Hylly
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö Decision of the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof); 28 July 2016. Case No. I ZR 9/15. Fat-Cropped (Auf fett getrimmt) : Directive 2001/29/EC, Art. 5(3)(k) Copyright Act, Secs. 15(2), first and second sentences, No. 2, 19(a), 13, 14, 23, 24(1), 50, 97(1) and (2).
Julkaistu
Ulkoasutiedot
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa IIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, ISSN 0018-9855 ; 48 (4)
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms. a)The provision of Sec. 24(1) of the Copyright Act must be interpreted in the light of Art. 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29/EC as far as the admissibility of parodies under copyright law is concerned. b)The EU-law concept of parody is decisive. According to this concept, the essential characteristics of a parody consist in, first, evoking an existing work, while at the same time being noticeably different from that work, and second, presenting an expression of humour or mockery. The concept of parody is not dependent on the further requirement that the parody have its own original character other than that of being noticeably different from the parodied original work. Likewise not among the requirements for a parody is that it relate to the original work itself (following CJEU, judgment of 3 September 2014 C-201/13, [ECLI:EU:C:2014:2132] para. 33 Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds/Vandersteen and ors). c)The assumption of free use pursuant to Sec. 24(1) of the Copyright Act under the parody aspect therefore does not presuppose that a personal intellectual creation within the meaning of Sec. 2(2) of the Copyright Act comes about by the use of the original work. Furthermore, it does not require an antithetical treatment of the parodied work or the subject matter portrayed by that work. d)If in a concrete case the parody limitation to copyright protection is applied, an appropriate balance must be preserved between the interests and rights of the persons named in Arts. 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC on the one hand and the free expression of opinion of the user of a protected work who is invoking the parody exception, on the other (following CJEU, [ECLI:EU:C:2014:2132] para. 34 Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds/Vandersteen and ors).
Asiasana - Kontrolloimaton
*00002954nab a22003374a 4500
*00111651
*00520201106111832.0
*007tu
*008170920s2017\\\\xx\|||||\||||\|||||0eng|c
*035 $a24352
*035 $a(PLib-conv)0000024352
*0410 $aeng
*090 $aOMA:SA-II10
*24500$aDecision of the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof); 28 July 2016. Case No. I ZR 9/15. Fat-Cropped (Auf fett getrimmt) :$bDirective 2001/29/EC, Art. 5(3)(k) Copyright Act, Secs. 15(2), first and second sentences, No. 2, 19(a), 13, 14, 23, 24(1), 50, 97(1) and (2).
*260 $c2017.
*300 $a474-480.
*4901 $aIIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v48 (4)
*520 $aa)The provision of Sec. 24(1) of the Copyright Act must be interpreted in the light of Art. 5(3)(k) of Directive 2001/29/EC as far as the admissibility of parodies under copyright law is concerned. b)The EU-law concept of parody is decisive. According to this concept, the essential characteristics of a parody consist in, first, evoking an existing work, while at the same time being noticeably different from that work, and second, presenting an expression of humour or mockery. The concept of parody is not dependent on the further requirement that the parody have its own original character other than that of being noticeably different from the parodied original work. Likewise not among the requirements for a parody is that it relate to the original work itself (following CJEU, judgment of 3 September 2014 C-201/13, [ECLI:EU:C:2014:2132] para. 33 Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds/Vandersteen and ors). c)The assumption of free use pursuant to Sec. 24(1) of the Copyright Act under the parody aspect therefore does not presuppose that a personal intellectual creation within the meaning of Sec. 2(2) of the Copyright Act comes about by the use of the original work. Furthermore, it does not require an antithetical treatment of the parodied work or the subject matter portrayed by that work. d)If in a concrete case the parody limitation to copyright protection is applied, an appropriate balance must be preserved between the interests and rights of the persons named in Arts. 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC on the one hand and the free expression of opinion of the user of a protected work who is invoking the parody exception, on the other (following CJEU, [ECLI:EU:C:2014:2132] para. 34 Deckmyn and Vrijheidsfonds/Vandersteen and ors).
*599 $bpdf informaatikolla.
*653 $aPARODIA
*653 $aSAKSA
*653 $aLOUKKAAMINEN
*653 $aALKUPERÄ
*653 $aLUOVA TOIMINTA
*653 $aLUOVUUS
*653 $aILMAISUVAPAUS
*653 $aVAPAA KÄYTTÖ
*653 $aKUVAMANIPULAATIO
*8102 $aIIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v4
*852 $hSA-II10$cDECISION
*979 $a0000024352
*999 $aMikroMarc$b[Article]$x7
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä
kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.