|
France
Reporter:
Catherine Jasserand
University
of Versailles |
| 1SAIF v. Google |
| District Court Paris (Tribunal de Grande
Instance Paris), 20 May 2008 |
| Claimant |
SAIF- Société des Auteurs des Arts Visuels et
de l'Image Fixe |
| Defendant 1 |
SARL GOOGLE France |
| Defendant 2 |
Société GOOGLE Inc. |
| Key areas |
Infringement
Reproduction (right of) |
| Relevant terms |
Fair Use Exception |
Headnote
In the case of the
French Copyright Collecting Society of Authors of Visual Arts and
Still Images (SAIF) v. Google, the Paris District Court applied
Article 5 of the Berne Convention to determine that the applicable
law was the law of the place where the event causing the possible
copyright infringement occurred. Consequently the Court applied
the US Copyright Act and the Fair Use Exception to exempt Google
from any copyright infringement for making available online
thousands of images that it considered as informative reduced
images. |
See for the summary of this
case KluwerEUIPCases.com | |
 |
|
Germany
Reporter:
Dr. Till Kreutzer & Benjamin
Roger
i.e. - Büro für informations- rechtliche Expertise |
| 2Virtual Dome of Cologne |
| District Court Cologne (Landgericht
Köln), 21 April 2008 |
| Claimant |
ANONYMOUS |
| Defendant |
ANONYMOUS |
| Key areas |
Subject matter
(copyrightable)
Originality |
| Relevant terms |
Virtual art
Second Life
Virtual
model |
Headnote
A
three-dimensional virtual model of a building can be a work of
fine arts, protected by copyright. Creating a virtual second life
model based on photographs does not meet the requirements of
copyright protection. |
See for the summary of this
case KluwerEUIPCases.com |
See also
http://www.justiz.nrw.de/nrwe/lgs/koeln/lg_koe... | |
|
|
Germany
Reporter:
Dr. Till Kreutzer & Benjamin
Roger
i.e. - Büro für informations- rechtliche Expertise |
| 3Rapidshare |
| District Court Düsseldorf (Landgericht
Düsseldorf), 23 January 2008 |
| Claimant |
ANONYMOUS |
| Defendant |
ANONYMOUS |
| Key areas |
Infringement
Making available (right
of) |
| Relevant terms |
Provider
Liability
Sharehosting |
Headnote
The provider of a
web-based sharehosting service has to ensure that
copyright-protected works are not shared via his servers after he
has been notified about particular infringements. To avoid abuse,
he even has to take measures that would make his business model
far less attractive. If it turns out that no measures can
effectively prevent the users from committing copyright
infringements, the provider might even be obliged to shut his
service down. |
See for the summary of this
case KluwerEUIPCases.com |
See also
http://www.justiz.nrw.de/nrwe/lgs/duesseldorf/... | |
|
|
Latvia
Reporter:
Inga Kvesko
Sorainen |
| 4Illegal use of a musical work on TV |
| The Chamber of Civil Cases of the
Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia (Latvijas Republikas
Augstakas tiesas Civillietu tiesu palata), 27 March 2008 |
| Plaintiff 1 |
A.J., |
| Plaintiff 2 |
M.S., |
| Plaintiff 3 |
M.N., |
| Plaintiff 4 |
SIA "Baltic Records Group" |
| Defendant and Appellant |
A TV company |
| Key areas |
Subject matter (copyrightable)
Neighbouring
rights
Moral rights
Reproduction (right of)
Communication
(right of)
Collective
management
Infringement
Remedies |
| Relevant terms |
A musical work
A phonogram |
Headnote
A TV company may
use a musical work and its phonogram in a talk show programme only
if permission of the holders of copyright and neighbouring rights
(of authors of lyrics and music, performer and phonogram producer
in this case) has been received. Moreover, according to the terms
of the general licence agreement of the collective management
organization, only owners of copyright themselves are entitled to
decide on the use, including the prohibition of use of works in
advertising. Consequently, even if a general licence agreement
would have been concluded with the collective management
organization, the user of the musical work would have to agree
with the holder of the copyright or neighbouring rights on the use
of the musical work in advertising or in programme trailers, as
well as on the remuneration for such use. Moreover, the law does
not provide a duty for a holder of copyright and neighbouring
rights to monitor different broadcasting organizations in ! order
to ascertain that rights of the holder are not violated. In this
regard, it is the obligation of a broadcasting organization to
comply with the law and to ascertain that works are used in
compliance with the law. If not, a copyright and neighbouring
rights infringement occurs and due compensation is recovered by
the court. |
See for the summary of this
case KluwerEUIPCases.com | |
|
|
Switzerland
Reporter:
Urs Gasser & Richard Staeuber
Research Center for Information Law, University of St. Gallen |
| 5Compendium of Pharmaceuticals |
| Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgericht), 13
February 2008 |
| Appellant |
Documed AG |
| Appellee |
ywesee GmbH |
| Key areas |
Originality
Subject matter
(copyrightable) |
| Relevant terms |
Individuality of a work
Theory of
statistical uniqueness |
Headnote
1. Literary works
may qualify for copyright protection if they represent a creation
of the mind which possesses an individual nature (see Art. 2
Copyright Act). A pre-condition of the work's individuality is its
statistical uniqueness--the criterion of uniqueness referring to
the work's design, not its mere existence. Therefore, in order to
qualify for copyright protection, the construction of a literary
work must differ from common practice. 2. The appellant's
compendium of pharmaceuticals is not subject to copyright
protection since the condition of individuality is not met. The
potential for a creative construction of the compendium is too
limited in light of the legal requirements applying to the
information contained, the information's limited, specific
purpose, general use of medical language and the compendium's
intrinsic logic. (3. Further paragraphs applying the law of unfair
competition.) |
See for the summary of this
case KluwerEUIPCases.com |
See also
http://relevancy.bger.ch/php/aza/http/index.ph... | |
