Source: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com.br/2015/09/
Timestamp: 2017-06-24 15:28:23
Document Index: 519726171

Matched Legal Cases: ['CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ']

Have you ever come across a copyright law that
provides that the State automatically acquires ownership of copyright in a
certain work upon death of the relevant owner?
This appears to be what South African (SA) Government
may have in mind (unless all this is just a result of bad inaccurate law
drafting) with one of its proposed amendments to this country’s copyright law.
This blog is delighted to host the following analysis
by IP enthusiast and Katfriend Nedim
Malovic (Stockholm University), who explains what this proposal is all
“The South
African (SA) department of Trade and Industry is proposing a fairly
controversial amendment to its
current copyright legislation, possibly enabling the transfer of copyright
ownership to Government following the death of the relevant owner. Under the current
wording of section 3(2) of the SA Copyright Act 1978, the author of
a literary, artistic and musical works enjoys copyright protection for a term
of life plus 50 years. Copyright
ownership may also be assigned under section 22(1) of the SA Copyright
Act 1987, which provides that “copyright
is transmissible as movable property by testamentary disposition [to the
owner’s heirs]”. This allows such heirs to continue benefiting from copyright protection
for a full 50 years term after the death of the author. At the end of last month the Copyright Amendment Bill 2015 was published for
comment by the Department of Trade and Industry in the SA Government Gazette. The
predominant feature of this draft bill [for other features, see
here] is probably the proposal to amend the current wording of section 21
(which concerns ownership) in the SA Copyright Act 1978. This amendment is contained
in section 25 of the 2015 Bill and proposes to add the following new subsection
after subsection 2 of section 21: “Ownership of any copyright whose owner cannot be
located, is unknown, or is deceased shall vest in the state: Provided that if
the owner of such copyright is located at anytime, ownership of such copyright
shall be conferred back to such owner.” (emphasis added)
proposed amendment – as currently drafted – would transfer copyright ownership
in works to the SA Government not just when dealing with orphan works, but also
in the event that the copyright owner is deceased. This is reinforced by section 26 in the proposed Copyright Amendment Bill which
contains an amendment to current section 22(1) of the SA Copyright Act 1987:
“By the substitution for subsection (1) of the
following subsection: “(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, copyright
shall be transmissible as movable property by assignment, testamentary
disposition or operation of law [.]: Provided that, copyright owned by, vesting
on, or under the custody of the state may not be assigned.”
of the SA Department of Trade and Industry was adopted, this would result in
the Government acquiring ownership of the copyright in a certain work upon the death of
the relevant owner for the remainder of the term of protection (including the
right to any relevant royalties), in lieu of the owner’s estate. Nothing left for successors in title, not even royalties
practicalities of how such regime would actually work, there might be issues of
compliance with – among other things – international law. Although
the Berne Convention (Berne) does not deal with issues of ownership and
exploitation of rights (with the exception of cinematographic works), Article 2(6) Berne
(to which South Africa is bound) provides that “The works ... shall enjoy protection in all countries of
the Union. This protection shall operate for the benefit of the author and his successors in title.” (emphasis added)
It would appear that the proposed law would remove the "successors in title” from the
chain of copyright ownership. If so, then it could be argued that SA copyright
law, as amended, might be in breach of the minimum standards set by Berne.
laws envisage a role of the State in the enforcement of copyright, an example
being moral rights in those jurisdiction that conform to the droit d’auteur model and provide
perpetual protection, it is likely that the proposed SA amendment consisting of
transferring copyright ownership automatically upon death could be – to say the
least - an unprecedented move. A possible underlying
intention (motive) behind the proposed amendment might be that the SA
government would seek to generate revenue for itself. In any case, as is
apparent from section 26 of the Bill, the SA Government would be prevented from
assigning any copyright obtained upon death of the relevant owner.
Overall the underlying rationale for all this appears difficult to appreciate
fully. We shall thus see whether the Copyright Amendment Bill will actually be
passed in its current form.”
Thanks for your explanation, Nedim. Are readers aware
of any initiatives elsewhere similar to the SA Government one?
Nedim Malovic,
WIPO, along with researchers at Cornell and INSEAD, recently
published the Global
Innovation Index. The index ranks
countries by their innovativeness and
usually grabs a few headlines, particularly in countries who've fared well.
Even the Economist, using this Kat's favourite policy phrase, "punching
weight" covered
the index in an almost gushing
manner (i.e. they didn't insult patents.)
"Namibie Etosha Leopard" by Patrick Giraud Report
The report, which looks like it was a lot of work (over 450
pages and 79 variables), is a
comprehensive indexing exercise. The UK ranks
second, having risen from tenth in 2011; Switzerland again is number one.
