Three major academic publishers sued Sci-Hub and Libgen for copyright infringement in the Delhi High Court on December 21. Both sites provide unauthorized downloads of academic works to students and researchers. The publishers - Elsevier, Wiley and the American Chemical Society - are asking the judge to require dynamic blocking of the websites.
[Rita Matulionyte] Abstract: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is an emerging technology that has a huge potential in contributing to the Australian economy and addressing economic and social problems in society. However, Australian copyright laws are likely to impede the development of AI, and machine learning in particular, by requiring authorization every time when copyrighted content is used in machine learning processes.
[Paul Keller] So far there we have seen two different approaches to implementing Article 17 into national copyright legislation. On the one hand, we have countries like France, the Netherlands, or Croatia who have presented implementation proposals that stick as closely as possible to the language and the structure of Article 17 while implementing its provisions within the structure of their existing copyright acts. In doing so these implementations essentially kick the can down the road with regards to figuring out how the conflicting requirements to filter (17(4)) and requirements to ensure that legal uploads are not filtered out (17(7)) can be reconciled. In the end, none of these implementation proposals offer a convincing mechanism for ensuring that creators get remunerated and that users’ rights are not violated. On the other hand, we have the German approach that proposes to implement Article 17 via a separate “copyright-service-provider law” (“Urgeberrechts Diensteanbieter Gesetz”) that substantially departs from the language in an attempt to capture the structure and effet utile of the directive. Click here for more.
Universal Music Publishing Group’s purchase of the copyrights to 600 of Bob Dylan’s songs for over $300 million demonstrates the importance of reversion rights to artists. In many countries, a creator who assigns his copyright to a publisher has an opportunity to recapture her rights at some point in the future. These “reversion” or “termination” rights recognize that early in the artist’s career, she has little bargaining strength, and may enter into a one-sided deal favoring the publisher. These reversion rights apply regardless of the contract the artist may have signed with the publisher.
On December 10, International Human Rights Day, twelve South African civil society groups called on the government to modernize its copyright law. The groups led a march from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Union Buildings and delivered a memorandum demanding the passage of copyright reform to protect vital rights.
[Kylie Pappalardo] In August, the communications minister announced a series of changes to copyright laws to “better support the needs of Australians and public institutions to access material in an increasingly digital environment”. These changes are long overdue. But the year is ending, and we are yet to see the legislation. The most important change is to ensure access to so-called orphan works.
[Maurizio Borghi] Abstract: The paper explores possible ways of construing copyright exceptions as users’ rights within the EU legal framework. It discusses some basic principles on the legal nature of exceptions, and then focuses more specifically on EU law and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The paper shows that the CJEU has moved away from a strict interpretation of exceptions as “derogations” to general principles of copyright protection, towards recognition of exceptions as bearing autonomous legal status.
South Africa’s Copyright Amendment Bill had been sitting on the desk of President Cyril Ramaphosa for over a year, waiting to be signed into law. But instead of signing the bill, the President returned it to parliament citing constitutional concerns with certain aspects, including new exceptions for libraries, education and persons with disabilities. If enacted, the bill would have helped teaching, learning and research during COVID-19 lockdowns. Instead South Africans are forced to struggle under the current, outdated law. EIFL guest blogger Denise R. Nicholson, Scholarly Communications Librarian, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, discusses challenges and issues.
QUT Media, 11 November 2020 11th November 2020 A multi-stranded strategy is needed to reach the lofty goal of the NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence on Achieving the Tobacco Endgame (CREATE), says a chief investigator and co-director of the project’s…
[Joshua Sarnoff] Authority for national judiciaries to issue permanent and preliminary injunctions is required by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Articles 44 and 50. But the TRIPS Agreement does not require the issuance of injunctions in any particular circumstances, and does not harmonize the laws on which national jurisdictions derive their injunctive relief authorities. Thus, countries remain free to refuse prohibitory injunctive relief for adjudicated or likely patent infringement, particularly if “reasonable compensation” is offered in the form of an “ongoing royalty” or an “interim royalty” payment, which acts similarly to a compulsory license.
[Paul Keller] One of the most important elements of any implementation of Article 17 will be how platforms can reconcile the use of automated content filtering with the requirement not to prevent the availability of legitimate uploads. While most implementation proposals that we have seen so far are silent on this crucial question, both the German discussion proposal and the Commission’s consultation proposal contain specific mechanisms that are intended to ensure that automated content filters do not block legitimate uploads, and that uploads are subject to human review if they are not obviously/likely infringing.
[Communia Association] Back in January of this year, we noted how both the Netherlands and France (at that point the only Member States that had presented proposals to implement Article 17) had proposed selective implementations of Article 17 that ignored crucial user rights safeguards. A lot has happened since January, but yesterday both Member States took further steps in their national implementations. And this time the two Member States are moving in opposite directions: While the Dutch government has reacted to criticism from civil society and members of Parliament by fixing some of the most obvious shortcomings of its implementation law, the 2nd chamber of the French Parliament has adopted a law that gives the French government the power to implement Article 17 (and the rest of the provisions of the DSM directive) however it sees fit.