Tekijänoikeuden erikoiskirjasto : Decision of the Supreme Court Criminal Chamber (Cour de cassation, chambre criminelle); 25 October 2016. Case No. 15-84620. Rodin : Guy X. v. Le Musée Rodin Arts. L. 112-2, L 121-1, L 122-1, L 335-2, L 335-3 and L. 335-6 of the Intellectual Property Code, Art. 9 of Decree No. 81-255 of 3 March 1981 and Art. 71 of Annexe III of the General Fiscal Code, Arts. 591 and 593 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. L. 213-1 of the Consumer Code, Art. 1382 of the Civil Code.

Tuloslistaus

Decision of the Supreme Court Criminal Chamber (Cour de cassation, chambre criminelle); 25 October 2016. Case No. 15-84620. Rodin : Guy X. v. Le Musée Rodin Arts. L. 112-2, L 121-1, L 122-1, L 335-2, L 335-3 and L. 335-6 of the Intellectual Property Code, Art. 9 of Decree No. 81-255 of 3 March 1981 and Art. 71 of Annexe III of the General Fiscal Code, Arts. 591 and 593 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. L. 213-1 of the Consumer Code, Art. 1382 of the Civil Code.

Muistilista on tyhjä

Hylly	DECISION SA-II10
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö	Decision of the Supreme Court Criminal Chamber (Cour de cassation, chambre criminelle); 25 October 2016. Case No. 15-84620. Rodin : Guy X. v. Le Musée Rodin Arts. L. 112-2, L 121-1, L 122-1, L 335-2, L 335-3 and L. 335-6 of the Intellectual Property Code, Art. 9 of Decree No. 81-255 of 3 March 1981 and Art. 71 of Annexe III of the General Fiscal Code, Arts. 591 and 593 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. L. 213-1 of the Consumer Code, Art. 1382 of the Civil Code.
Julkaistu	2017.
Ulkoasutiedot	592-598.
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa	IIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, ISSN 0018-9855 ; 48 (5)
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms.	1.Although the failure to comply with the provisions of Art. 9 of Decree No. 11081-255 of 3 March 1981 is not of itself capable of establishing the infringement, since it was adopted for the purpose of preventing fraud and as a mere summary offence, the failure to apply a notice permitting the work to be identified as a simple reproduction may be noted as being one of the constituent elements of the offence of infringement when it is part of an intention to cause the possible purchaser or purchasers to believe that the work presented is an authentic work. 2.Reproductions without the rightholders authorisation of works originating from the private domain are counterfeit. 3.With respect to works that have entered the public domain, pursuant to Art. 121-1 of the Intellectual Property Code an author enjoys the right to respect for his name, his authorship and his work. This right may be transmitted to the authors heirs or other successors in title, is perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible. 4.The infringement of a work that has entered the public domain consists of any alteration or modification, no matter how significant, of the original work. 5.An infringement is any reproduction, performance or dissemination of a work of the mind by any means whatsoever, in violation of the authors rights as defined and regulated by law, whether or not the work has been completed.
Asiasana - Kontrolloimaton	PETOS KOPIOT TEKIJÄNOIKEUSRIKKOMUS DOMAIN-NIMET RANSKA

*00002687nab a22002894a 4500
*00111656
*00520201106111832.0
*007tu
*008170920s2017\\\\xx\|||||\||||\|||||0eng|c
*035  $a24358
*035  $a(PLib-conv)0000024358
*0410 $aeng
*090  $aOMA:SA-II10
*24500$aDecision of the Supreme Court Criminal Chamber (Cour de cassation, chambre criminelle); 25 October 2016. Case No. 15-84620. Rodin :$bGuy X. v. Le Musée Rodin Arts. L. 112-2, L 121-1, L 122-1, L 335-2, L 335-3 and L. 335-6 of the Intellectual Property Code, Art. 9 of Decree No. 81-255 of 3 March 1981 and Art. 71 of Annexe III of the General Fiscal Code, Arts. 591 and 593 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. L. 213-1 of the Consumer Code, Art. 1382 of the Civil Code.
*260  $c2017.
*300  $a592-598.
*4901 $aIIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v48 (5)
*520  $a1.Although the failure to comply with the provisions of Art. 9 of Decree No. 11081-255 of 3 March 1981 is not of itself capable of establishing the infringement, since it was adopted for the purpose of preventing fraud and as a mere summary offence, the failure to apply a notice permitting the work to be identified as a simple reproduction may be noted as being one of the constituent elements of the offence of infringement when it is part of an intention to cause the possible purchaser or purchasers to believe that the work presented is an authentic work. 2.Reproductions without the rightholders authorisation of works originating from the private domain are counterfeit. 3.With respect to works that have entered the public domain, pursuant to Art. 121-1 of the Intellectual Property Code an author enjoys the right to respect for his name, his authorship and his work. This right may be transmitted to the authors heirs or other successors in title, is perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible. 4.The infringement of a work that has entered the public domain consists of any alteration or modification, no matter how significant, of the original work. 5.An infringement is any reproduction, performance or dissemination of a work of the mind by any means whatsoever, in violation of the authors rights as defined and regulated by law, whether or not the work has been completed.
*599  $bPdf informaatikolla.
*653  $aPETOS
*653  $aKOPIOT
*653  $aTEKIJÄNOIKEUSRIKKOMUS
*653  $aDOMAIN-NIMET
*653  $aRANSKA
*8102 $aIIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v5
*852  $hSA-II10$cDECISION
*979  $a0000024358
*999  $aMikroMarc$b[Article]$x7
^

Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.

Lähetä

Niteen tunnus	Tila	Eräpäivä	Kuuluu	Sijainti	Hylly
24052	Saatavana (ei lainattavissa)		Kirjasto	Kirjasto	SA-IIC