Cikkajánló #9.3

Rövidke ajánlatok paródiáról, Brexitről, az uniós elektronikus kereskedelmi szabályozás esetleges reformjáról, a mesterséges intelligencia fair use teszttel való csörtéjéről és a technológia és szerzői jog találkozásával kapcsolatos EUB joggyakorlatról. – Cikkajánló #9.3.

Daniël Jongsma: Parody after Deckmyn – Egy kiváló elemzés arról, hogy a francia, belga, holland és német szerzői jog rendszerébe miként VOLT beilleszthető a paródia kivétele a Deckmyn döntés előtt – ÉS AZÓTA! A cikk absztraktja szerint:

“Many EU Member States have a well-established approach with regard to the use of copyright-protected works for the purpose of parody. As a consequence of the CJEU’s Deckmyn decision, in which the Court held that parody is an autonomous concept of EU law and defined that concept, their approach may need to change. This article looks at the criteria developed by various national courts to determine the lawfulness of parodies prior to Deckmyn and at the role these criteria can play after Deckmyn. It will be argued that even though the adaptation right is not explicitly harmonized by the InfoSoc Directive, a parody will in principle constitute a reproduction within the meaning of that directive. In addition, it is submitted that Member States are not free to restrict the scope of the harmonized parody exception by imposing requirements not found in the InfoSoc Directive. Consequently, there is very little margin of discretion left for Member States with regard to the legal treatment of parodies. Nevertheless, most of the “old” criteria can still play a role when determining a fair balance of rights and interests that, according to the CJEU, needs to be maintained when applying the exception. When taking account of the essential characteristics of a parody, as defined by the CJEU, and the fair balance in an overall assessment, the parody exception can act as a flexible exception, allowing a wide array of humorous and critical uses of copyright-protected works.”

Richard Arnold – Lionel Bently – Estelle Derclaye – Greame Dinwoodie: The Legal Consequences of Brexit Through the Lens of IP Law – Egy kiváló elemzés még tavalyról arra nézve, hogy a Brexit vajon milyen hatással lehet az angol szellemi tulajdonvédelem rendszerére. Igaz, hogy engem leginkább csak a szerzői jogi vonal érdekelt, de itt számos olyan érdekes meglátás volt olvasható, amire érdemes lesz odafigyelni. Többek között azt fejtegetik, hogy a brit jogalkotónak az irányelvi joganyagból érdemes lesz kimazsolázni azt, amit szeretnének megtartani, ugyanakkor azt is jelzik, hogy ennél jobb alkalom nem is lenne arra, hogy a brit szerzői jogi törvényt (az 1988-as CDPA-t) rekodifikálják.

Jan Bernd Nordemann: Liability of Online Service Providers for Copyrighted Content – Regulatory Action Needed? – Ideje-e megváltoztatni – legalább részben – a 2000-ben elfogadott elektronikus kereskedelemről szóló uniós irányelvet? Erre a nagy kérdésre kereste (természetesen részletekbe menően) a választ Jan Bernd Nordemann az Európai Parlament megbízásából. A tanulmány absztraktja szerint:

“This paper looks at liability of online providers for copyright infringements. The liability privileges in Articles 12 to 15 E-Commerce Directive can remain unchanged; they seem to be sufficiently flexible to adopt to new business models, which also make them in general future proof. These privileges do not, however, establish liability. With regard to injunction claims, Article 8(3) Copyright Directive provides for a satisfactory solution. EU rules establishing liability beyond injunction (e.g. damages) should be harmonised following the requirements (1) sufficient intervention by the internet provider and (2) breach of an adequate duty of care by the internet provider.”

Benjamin Sobel: Artificial Intelligence’s Fair Use Crisis – A fair use témaköre kifogyhatatlan, megunhatatlan, történeti és mégis velünk élő. Íme a legújabb példa, amelyben a szerző a mesterséges intelligencia által a fair use tesztre gyakorolt hatásokat vizsgálja. Az absztrakt egy része szerint:

“As automation supplants more forms of labor, creative expression still seems like a distinctly human enterprise. This may someday change: by ingesting works of authorship as “training data,” computer programs can teach themselves to write natural prose, compose music, and generate movies. Machine learning is an artificial intelligence (“AI”) technology with immense potential and a commensurate appetite for copyrighted works. In the United States, the copyright law mechanism most likely to facilitate machine learning’s uses of protected data is the fair use doctrine. However, current fair use doctrine threatens either to derail the progress of machine learning or to disenfranchise the human creators whose work makes it possible.”

A tanulmány a Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 2017-es őszi számában jelent meg (p. 45-97.)

Tito Rendas: Copyright, Technology and the CJEU: An Empirical Study – Ilyen empirikus, egyben elméleti és gyakorlati, kutatásokból kellene sokkal több. Rendas tanulmányának absztraktja szerint:

“The framework of rights and exceptions in EU copyright law is often criticised for lacking the flexibility that is necessary in times of rampant technological change. Courts, however, occasionally refuse to abide by the framework’s interpretative constraints, in order to accommodate certain technology-enabled uses. In some cases, the CJEU has adopted flexible readings of the exceptions in question. In other cases, national courts have openly construed the three-step test as an enabling standard, rather than as a restrictive one. Using the relevant case law of the CJEU as its research sample, this article aims to empirically investigate the extent to which European courts are deciding in such a flexible manner and rendering technology-enabled uses to be non-infringing. This study reveals that the number of uses that the CJEU has deemed non-infringing exceeds those that have been held infringing. It shows, moreover, that the CJEU has circumvented interpretative constraints in the majority of these cases. These findings suggest that the existing framework is indeed unfit for times of accelerated technological change, but for a different reason than that commonly thought. The main reason for introducing a greater degree of flexibility in EU copyright law is, somewhat paradoxically, related to legal certainty.”

A tanulmány bibliográfiai adatai: IIC – International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, February 2018, Issue 2, p. 153-184.

Vélemény, hozzászólás?

Az email címet nem tesszük közzé. A kötelező mezőket * karakterrel jelöljük.