Hylly
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö Supreme Court (Corte Suprema de Justicia) 28 June 2022 – CIV 50016/2016/CS1 : The ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ Does Not Apply to Facts of Public Interest – Natalia Denegri v Google Inc
Julkaistu Verlag C.H. Beck, München : 2023.
Ulkoasutiedot
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa GRUR International, ISSN 2632-8623 ; 72(2)
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms. Official headnote: On the subject of copyright, a claim, within the meaning of Art. 2(4) of Law No. 633 of 1941 (the law on copyright), to exclusive property rights in respect of a registered advertising message (‘slogan’) requires proof of the originality of the creation; this can be ruled out if the message makes a reference to trade marks that are already registered and have a certain evocative capacity in such a way that the link, through its independently evocative capacity, renders the creative part of the slogan null and void and rules out all innovation. Supreme Court of Cassation, Civil Division Section 1 (Corte Suprema di Cassazione, Sez. 1 Civ.), judgment of 14 March 2022 ‒ 8276/2022
Asiasana
Maantieteellinen nimi asiasanana
Sarjalisäkirjaus - yhtenäistetty nimeke GRUR International, 2632-8623 ; 72(2)
Elektronisen aineiston sijainti ja käyttö (URI) https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikac142 Linkki verkkoaineistoon
*000 ab a ar
*00117879
*008 s2023||||gw |||||||||||||||||eng||
*040 $aFI-CUTE$bfin$erda
*0410 $aeng
*24514$aSupreme Court (Corte Suprema de Justicia) 28 June 2022 – CIV 50016/2016/CS1 :$bThe ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ Does Not Apply to Facts of Public Interest – Natalia Denegri v Google Inc /$cLaw 26.032, Art. 1; National Constitution, Art. 14; American Convention on Human Rights, Art. 13.1.
*264 1$aMünchen :$bVerlag C.H. Beck,$c2023.
*300 $as. 193–198
*336 $ateksti$btxt$2rdacontent
*337 $akäytettävissä ilman laitetta$bn$2rdamedia
*338 $anide$bnc$2rdacarrier
*4901 $aGRUR International,$x2632-8623 ;$v72(2)
*520 $aOfficial headnote: On the subject of copyright, a claim, within the meaning of Art. 2(4) of Law No. 633 of 1941 (the law on copyright), to exclusive property rights in respect of a registered advertising message (‘slogan’) requires proof of the originality of the creation; this can be ruled out if the message makes a reference to trade marks that are already registered and have a certain evocative capacity in such a way that the link, through its independently evocative capacity, renders the creative part of the slogan null and void and rules out all innovation. Supreme Court of Cassation, Civil Division Section 1 (Corte Suprema di Cassazione, Sez. 1 Civ.), judgment of 14 March 2022 ‒ 8276/2022
*650 7$aoikeustapaukset$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p7219
*650 7$atietosuojalaki$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p38506
*650 7$atietosuoja$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p3636$2yso/fin
*650 7$ahakuohjelmat $0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p6999$2yso/fin
*650 7$aGoogle$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p22952$2yso/fin
*651 7$aArgentiina$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p108007$2yso/fin
*830 0$aGRUR International,$x2632-8623 ;$v72(2)
*852 $hSA-GRUR International
*85641$uhttps://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikac142$yLinkki verkkoaineistoon
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä
kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.