The 2015 theme was Innovation for Development, which picks
up on broader implications of innovation, and IP. The report highlights an
innovation divide between developing and developed
countries. Education, business sophistication and institutional support are singled
as important factors
benefitting developed countries. The BRIC
countries are performing well
and China is now number 29. Using patent analysis, China, Jordan, Kenya and
Vietnam, Malaysia, India and others are outperforming similar economies. Africa is starting to move up the
index. Burkina Faso, Malawi and Senegal, among others, are noted as improving. This should provide good fodder
for debate at the upcoming African
Ministerial Conference 2015 in
Dakar in November.
model includes 79 indicators, which fall within the following three categories:
1. quantitative/objective/hard data (55 indicators), 2. composite indicators/index data (19 indicators), and 3. survey/qualitative/subjective/
soft data (5 indicators)."
These indicators are grouped into seven main areas. These measurements are then adjusted to
account for the differences in country size (typically GPD and population.)
1. Institutions - measures things
like political stability and the business environment, generally considered
conducive to growth and innovation. 2. Human capital and research -
(hello academia) important for the generation of knowledge; academic research doesn't necessarily translate into innovation, hence a policy
focus on tech transfer and knowledge
exchange. 3. Infrastructure - general
measurement of things like ICT and other resources which enable manufacturing,
health, logistics etc. 4. Market sophistication - includes
credit markets, financing and capital, facilitates the financial backing of
markets for innovation.5. Business sophistication - a mix of
the skills of business people and knowledge absorption, the intangible
infrastructure which facilitates the spread of knowledge. 6. Knowledge and technology output -
where IP comes in, measurements of patents, publications, spending on computers, exports etc
provide an idea of of innovative activity.7. Creative outputs - more IP with trade marks and measurements of the outputs of the creative industries.
There are some highly innovative measurements in the index
itself. For example, the number of
monthly Wikipedia edits gives an idea of a country's online engagement and general
level of education. "Tertiary inbound mobility" measures the number of university students from abroad, which suggests an attractive education system. The UK ranks eighth on this measure, just above Switzerland
and significantly above the United States (49th).
You get some interesting results. Barbados, for example, is the top
country for patent families filed in at least three countries. A number of
Eastern European countries are in the top ten for females with advanced degrees
in employment. Germany ranks top
Readers keen to find their own insights may enjoy the website's cool interactive tool. Comments on the index
That said, the use of patent and trade mark data is often problematic. IPKat readers will know that registrations are less a measurement of innovation, and more a measurement of business strategy (and perhaps an even better measurement of firms' legal budgets.) There are also challenges associated with using so many variables. Capturing a system as complex as innovation is difficult, and many of the indicators measure similar concepts, which could skew results. Another consideration is that the index introduces the political equivalent of a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) for innovation. Great if you're on top or moving up. But in countries not doing so well, governments may be reconsidering policy. Exclusive analysis
However, the report misses a crucial
analysis. Policy makers pay
attention, because this Kat has
figured out how to improve your innovation. The answer is, as is
often the case,
Using an extensive analysis of globally developed databases
and matching techniques, your Katonomist has established an important link between chocolate and innovation. Here are the facts:
Flickr: Clever Cupcakes · 70% of the top 20 most innovative
countries in the world are also in the top
20 countries with the highest per capita
chocolate consumption.
· 63% of the top top
eight emerging markets with the highest per capita
chocolate consumption are also listed in WIPO's top ten middle-income countries
with the highest quality of innovation
Based on this analysis, it should come as no surprise that
Switzerland is the most innovative country in the world. The inhabitants of
Switzerland consume nearly 12 kilos of chocolate per capita, which is a two-kilo lead over Ireland, in the number two chocolate position. It turns out the secret ingredient of innovation is creamy and sweet, with a hint of bitter. Overall thoughts
The WIPO index is a useful analytical tool. The analysis accompanying the index is in-depth and presents a comprehensive look at innovation
worldwide. Indices and measurements can never fully capture the complexity of
innovation, but the index is a very useful thermometer. However, as fellow Kat Neil wrote
recently, there are debates on the appropriateness of the steadily increasing
intertwining, sometimes conflation, of innovation and IP. This Kat thinks we should continue to
explore this relationship, but maintain a healthy sense of skepticism. She also thinks that more economists
should be trained in the legal and policy aspects of IP, and vice-versa.
global innovation index,
OUP could not be pushedthis far ...
