Hylly
Henkilönnimi
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö Autonomous concepts in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on copyright
Julkaistu
Ulkoasutiedot
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa Revue internationale du droit d'auteur, ISSN 0035-3515 ; 263
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms. Commentators of European Union law have often noted that significant gaps continue to exist in the harmonisation of copyright law. Despite the many legislative instruments introduced to date in this field, the results in EU law remain incomplete. The most important gap is undoubtedly that which relates to authors’ moral rights. Another example that springs to mind is contracts, an area seldom mentioned in existing directives on copyright. And what about the exceptions and limitations to authors’ exploitation rights? Article 5 of Directive 2001/29 governing this area has a number of serious shortcomings. The directive contains a list, which, although exhaustive overall, is too broad in practical terms in both its succinct wording and its essentially optional character. The fact that states are free to choose the exceptions that suit them, except as regards technical reproduction under Article 5.1, has led to patchy and confusing state legislation. This means that national transpositions do not always produce the intended result of true harmonisation.
Asiasana - Kontrolloimaton
*00001086nab a22003734a 4500
*00114502
*00520201106111848.0
*007tu
*008200806s2020\\\\fr\|||||\||||\|||||0fre|c
*035 $a27278
*035 $a(PLib-conv)0000027278
*0410 $afre$aeng
*090 $aOMA:SA-RE20
*1001 $aGotzen, Frank.
*24510$aAutonomous concepts in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on copyright /$cFrank Gotzen.
*260 $c2020.
*300 $a75-87.
*4900 $aRevue internationale du droit d'auteur,$x0035-3515 ;$v263
*520 $aCommentators of European Union law have often noted that significant gaps continue to exist in the harmonisation of copyright law. Despite the many legislative instruments introduced to date in this field, the results in EU law remain incomplete. The most important gap is undoubtedly that which relates to authors’ moral rights. Another example that springs to mind is contracts, an area seldom mentioned in existing directives on copyright. And what about the exceptions and limitations to authors’ exploitation rights? Article 5 of Directive 2001/29 governing this area has a number of serious shortcomings. The directive contains a list, which, although exhaustive overall, is too broad in practical terms in both its succinct wording and its essentially optional character. The fact that states are free to choose the exceptions that suit them, except as regards technical reproduction under Article 5.1, has led to patchy and confusing state legislation. This means that national transpositions do not always produce the intended result of true harmonisation.
*653 $aTUOMIOISTUIMET
*653 $aEU
*653 $aPOIKKEUKSET
*653 $aDIREKTIIVIT
*653 $aYHDENMUKAISTAMINEN
*653 $aTEKIJÄNOIKEUS
*653 $aCJEU
*653 $aCHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EU
*653 $aNOTION
*653 $aCONCEPT
*653 $aEXCEPTIONS
*653 $aHARMONISATION
*852 $hSA-RE20$cGOTZEN
*979 $a0000027278
*999 $aMikroMarc$b[Article]$x7
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä
kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.