Some answers regarding the EU Copyright reform

flag-2608475_960_720.jpgThe European Commission published answers to a variety of questions regarding the Copyright reform that has been approved recently. The questions are as follow:

1. The European Parliament voted on the new copyright rules at EU level – what are they about?
2. Why do we need to modernise the EU copyright rules?
3. Are the new copyright rules limiting users and their freedom online?
4. Will the Directive impose upload filters online?
5. Will the Copyright Directive prevent users from expressing themselves on internet in the same way as now? Will memes and GIFs be banned?
6. How will the new Copyright rules tackle the discrepancy between the remuneration of creators and that of certain online platforms (the so-called ‘value gap’)?
7. How will the new copyright rules on user-uploaded platforms benefit the users?
8. What are the services covered by the new rules on user-uploaded platforms?
9. What will be the special regime for startups and smaller enterprises?
10. What will happen to online encyclopaedias (like Wikipedia) that are based on content uploaded by users?
11. How will the new press publishers’ right work?
12. Are small and emerging press publishers going to be affected by the reform?
13. Is the new Copyright Directive creating a “hyperlink tax”?
14. With the new rules, will the use of “snippets” be forbidden?
15. How will the new Directive benefit journalism and journalists?
16. How will the Directive ensure fair remuneration for individual authors and performers?
17. How will the new copyright rules strike a fairer balance in the relationships between creators and their contractual partners?
18. What is the contract adjustment mechanism? Does it interfere with contractual freedom?
19. What is the revocation mechanism and why is it needed?
20. What are the new exceptions to copyright laid down in the Copyright Directive?
21. How will the new copyright rules benefit researchers?
22. What is the purpose of the other, general, text and data mining exception?
23. Who will benefit from the new teaching exception?
24. Will the new copyright rules enhance the preservation and availability of cultural heritage?
25. What will it change for users with regards to “public domain” content?
26. How will the new copyright rules foster the availability of EU audiovisual works on video-on-demand platforms?

You can find the answers here.

Advertisements

Smart Things cannot be a trademark in The EU

turn-on-2944067_960_720Samsung Electronics won an invalidation proceeding against the following European trademark registered for classes 9, 20 and 35:

CJ4JX4FZVCC523YA2TMALSKFLF2IXTTD6ZP4RRADRLOBXNKHQC5VQYW6R6XX2PINLSBVEBY5EVR5K.jpg

The invalidation was based on absolute grounds – descriptiveness in relation to the trademark’s goods and services. The applicant argued that its mark was distinctive because when it was applied for in 2012 it wasn’t included in dictionaries and on top of that the concept for the internet of things wasn’t popular among consumers.

Initially, the EUIPO dismissed Samsung’s request stating that although Smart Things are descriptive words the presence of an emoticon in the sign is enough to create a necessary level of distinctiveness.

The decision was appealed.

According to the Board of Appeal, the trademark at hand is fully descriptive for the relevant goods and services and this cannot be overcome by the emoticon. What’s more, this phrase has to be left free for use for all market participant taking into account that it is highly used for different technologies. The fact that it wasn’t included in a dictionary in 2012 is irrelevant for the case.

Source: WIPR.

EPO launched a new beta version of ESPACENET

European_Patent_Office.svg_-m6lps816qbj2ljy89lj0almvgiwzn2hmwpfraz5tx4.png

The European Patent Office launched the beta version of its refreshing database for patent searching ESPACENET. The new version is more modern, dynamic, intuitive and it is optimised to work on different devices including desktop PCs, tablets and smartphones.

The beta version is accessible here. For more information about it, you can watch the hereunder video presentation. EPO encourages sending feedback, which can be done from here.

Shift the blame for copyright infringement to your parents – an EU Court decision

pirate-2129571_960_720The European Court has ruled in case C‑149/17,Bastei Lübbe GmbH & Co. KG v Michael Strotzer, which concerns the following:

Bastei Lübbe is the holder, as a phonogram producer, of the copyright and related rights in the audio version of a book.

Mr Strotzer is the owner of an internet connection through which, on 8 May 2010, that audio book was shared, for the purpose of downloading, with an unlimited number of users of a peer-to-peer internet exchange. An expert correctly attributed the IP address in question to Mr Strotzer.

By letter of 28 October 2010, Bastei Lübbe warned Mr Strotzer to cease and desist the infringement of copyright which had occurred. That warning notice was unsuccessful and Bastei Lübbe brought an action before the Amtsgericht München (Local Court, Munich, Germany) against Mr Strotzer as the owner of the IP address in question, seeking damages.

However, Mr Strotzer denies having himself infringed copyright and maintains that his connection was sufficiently secure. In addition, he asserts that his parents, who live in the same household, also had access to that connection but that to his knowledge they did not have the work in question on their computer, were not aware of the existence of the work and did not use the online exchange software. In addition, Mr Strotzer’s computer was switched off at the time when the infringement in question was committed.

