Hylly
Henkilönnimi Jacobi, Jan, kirjoittaja.
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö Application of YouTube/Cyando by Dutch Supreme Court : Usenet operator not liable for copyright infringement
Julkaistu Oxford University Press, Oxford : 2023.
Ulkoasutiedot
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, ISSN 1747-1532 ; 18(4)
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms. The Dutch Supreme Court recently applied the criteria for online intermediary liability as formulated by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its YouTube/Cyando ruling (joined cases C-682/18 and C-683/18). The Supreme Court ruled that the operator of a Usenet platform, where copyright-protected works were shared illegally, was not liable for copyright infringement. In particular, the Supreme Court held that there was no intervention by the operator that led to an act of a communication to the public being performed, because the operator had not contributed to giving access to the copyright-protected works.
Asiasana
Maantieteellinen nimi asiasanana
Sarjalisäkirjaus - yhtenäistetty nimeke Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 1747-1532 ; 18(4)
*000 ab a ar
*00119291
*008 s2023||||xxk|||||||||||||||||eng||
*040 $aFI-CUTE$bfin$erda
*0410 $aeng
*1001 $aJacobi, Jan,$ekirjoittaja.
*24510$aApplication of YouTube/Cyando by Dutch Supreme Court :$bUsenet operator not liable for copyright infringement /$cJan Jacobi.
*264 1$aOxford :$bOxford University Press,$c2023.
*300 $as. 271–274
*336 $ateksti$btxt$2rdacontent
*337 $akäytettävissä ilman laitetta$bn$2rdamedia
*338 $anide$bnc$2rdacarrier
*4901 $aJournal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice,$x1747-1532 ;$v18(4)
*520 $aThe Dutch Supreme Court recently applied the criteria for online intermediary liability as formulated by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its YouTube/Cyando ruling (joined cases C-682/18 and C-683/18). The Supreme Court ruled that the operator of a Usenet platform, where copyright-protected works were shared illegally, was not liable for copyright infringement. In particular, the Supreme Court held that there was no intervention by the operator that led to an act of a communication to the public being performed, because the operator had not contributed to giving access to the copyright-protected works.
*650 7$atekijänoikeus$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p2346$2yso/fin
*650 7$aoikeustapaukset$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p7219
*650 7$apäätökset$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p2868$2yso/fin
*650 7$aEU-oikeus$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p20733$2yso/fin
*650 7$aYouTube$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p21062$2yso/fin
*651 7$aAlankomaat $2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p105190
*830 0$aJournal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice,$x1747-1532 ;$v18(4)
*852 $hSA-JIPLP
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä
kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.