* "Patents in perspective" (Stefano Barazza, University of South Wales) * "Policing and enforcing IP" (Marius Schneider, Ipvocate)
Apart from being a celebration of a decade of thoroughly enjoyable and thankfully successful intellectual property law publishing, this conference marks the hand-over of its editorial functions. Founder editor Jeremy is stepping down and is passing the reins to three new editors: Eleonora Rosati (currently Deputy Editor), Stefano Barazza and Marius Schneider. This is the last time you will have the (mis)fortune of seeing Jeremy in action since it's his final public participation in any intellectual property event before he retires. Registration for this event, which is free to attend, can be achieved by the simple expedient of clicking through to the Eventbrite registration system here. Posted by
JIPLP 10th anniversary event
A few weeks ago this blog reported on the latest Opinion of the European Copyright Society
(ECS), this time regarding a case currently pending before the Court of Justice
of the European Union (CJEU): HP Belgium v Reprobel, C-572/13.
This is a reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Brussels Court of Appeal, seeking clarification as regards an
evergreen topic in EU copyright, ie the fair compensation
requirement in the reprography and private copying exceptions within Article
5(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2001/29 (the InfoSoc Directive), respectively.
This case raises a number of issues,
including whether a law (like the Belgian one) that allocates a portion of the
fair compensation for reproductions pursuant to Article 5(2)(a) and (b) of the
InfoSoc Directive directly to publishers is compatible with EU law.
Advocate General (AG) Cruz Villalon
issued his Opinion [not yet
available in English] last June, holding the view - among
other things and relying upon the earlier CJEU decision in Amazon - that such law would not be
compliant with the InfoSoc Directive. This would be because this piece of
EU legislation does not allow Member States to allocate a portion of the fair
compensation to the publishers if there is no obligation for the publishers to
ensure that they pass on this part, directly or indirectly, to the authors.
In its analysis the ECS endorsed the AG
Opinion on this point, and submitted that the CJEU should (re-)affirm the
author principle, ie initial
ownership of copyright for authors. Who did you just call 'unsubstantiated'?!
IFRRO, the International Federation of
Reproduction Rights Organisation, has just released a document which is critical of the ECS
Opinion. More specifically, IFRRO holds the view that:
"[T]he opinion expressed
by the European Copyright Society regarding the publishers’ share is
unsubstantiated. It conflicts with the international legal framework (including
the Berne Convention, and especially the
three-step-test laid down therein), and breaches longstanding legal and
contractual arrangements between authors and publishers. Moreover, it is
contrary to arrangements and traditions established and practised since the
first establishment of collective rights management in the TI sector – the
Reproduction Rights Organisations (RROs) – more than 40 years ago, regardless
of the system under which they operate. The fundamental basis of collective
rights management in the TI sector is that both authors and publishers are
entitled to receive a portion of the remuneration / compensation. This is also
consistent with the IFRRO Statutes, which require that RRO members represent
both authors and publishers, and that these grant both categories of
rightholders adequate representation on their governing bodies. In this vein,
numerous IFRRO submissions to the European Commission on draft legislation,
which led to the adoption of the EU Information Society Directive 2001/29 in
2001, uncontestedly, referred to ‘rightholder’ as a generic term for authors
and publishers, who should both be entitled to a part of the remuneration /
compensation when copies are made from an already published work."
Let's now wait and
see with whom the CJEU agrees!
Article 5(2) InfoSoc Directive,
HP Belgium v Reprobel C-572/13,
private copying levies,
or (b) as an alternative to (a), they may, in appropriate cases, set the damages as a lump sum on the basis of elements such as at least the amount of royalties or fees which would have been due if the infringer had requested authorisation to use the intellectual property right in question. 2. Where the infringer did not knowingly, or with reasonable grounds know, engage in infringing activity, Member States may lay down that the judicial authorities may order the recovery of profits or the payment of damages, which may be pre-established.
CJEU forthcoming matters,
Not just Eiffel 65, but also Never Too Late 65
If last week Jeremy took the opportunity to link
our dear friend Alberto Bellan's invariably helpful Never Too Late feature to
Beatles song When I'm Sixty-Four, this week the 65th edition of
Never Too Late cannot but be linked to a great Italian group that is immediately
associated with this number, ie Eiffel 65 [authors of
unforgettable and thoughtful tunes like Blue (Da Ba Dee) and Voglia di Dance All Night, just
to mention a couple].
As you Move Your Body, this is what
happened last week on this very blog:
* Great Scotch! Win Against
Counterfeit Whisky Caps in China
Kat, bonny Scottish lassie Kate Manning tells about a Scotch
whisky battle in far-off China to preserve the palates of discerning
dilettantes in distant Myanmar.
* Kit Kat quandary: have the media
and the majority got it wrong?
Thomas Farkas offers this highly positive interpretation of the words of
the CJEU, arguing that the Nestlé application should now be allowed to
succeed. He might be right. Really.