The Amtsgericht München (Local Court, Munich) dismissed Bastei Lübbe’s action for damages on the ground that Mr Strotzer could not be held liable for the infringement of copyright in question, because he had stated that his parents could also have committed the infringement in question.

Bastei Lübbe appealed against the decision of the Amtsgericht München (Local Court, Munich) before the Landgericht München I (Regional Court, Munich I, Germany).

That court is inclined to hold Mr Strotzer liable in that it does not follow from his explanations that a third party used the internet connection at the time of the infringement. It considers that Mr Strotzer is therefore seriously likely to have committed the copyright infringement.

That court nevertheless considers itself to be compelled to apply Paragraph 97 of the Law on copyright and related rights, as amended by the Law of 1 October 2013, as interpreted by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany), which in its view might preclude the defendant from being held liable.

In fact, according to the case-law of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice), as interpreted by the referring court, it is for the applicant to allege and prove the infringement of copyright. The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) considers, moreover, that the owner of an internet connection is presumed to have committed such an infringement provided that no other person was able to use the internet connection at the time of the infringement. However, if the internet connection was not sufficiently secure or was knowingly made available to other persons, then the owner of that connection is not presumed to have committed the infringement.

In that case, the case-law of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) nonetheless places on the owner of the internet connection a secondary burden to present the facts. The owner discharges that secondary burden to the requisite standard by explaining that other persons, whose identity he discloses, where appropriate, had independent access to his internet connection and are therefore capable of having committed the alleged infringement of copyright. Although a family member of the owner of the internet connection had access to that connection, the owner of that connection is not, however, required to provide further details relating to the time and the nature of the use of that connection, having regard to the protection of marriage and family guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and the corresponding provisions of the German Basic Law.

In those circumstances, the Landgericht München I (Regional Court, Munich I) decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

‘1. Should Article 8(1) and (2), in conjunction with Article 3(1), of Directive 2001/29/EC be interpreted as meaning that “effective and dissuasive sanctions” for infringements of the right to make works available to the public are still provided for even when the owner of an internet connection used for copyright infringements through file-sharing is excluded from liability to pay damages if the owner of that internet connection can name at least one family member who, besides him or her, might have had access to that internet connection, without providing further details, established through appropriate investigations, as to when and how the internet was used by that family member?

2. Should Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/48/EC be interpreted as meaning that “effective” measures for the enforcement of intellectual property rights are still provided for even when the owner of an internet connection used for copyright infringements through file-sharing is excluded from liability to pay damages if the owner of that internet connection can name at least one family member who, besides him or her, might have had access to that internet connection, without providing further details, established through appropriate investigations, as to when and how the internet was used by that family member?’

The Court ‘s decision:

Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/29/EC, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, read in conjunction with Article 3(1) thereof, and Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, as interpreted by the relevant national courts, the owner of an internet connection used for copyright infringements through file-sharing cannot be held liable to pay damages if he can name at least one family member who might have had access to that connection, without providing further details as to when and how the internet was used by that family member.

ISPs have a right to be compensated in some cases when providing information for copyright infringers

law-1991004_960_720The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the case Rogers Communications v Voltage Pictures, where the point at issue is whether the internet service providers (ISPs) have to be compensated for their costs when they give information for potential infringers.

In the case at hand, movies owned by the US company Voltage were been illegally used by Rogers’s individual clients.

The Canadian internet provider agreed to disclose the required information for these persons but only against financial compensation. The US company disagreed.

According to the the Supreme Court’s decision in such cases, the ISP has right to receive a compensation for its reasonable costs but only in a case when the information is not required by the law.

For example, connecting the IP address of a customer to his real identity and submitting this information with the copyright holder is not covered by the law requirements.

Source: WIPR.

YouTube offers a new tool to combat copyright infringements

pexels-photoYouTube announced its new initiative against illegal uploading of works on its platform.

A new software called Copyright Match tool will watch for re-uploads of content. When such thing happens the user who uploads it will have three options: do nothing; get in touch with the other creator, or request YouTube to remove the video.

The last option, however, can be trigger only if the user is the real copyright holder or has the relevant rights. What’s more, the user has to evaluate whether his work could be interpreted as fair use or be subject to other exceptions to copyright.

More information here.

Source: TBO.

9 key steps to protect your trademark when selling on Amazon

pexels-photoElizabeth Ward (Virtuoso Legal) published an interesting article for Lexology which discusses the basic steps every trademark owner selling on Amazon has to bear in mind in order to protect it. In brief, the steps are as follow:

1. Get a Robust Trademark;

2. Protect Yourself Where You’re Selling;

3. Logo or Word?

4. Don’t be too Descriptive!

5. Clear the way;

6. Don’t be afraid to spend money;

7. Nip Trouble in the Bud;

8. Stay Vigilant;

9. Don’t Rely on The Police to Sort it Out;

The full article can be found here.