Hylly
Henkilönnimi Porangaba, Luis H., kirjoittaja.
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö Copyright (in Design) Post-Brexit : Should Section 52 of CDPA 1988 Be Reinstated?
Julkaistu
Ulkoasutiedot
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa European Intellectual Property Review, ISSN 0142-0461 ; 44(1)
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms. This response submitted to public consultation argues that s.52 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act should be reinstated, thereby limiting the term of copyright protection in industrially applied artistic works to 25 years. Particularly, Brexit calls for a reassessment of the objectives which the s.52 repeal sought to pursue—namely, a perceived need to ensure clarity and consistency with EU law—as those objectives may no longer be aligned with the interests or priorities of the UK. This is considered by the response within the context of freedom of competition and innovation, with concerns being raised in relation to the (cumulative) protection of product design. Additionally, UK court decisions assimilating recent ECJ jurisprudence on copyright subsistence suggest an expansion of protectable subject matter affecting previously unregulated creative industries such as fashion, which may warrant further analysis of the potential benefits of s.52.
Asiasana
Maantieteellinen nimi asiasanana
Sarjalisäkirjaus - yhtenäistetty nimeke European Intellectual Property Review, 0142-0461 ; 44(1)
*000 ab a ar
*00116709
*008 s2022||||xxk|||||||||||||||||eng||
*041 $aeng
*1001 $aPorangaba, Luis H.,$ekirjoittaja.
*24510$aCopyright (in Design) Post-Brexit :$bShould Section 52 of CDPA 1988 Be Reinstated? /$cLuis H. Porangaba.
*260 $c2022
*300 $as. 1-4
*4901 $aEuropean Intellectual Property Review,$x0142-0461 ;$v44(1)
*520 $aThis response submitted to public consultation argues that s.52 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act should be reinstated, thereby limiting the term of copyright protection in industrially applied artistic works to 25 years. Particularly, Brexit calls for a reassessment of the objectives which the s.52 repeal sought to pursue—namely, a perceived need to ensure clarity and consistency with EU law—as those objectives may no longer be aligned with the interests or priorities of the UK. This is considered by the response within the context of freedom of competition and innovation, with concerns being raised in relation to the (cumulative) protection of product design. Additionally, UK court decisions assimilating recent ECJ jurisprudence on copyright subsistence suggest an expansion of protectable subject matter affecting previously unregulated creative industries such as fashion, which may warrant further analysis of the potential benefits of s.52.
*650 7$atekijänoikeus$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p2346$2yso/fin
*650 7$ateollisoikeus$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p3067
*650 7$aimmateriaalioikeus$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p3068$2yso/fin
*650 7$alainsäädäntö$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p13854
*650 7$abrexit$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p37972$2yso/fin
*650 7$amallioikeus$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p11911$2yso/fin
*650 7$amallisuoja $0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p14238$2yso/fin
*651 7$aIso-Britannia$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p104990
*830 0$aEuropean Intellectual Property Review,$x0142-0461 ;$v44(1)
*852 $hSA-EIPR
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä
kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.