Hylly
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö Decision of the Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) : Areion Group.
Julkaistu
Ulkoasutiedot
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa IIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, ISSN 0018-9855 ; 48 (2)
Yleinen huomautus teksti kokonaisuudessaan kirjastojärjestelmässä.
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms. 1.The existence of a contract of employment in no way derogates the enjoyment of the authors intellectual property rights. 2.In the absence of an express agreement adopted in conformity with the provisions of the law, the author does not by virtue solely of the fact of first publication transfer to his employer the reproduction rights to his work. THE SUPREME COURT, SOCIAL CHAMBER, has rendered the following judgment: According to the contested judgment, Mr. X
began working with the Areion Group on 11 January 2005, and was subsequently hired by the company as deputy editor-in-chief on 10 October 2008. Following his dismissal on 18 October 2010, he filed proceedings before the Labour Court
. And on the third plea: In the light of Art. L. 111-1, third paragraph of the Intellectual Property Code, in conjunction with Art. L. 7113-2 of the Labour Code, in the wording applicable at the time; The existence of a contract of employment in no way derogates from the enjoyment of the authors intellectual property rights, and, in the absence of an express agreement adopted in conformity with the provisions of the law, the author does not by virtue solely of the fact of first publication transfer to his employer the reproduction rights to his work. Mr. X
s petitions were rejected on the grounds that he could not claim payment of remuneration or damages for the articles he wrote within the framework of his employment contract in return for which he received a salary and which were reissued without his consent. This ruling of the appeal court infringes the above-mentioned provisions. For these reasons: This court quashes the judgment rendered between the parties on 16 September 2014 by the Paris Court of Appeal to the extent that it dismissed Mr. X
s petitions based on an employment contract for the period from 1 January 2005 to 10 October 2008 and on the unauthorised re-exploitation of articles. In consequence, the parties and the case are returned on this point to the situation they were in before the said judgment and, for the settlement of the case, are returned to a differently constituted Paris Court of Appeal.
Asiasana - Kontrolloimaton
*00003124nab a22003014a 4500
*00111558
*00520201106111831.0
*007tu
*008170522s2017\\\\xx\|||||\||||\|||||0eng|c
*035 $a24254
*035 $a(PLib-conv)0000024254
*0410 $aeng
*090 $aOMA:SA-II10
*24500$aDecision of the Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) :$bAreion Group.
*260 $c2017.
*300 $a223-224.
*4901 $aIIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v48 (2)
*500 $ateksti kokonaisuudessaan kirjastojärjestelmässä.
*520 $a1.The existence of a contract of employment in no way derogates the enjoyment of the authors intellectual property rights. 2.In the absence of an express agreement adopted in conformity with the provisions of the law, the author does not by virtue solely of the fact of first publication transfer to his employer the reproduction rights to his work. THE SUPREME COURT, SOCIAL CHAMBER, has rendered the following judgment: According to the contested judgment, Mr. X
began working with the Areion Group on 11 January 2005, and was subsequently hired by the company as deputy editor-in-chief on 10 October 2008. Following his dismissal on 18 October 2010, he filed proceedings before the Labour Court
. And on the third plea: In the light of Art. L. 111-1, third paragraph of the Intellectual Property Code, in conjunction with Art. L. 7113-2 of the Labour Code, in the wording applicable at the time; The existence of a contract of employment in no way derogates from the enjoyment of the authors intellectual property rights, and, in the absence of an express agreement adopted in conformity with the provisions of the law, the author does not by virtue solely of the fact of first publication transfer to his employer the reproduction rights to his work. Mr. X
s petitions were rejected on the grounds that he could not claim payment of remuneration or damages for the articles he wrote within the framework of his employment contract in return for which he received a salary and which were reissued without his consent. This ruling of the appeal court infringes the above-mentioned provisions. For these reasons: This court quashes the judgment rendered between the parties on 16 September 2014 by the Paris Court of Appeal to the extent that it dismissed Mr. X
s petitions based on an employment contract for the period from 1 January 2005 to 10 October 2008 and on the unauthorised re-exploitation of articles. In consequence, the parties and the case are returned on this point to the situation they were in before the said judgment and, for the settlement of the case, are returned to a differently constituted Paris Court of Appeal.
*653 $aOIKEUSTAPAUKSET
*653 $aTYÖSUHDEKEKSINNÖT
*653 $aTYÖSOPIMUKSET
*653 $aJULKAISEMINEN
*653 $aUUDELLEENKÄYTTÖ
*653 $aKORVAUKSET
*8102 $aIIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v2
*852 $hSA-II10$cDECISION
*979 $a0000024254
*999 $aMikroMarc$b[Article]$x7
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä
kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.