Source: http://the1709blog.blogspot.de/2011/09/
Timestamp: 2017-05-23 16:57:45
Document Index: 322141800

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 79', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32']

German media reports on alleged copyright infringement by a senior conservative politician (see for example this article in the Handelsblatt). Siegfried Kauder (CDU) recently proposed that copyright infringers should be disconnected from the Internet for three weeks – without a trial, based only on repeat complaints by copyright owners to the relevant internet service provider. He saw this as a milder alternative to criminal prosecution or costly warning letters (costly for the infringer who must pay the right holder’s attorney’s fees). While that suggestion is constitutionally problematic and was not really taken seriously by anyone even within his own party, it seems to have prompted someone to investigate whether Kauder himself abides by copyright law at all times. Well, apparently not. It is alleged that at least two photographs on his website, showing castles in his constituency, were put there without a licence. The author is not credited either, which would make for an additional infringement of moral rights. A quick Google Images search reveals the identity of the apparent authors, but as yet neither of them has given a public statement. The pictures have been taken down from Mr Kauder’s website but can still be accessed via archiving sites.
His political rivals and most of the media are understandably delighted by this (minor) scandal. He who sits in the glasshouse should not throw stones or suggest disabling other people's Internet access and all that. However, some people have pointed out that Mr Kauder will hardly have created the website himself. According to the information provided there, it was indeed designed by someone else, but of course that does not answer the question who selected or provided the photographs. Assuming the person who designed the website also chose the photos and Mr Kauder was unaware that no licence had been given, he would probably not be deemed a direct infringer. He would be liable as a “Störer”, though. The German law concept of “Störerhaftung” does not translate easily – “disturbance liability” would be the literal translation, but liability for breach of a duty of care is probably more accurate in this context. That means that he should have checked that permission to use the pictures had been granted and that he must now make sure that the photos are not used again on his website, but he will not be liable to pay damages.
photographs placed on website
I early 2007 I spotted what I thought was a very interesting case called MPS v Murphy and blogged about this in March on my Music Law Updates website. The case was (and still is) of great interest to UK publicans and I even got “flamed” in a pub trade weekly magazine’s chat room for daring to suggest anything but the prevailing view, which was that in the UK only Sky TV had the right to show live English Premiership football. I pointed out that whilst that may well be correct as far as copyright and licensing goes, it may not be so right when looking at the general concept of the ‘free movement’ of goods and services within the European Union. The case concerns South Coast publican Karen Murphy who referred to pay £750 each year for a Nova decoder to get Greek satellite programmes that included live English Premiership football, rather than the reported minimum £4,000 Sky would have charged for live football. She was convicted under s297(1) of the Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988 for dishonestly receiving a programme with intent to avoid payment. Murphy appealed her conviction to the Portsmouth Crown Court where the conviction was upheld and then onwards to the Divisional Court, who referred the whole matter to the ECJ.The economics of this are important: BSkyB and Setanta Sports were then reportedly paying £1.7 billion to hold the exclusive rights to screen live matches to the English Premiership in Britain for the next three years. Broadcasters in 208 other countries had recently doubled their payments to secure English premiership rights to a combined £625 million - and of course Sky recoups their investment by charging both consumers for home use and pubs and clubs a fee to publicly show Sky TV in a place of business. Back in 2007 it was said that a public house would often pay upwards of £1,000 per month for Sky Television and whilst this includes Sky Sports and Sky Sports News it would not include all live premiership matches. An additional payment is needed for the full service.]Now the European Court of Justice is set to rule on the 4th October 2011 in the case of Murphy and the joined case of FA Premier League and Others v QC Leisure following a ‘pro-Murphy’ opinion from Advocate General Juliane Kokott in February this year. In reconciling intellectual property rights with the free movement of services, the judgment has the potential to transform broadcasting in the EU.On the 11th October City University will be host a panel on this hosted by our very own Jeremy Phillips, and featuring Lorna Woods, Professor at the City Law School, Dan Wilsher, Senior Lecturer at the City Law School and Jonathan Griffiths, Senior Lecturer at the QMUL School of Law. Full details can be found using the link below:Football, Broadcasting and the Internal Market: Is a common audio-visual space in sight?http://www.city.ac.uk/events/2011/oct/football,-broadcasting-and-the-internal-market-is-a-common-audio-visual-space-in-sight/_nocache?dm_t=0,0,0,0,0Background here: http://www.musiclawupdates.com/07Marchlawupdates.htm