* Nestlé's Kit Kat: a one-sided
one who might be right is Roland Mallinson, who endorses Thomas on this Kit-Kat
story and goes even further.
* The purpose of appeal proceedings
and "adverse effect" -- on appellants and on delicate digestions
attorney on the other side of the English Channel makes an observation on a
recent decision of a European Patent Office Board of Appeal in Case T 0327/13 of
17.7.2015 Exchangeable continuous casting nozzle.
* UPC-ing is Believing: Preview of
London's UPC location
Annsley was at
the Aldgate inauguration.
* Happy Birthday to everyone:
candles blown out on infamous royalty claim
Judge George H. King in the Central District of California has just established
that Warner-Chappell do not hold any valid copyright in the Happy
Birthday lyrics, Merpel recounts.
* The "Happy Birthday"
saga: when it may have been better not to have sued?
After Mark
breaking post, here's our own Neil's insightful piece on that happy-ending
* The final curtain in the GOLDBEAR
"end" in the Haribo v Lindt golden chocolate bear
litigation (see IPKat posts here, hereand here) has just been put by German Supreme Court. See what BGH decided in
this post by Mark.
* When tattoos get under your skin:
film extras face cover-up or getting peeled
tattoos is a subject that this weblog has touched on before [here, here, here and here, among other
places], but this lovely
post offers a completely fresh angle to it. The story is told by film director Otto
Bathurst, aided and abetted by Jenifer Swallow (Mind Candy).
* IP in 2015 – Where we are vs.
Where I thought we’d be
weeks ago, our dear blogmeister Jeremy addressed the British Group of the Union of European Practitioners in
Intellectual Property in the convivial setting of The Royal Overseas League on
this topic. Harking back to a time before fax, email, and before any of our
intellectual property laws in the UK existed in their present form, when
neither OHIM nor the EPO existed and WIPO was but a babe, he reminisced thus.
Darren reports on what Jeremy said. * It could only happen in America:
PETA litigates over macaque selfie
stories that lead people to hate animals. Animal rights organisation People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has taken legal action in
the United States on the monkey’s behalf (apparently named Naruto), claiming
that the animal owns the copyright in the successful photographs and should
therefore reap the benefits financially. Lucy Harrold (Keystone Law) takes up
* Squaring the Cercle: a Kat takes
a look at this year's IP Summit
Intellectual Property Law & Practice (JIPLP), which this blogger currently edits, is holding
a special event to
commemorate the passage of a decade since its launch, while Premier Cercle is
organsing its IP Summit. There's a nice offer too, says Jeremy.
PREVIOUSLY, ON NEVER TOO LATE * Never too late 64 - [week ending on Sunday 20 September] – Adwords in
Canada | EU Draft consultation on ISPs | "The UPC: A Panel
Debate" | Prince and Mean Music Companies v That lovely baby
dancing Prince Lenz v Universal Music | CJEU in
KitKat | Paul Burrell v Max Clifford [2015] EWHC 2001 (Ch) |
Economics of Collecting Societies | Who is an 'intermediary' for the sake of
Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive? | IP: When innovation is the answer to
a spiritual funk
Never Too Late 63 [week ending on Sunday 13 September] - Fair
compensation in reprography and private copying: the ECS’ version | Substitute
sellers | Teva UK Ltd & Another v Leo Pharma |
Evidence-based IP policy | KitKat case | UK IPO’s priorities | UK IPO’s website
vs complete copyright legislation | Patent Attorney Qualifications | Mylan
and Actavis v Warner-Lambert | Copyright and censorship | Suicide at
the EPO | Private copy levies in Austria | Court fees in the UK.
Never too late 62 [week ending on Sunday 6 September] - Copyright
and industrial design in Japan | Greek political slogans and trade marks |
Moral rights in legal works | Economist v patents | CJEU in Iron &
Smith Kft v Unilever NV | Copyright over criminals' works | IPEC
in Minder Music & Another v Sharples | Apple’s European
slide-to-unlock patent declared invalid in Germany.
Never too late 61 [week ending on Sunday 30 August] - Alpinestars
Research Srl v OHIM, Kean Tung Cho and Ling-Yuan Wang Yu | PTAB
declines Bass hedge fund IPR challenges in Ampyra dispute | Basic AG
Lebensmittelhandel v OHIM), Repsol YPF SA and a basic litigation
| BGH on IP zombie through unfair competition law | Under Armor and Armor
& Glory, a story of religious IP | Fashion law and debates | SatCab
Directive and geoblocking | Again on KitKat and acquired distinctiveness | New
IPKat policy on comments | Singapore GFIP. Posted by
Alberto Bellan,