Hylly SA-Intellectual property quarterly
Henkilönnimi
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö The curious case of computer-generated works under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
Julkaistu
Ulkoasutiedot
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa Intellectual Property Quarterly, ISSN 1364-906X ; 2/2021
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms. Under s.9(3) of the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988, works that are “computer-generated” (and which have no human author) will be protected by copyright. Ownership of the copyright vests in the person who has made the necessary “arrangements” for the work’s creation. This article introduces two questions in relation to s.9(3). First, how does the section fit with copyright’s originality requirement? Second, what is the justification for the provision? In exploring these questions, the article develops a novel criticism of s.9(3): the section is either unnecessary or unjustifiably extends legal protection to a class of works which belong in the public domain. While previous literature has praised s.9(3) and suggested that it ought to be adopted more widely, this article concludes that other jurisdictions ought to think carefully before adopting this provision.
Asiasana
Asiasana - Kontrolloimaton
*000 ab a ar
*00115215
*008 s2021||||xxk|||||||||||||||||eng||
*041 $aeng
*1001 $aGoold, Patrick.
*24514$aThe curious case of computer-generated works under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 /$cPatrick Goold.
*260 $c2021
*300 $as. 120-130.
*4900 $aIntellectual Property Quarterly,$x1364-906X ;$v2/2021
*520 $aUnder s.9(3) of the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988, works that are “computer-generated” (and which have no human author) will be protected by copyright. Ownership of the copyright vests in the person who has made the necessary “arrangements” for the work’s creation. This article introduces two questions in relation to s.9(3). First, how does the section fit with copyright’s originality requirement? Second, what is the justification for the provision? In exploring these questions, the article develops a novel criticism of s.9(3): the section is either unnecessary or unjustifiably extends legal protection to a class of works which belong in the public domain. While previous literature has praised s.9(3) and suggested that it ought to be adopted more widely, this article concludes that other jurisdictions ought to think carefully before adopting this provision.
*650 7$atietokonetaide $0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p11956$2yso/fin
*650 7$atekijänoikeus$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p2346$2yso/fin
*653 $aomaperäisyys
*852 $hSA-Intellectual property quarterly
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä
kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.