Following George Monbiot's scathing article in the Guardian last month, the subject of academic publishing has been weighed and been found wanting. Of course, librarians and academics have long known that journal publishers monopolise the market; even as much as ten years ago the larger publishers were busy buying out the smaller ones who weren't strong enough to compete with them. But outside of academia people are largely unaware of the struggles every electronic resources librarian faces each year as budgets shrink and journal bundle prices steadily increase. Tough decisions often have to be made, and naturally the impact is felt by researchers, academics and students.Which is why today's announcement that Princeton University is enforcing an Open Access policy forbidding academics from transferring the copyright in their articles to journal publishers is so significant. Academics are required to licence their work instead, so that they retain the copyright and are therefore able to reproduce it elsewhere without having to seek the permission of the publisher. This could spark a welcome trend which would allow academics and universities to maximise their outputs and revolutionise knowledge sharing.Certainly in the UK, where most universities now have institutional repositories which host research outputs (scholarly articles written by their academics), this trend would be welcome and would resolve numerous difficulties in attempting to interpret publisher policies. Part of the problem is that academics are often unaware of the terms they agree to when they sign a Copyright Transfer Agreement (for an example see here). Yet even when they are aware, academics often don't have time to negotiate licence agreements with publishers as they are under pressure from their institution and/or funding body to publish. Most of the larger publishers either do not allow a version to be deposited in the repository or are very specific about the version which can be deposited, and attempting to contact publishers for permission is usually incredibly difficult if not impossible. And whilst organisations such as SHERPA/RoMEO provide a useful source of information on publisher policies, policies are changing all the time and it is difficult to maintain up-to-date records. Recent woes include publishers moving to automated systems which invoice funding bodies and universities directly for open access; these sorts of issues cause headaches for repository managers and copyright officers alike.This is is not to decry the value of academic publishing, and indeed it has been interesting to read reactionary pieces and comments to the Monbiot article (including from the publishers themselves) which indicate moves afoot in the publishing world. But what is increasingly obvious is that the current mainstream system cannot continue forever; something's got to give, and one wonders whether Princeton has just thrown down the gauntlet to universities everywhere...Photo from Flickr: Princeton University by Yakinodi (CC-BY 2.0)
... Lawyers and judges are trained to understand and to interpret the law. But in the digital age, no one should be denied the ability to find and read it in an accessible and searchable format. The argument for opening up judgments to real public view and scrutiny is an overwhelmingly strong one".BAILII's Copyright Policy can be found in full here. From the reference to "META tags" it looks as though it may have been established quite a long time ago, when we were all still suspicious of search engines, spiders and robots and when there were still serious doubts as to the legal, commercial and ethical dimensions to their use. This blogger holds BAILII in awe and in esteem, but wonders whether the time has come for BAILII either to take a fresh look at its copyright policy or to explain more clearly the reasons that lurk behind it and which may justify its retention in an era in which the use of search engines is pretty well standard in every walk of life. He also doubts whether in reality (i) BAILII would ever have the inclination and the funds to pursue an action for copyright infringement against any search engine, (ii) the courts would grant injunctive relief, taking into account the public interest in greater access to primary legal sources and (iii) the interesting issue of damages in the absence of any convenient head of commercial loss. It would be good if BAILII and Judgmental could work together for the common good which they both so palpable have at heart.
copyright in court judgments
a. Of, to and by the publicb. A public deliveryc. A public placed. Performing in publice. Place of public entertainment
a. Sec 6 (musical and literary works),b. Sec 9 A(royalties i.r.o. sound recordings)c. Sec 11 B (computer programs)
At the local performance rights (in musical and literary works) collection society SAMRO’S website, the 1709 Blog reader’s friend would be advised, inter alia the following:“According to copyright law not only the person performing music in public is liable, but also the proprietor of the premises who permits their permises to be used for such performance in public.”“Please be aware that a licence issued by the SABC does not entitle the holder to give a performance in public of SAMRO’s copyright music included in broadcast programmes. The agreement between SAMRO and the SABC for the broadcasting of copyright music covers only the reception of such music within the domestic circle. Where broadcast music is rendered audible in public, a separate licence from SAMRO is necessary”. “As a user of copyright music it is a requirement under the South African Copyright Act that you pay for the music that is broadcast, performed or “diffused” by your establishment. SAMRO’s Licensing Department is a hugely important aspect of the society, designed to ensure that music users in South Africa, of whatever size, are properly licensed for the performance of copyright music” “Music users are broken down into different groups: · Essential users (which are entities like broadcasters, promoters and others);
