2014 Copyright Law Intellectual Property Related Rights 
Kluwer Copyright Blog
NOVEMBER 22, 2021
Parts 1 and 2 of this post (originally published in “Auteurs & Media”) summarising case law of the German Bundesgerichtshof from 2015 to 2019 are available here and here , and part 4 will be published on the blog shortly. Related rights. More from our authors: Law of Raw Data. 3, second sentence UrhG.
The IPKat
FEBRUARY 3, 2023
It is thus clear that TDM does matter - but what should its relationship with copyright and related rights be? It should be noted at the outset that, on the one hand, some commentators hold the view that TDM would not even be covered by copyright law.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
IP and Legal Filings
DECEMBER 6, 2022
Copyright is the cumulation of two words: “copy” and “right,” alternatively one may argue that copyright refers to the legal rights of the intellectual property’s real owner. ” The composer of a musical composition is the exclusive owner of the work’s copyright.
TorrentFreak
JANUARY 22, 2023
Harmonization With EU Copyright Law Under the EU-Moldova Association Agreement of 2014, Moldova was required to reform copyright law to meet EU standards. ” The establishment of “an efficient system” for the collective management of copyright and related rights was also mentioned.
Kluwer Copyright Blog
FEBRUARY 2, 2023
These include (and may be limited to) Hong Kong ( section 11(3), Copyright Ordinance ), India (section 2(d)(vi), Copyright Act, 1957 ), Ireland ( Art. We will keep the law under review and could amend, replace or remove protection in future if the evidence supports it.” The focus in these cases was on parody.
LexBlog IP
MAY 4, 2022
From 1 May 2014 onwards, PM has cooperated with the company Navarr Enterprises Inc, based in Florida, United States. GEA argued that this gave it the right to collect equitable remuneration for the broadcast of the works under article 49 of the Greek Copyright Law.
LexBlog IP
JUNE 28, 2023
The plaintiff, a leading multinational software manufacturer, owned the rights to exploit the programs. 3) According to the Court, the term “sale” used in article 41 of the Copyright Law must be interpreted in a broad sense.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
52 
Let's personalize your content