programs in machine-readable form

Professor Samuelson casts a critical eye on the Final Report of the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU) which recommended that copyright protection be extended to machine-readable versions of computer programs. CONTU appears to have misunderstood computer technology and misinterpreted copyright tradition in two significant respects. The Commission failed to take into account the historical importance of disclosure of the contents of protected works as a fundamental goal of both the copyright and patent laws. It also erroneously opined that the utilitarian character of a work was no bar to its copyrightability when both the statute and the case law make clear that utilitarian works are not copyrightable. Since computer programs in machine-readable forms do not disclose their contents and are inherently utilitarian, copyright protection for them is inappropriate. Congress acted on CONTU's recommendation without understanding the significance of these conceptual flaws. Professor Samuelson recommends the creation of a new form of intellectual property law specifically designed for machine-readable programs.     

中美实用艺术品著作权保护比较研究——兼论我国实用艺术品著作权保护的路径

实用艺术品的著作权保护问题实质上是如何确立著作权保护范围及标准的问题。我国现行《著作权法》并未将实用艺术品作为受保护客体,但也并未将其排除在著作权保护范围之外。而美国在实用艺术品的著作权保护上于立法层面是非常清晰的,在《1976年版权法》中已明确将其列为受保护客体,美国法院的诸多判例也影响了实用艺术品著作权保护研究的方向。本文梳理了中美两国实用艺术品的著作权保护问题的历史沿革及现状,总结归纳了两国具有代表性的判例,以求通过对比提炼出两国著作权法及司法实践中存在的问题。美国的相关立法及其司法裁判经验对于我国实用艺术品的著作权保护具备重要借鉴价值。     

Art and copyright: some current issues

Legal context IP lawyers are increasingly having to advise onart-related copyright matters. Current issues include the strongcopyright protection given to images, uncertainty in the protectiongiven to innovative contemporary art works, problems in applyingthe fair dealing exceptions to art works, and the increasingrelevance of other IP rights. Key points Image rights receive strong protection - photographsof public domain art works are protected in the basis of long-standingauthority (although there are arguments against such a view).Whether an artistic work is protected by copyright depends onwhether the work falls into the closed list of categories insection 4 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (painting,drawing, engraving, sculpture, etc). Much contemporary art doesnot fall neatly within these categories. Categorisation willalso be in issue as far as Artist's Resale Right is concerned.There is lack of understanding amongst internet artists aboutthe copyright restrictions that apply to digital works and concernsare raised more generally about the lawfulness of appropriationart. Practical significance Lawyers advising artists and those exploitingartistic works need to be aware of the potentially broad scopegiven in UK law to protecting works of art (including photographsof public domain works such as Old Master paintings) and tothe conflict between copyright and the practice of appropriationart. Where infringement claims are being considered fair dealingarguments and the possible impact of human rights law in guaranteeingfreedom of expression will need to be carefully considered.There has been little reported litigation on moral rights butthis aspect cannot be ignored. Trade mark rights, design lawand passing off may also need to be considered.     

论音乐作品的著作权保护

音乐作品是整个著作权作品体系中十分重要的组成部分,保护音乐作品著作权反映了我国著作权法律制度的发展水平。随着网络技术的飞速发展,音乐作品在国际范围内的交流日益加深,我国的法律制度也应该与国际接轨,因而在音乐作品的保护上建立和完善著作权限制制度和著作权集体管理制度是必然的趋势。本文首先分析了音乐作品的表演权、广播权以及网络传播权三项重要的音乐作品财产权,进而对音乐作品著作权受到侵害的情形进行分析,并提出对策建议,即完善著作权权利限制制度、著作权集体管理制度以及互联网管理制度。     

Beyond the property debate: animal welfare as a public good

Abstract

Animal protection is socially constructed through laws specifying which animals should be protected and how. Most jurisdictions codify animal abuse by specifying the legal protections granted to animals. While these vary between jurisdictions, western legal systems generally provide for better levels of animal protection by incorporating animal welfare and wildlife crime laws into criminal justice systems. UK legislation has long held that animal welfare is a public good, thus animals should be protected in the public interest. However, despite the protective provisions of animal protection laws they generally fall short of giving animals actual rights, protection exists only to the extent that animal and human interests coincide. Animals’ legal status as property dictates that much anti-animal abuse and wildlife crime legislation is about allowing animal exploitation commensurate with human interests. However, UK legislation in the form of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 subtly shifts this position in respect of domestic animals by imposing a duty of care towards companion animals. This paper argues that by requiring owners and responsible persons to give active consideration to the needs of individual companion animals, the Animal Welfare Act provides animals with a level of protection that amounts to a form of legal rights.     

计算机字体单字的可著作权问题研究——兼评中国《著作权法》的第三次修改

计算机字体单字的可著作权问题随着"方正电子公司诉宝洁公司侵犯计算机字体‘飘柔’"案的发生,已成为知识产权领域的焦点话题。这一问题的解决需要从知识产权法的基本原理出发,对计算机字体单字可著作权问题中涉及的诸如"独创性"、"创造与劳动"、"独创性与审美性"、"创作与手段"等基本的范畴展开进一步的反思、质评和考辨。计算机字体单字作为美术作品保护符合著作权的基本法理,有其逻辑上的自洽性;计算机字体单字和字库同时受著作权保护,既是形式逻辑的必然要求,也符合范式国家立法的发展潮流和正确理解立场。基于此,有必要借鉴相关国际公约和国外先进立法,设计我国《著作权法》第三次修改的具体进路,并对计算机字体单字的著作权保护作出合理的制度安排,以期为我国《著作权法》的适时完善有所裨益。     

美国版权侵权刑事责任的评析

美国国会分别于１９９７年和１９９８年通过了《反电子盗窃法》和《数字化千年之际版权法案》两部法律,将版权法、联邦刑法及其相关法律进行部分修正,试图强化对于通过电子方式构成的版权侵权的刑事处罚和对版权人的保护。这两部法律与相关法律一起构建了比较全面的版权刑事保护体系,因此分析美国最新版权侵权的刑事责任的发展,有助我们研究完善版权的刑事责任的法律规定。     

The Google conundrum: Perpetrator or facilitator on the net? – Forging a fair copyright framework of rights, liability and responsibility in response to search engine 2.0 – Part I: The Google Images Search Engine

Is Google in its quest for search engine optimization through the creation of new technologies, which not only improves its search algorithms but also refines its search functions for users, doing it in a manner that makes it a perpetrator of primary copyright infringement or an invaluable facilitator for Internet functionality? How should the balance of interests in the treatment of creative works be recalibrated in the face of changes in search engine technology and operations, and the disputes that have arisen within the last decade in the context of the digital age and its needs? Using Google as a case study, this paper will look at the two main areas of dispute over the operations of information locator tools and services that either threatens search engine functionality and efficiency or weakens copyright holders’ exclusive rights. It proposes a concerted set of solutions through a reassessment and amendment of copyright law to optimize the social benefits and objectives of both the copyright regime and technological innovations in the electronic model of information archiving, indexing and delivery. A fair distribution of responsibilities and allocation of rights and liabilities will be suggested. In the process, due consideration will be given to both public and private interests, with the former taking precedence; while the recommended solutions will be made within the currently outdated framework for Internet intermediary protection (i.e. safe harbor laws) and exceptions (i.e. specific statutory exemptions and the general fair use defense) under the existing copyright regime. Thus, the proposed changes will be far reaching without being too radical a departure from current law, an evolution that will likely be more acceptable and realistic a solution to the problem.This paper is published in two parts. Part One of this paper will deal with the challenges to the copyright regime posed by the operations and technology behind the Google Images Search Engine, while Part Two that will be published in the subsequent edition of the CLSR will assess the benefits of the Google Books Search Project vis-à-vis the effects it will have on the scope of copyright protection. Recommendations are made to copyright law to accommodate both functions while generally preserving the main objectives of copyright protection.