· Incidental users (like cafes,and hair salons). Remember that the licence issued by SAMRO is a blanket one authorising the broadcast, performance or “diffusion” of any of the million musical works that SAMRO controls on behalf of both our own members and those of its affiliated societies worldwide. The licence is usually in a form of a contract, which runs from year to year and due to the many ways in which musical works are performed, the fees payable under SAMRO’s licence can vary. There are around 46 different tariffs established to ensure we cater for all different types of music users. (see tariffs in this section).”At the local collection society for owners of sound recordings SAMPRA’s website, the 1709 Blog reader's friend would be advised inter alia the following:“Is there any legal requirement to pay SAMPRA licence fees? The Copyright Act imposes an obligation on those who wish to broadcast, communicate to the public or diffuse copyright sound recordings, to pay a licence fee to the relevant copyright holder(s). SAMPRA is authorized by the members of RiSA to grant licences to and collect licence fees from users of their copyright sound recordings. If you do not obtain a licence from SAMPRA, you will be infringing these copyrightholders' rights when you broadcast, diffuse or communicate to the public, any of their sound recordings” “What does "communicating to the public" mean? Communicating to the public is the playing of a sound recording in public (i.e. a non-domestic environment). Just because music is rendered audible for free, the audience is small, there is no admission fee, or the communication to the public is confined to members of a club, or a limited area, it does not mean that it is not a communication to the public. Music rendered audible at an event such as e.g. an office party or a year-end function constitutes a communication to the public. People often reason that "If it is my CD, why can't I play it whenever and wherever I want?" Ownership of the physical CD or Cassette does not confer any rights in the copyright material contained in the sound carrier onto the purchaser or holder in good faith, other than the right to be a licensed user of the copyright material contained on the sound carrier for personal use only” “Under section 9 of the Copyright Act 1978 ("the Act"), the copyright in relation to a sound recording is the exclusive right to do all or authorize any of the following acts, amongst others:· Broadcasting the sound recording
· Communicating the sound recording to the public". Crystal clear? We hope so!
The Guardian Monday 19th September 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/18/pirate-party-germany-berlin-election
Elvis Presley Enterprises, LLC v Arista Music In December 2010, Elvis Presley Enterprises, LLC, filed a lawsuit before the Landgericht München I, which has also dealt with some of the other fairness compensation cases outlined in my abovementioned post. The defendant is Elvis’s German record company, Arista Music (formely RCA Records). Apparently, in 1973 chronically ill-advised Elvis was persuaded by his manager Tom Parker and Arista Music to sign away all German rights in his entire back catalogue (allegedly some 1,000 recordings) for $5.4 million. What is more, his manager received 50% of that sum.
Consequently, the Elvis case appears to be quite straightforward. Upon closer scrutiny, however, there are two problems that make this case a rather tricky one. Applicable law
In the first possible scenario, the contract contains a choice of law clause that renders German law applicable. In the second possible scenario, the contract contains a choice of law clause that renders US-American law applicable (or indeed a third country’s law, but that would seem highly unlikely in the present case). In the third possible scenario, the contract does not contain a choice of law clause. In the absence of a choice of law by the parties, Article 4 Rome I Regulation comes into play. Copyright contracts do not fall within the scope of any of the examples in Article 4 (1). According to Article 4 (2), then, the applicable law is the law of the country where the party required to effect the characteristic performance of the contract has his habitual residence. Alas, there is a dispute, or at least a profound lack of clarity, as concerns copyright contracts. One might think that the characteristic performance is the transfer of rights effected by the author. Yet there are voices that argue that the characteristic performance is effected by the publisher who exploits the works and pays the author. At least in case of a so-called buy-out where the author receives a one-off payment and no further royalties, I would favour the first position. If the court in the Elvis case happens to share my view, US-American law will apply.
Assuming the contract did contain a choice of law clause and German law was chosen, § 32a UrhG applies, of course. Assuming American law is applicable either by the parties’ choice or due to conflict of law rules, it must be determined whether § 32a UrhG is an overriding mandatory provision for the purposes of Article 9 Rome I Regulation that must be given effect regardless of the applicable law. Fair enough, but how can we tell? Now, as we all know one should always read the neighbouring provisions of the one you are dealing with. If you do that, you will encounter § 32b UrhG. § 32b UrhG makes the application of § 32a UrhG mandatory even if the applicable law is not German law. § 32b UrhG provides exactly that, namely that §§ 32, 32a UrhG remain unaffected by choosing a foreign law. There is a big BUT, though. § 32b UrhG only applies to authors. Whereas § 79 (2) (2) UrhG declares § 32a UrhG and a couple of other provisions to apply, mutatis mutandis, to performers, it does no such thing when it comes to performers. There is no room for an analogous application of the provision either (for an instructive article on § 32b UrhG – in German – see Hilty/Peukert, Das neue deutsche Urhebervertragsrecht im internationalen Kontext, GRUR Int 2002, 643). Since the Elvis case concerns performers’ rights, § 32b UrhG does not apply.
Let’s assume that German law turns out to be the applicable law and § 32a UrhG can in principle be invoked. Before we can turn to the question whether the consideration received is strikingly disproportionate in the light of the profits generated (my guess would be that it probably is), there is the issue of legal standing (Aktivlegitimation). The rights conferred by § 32a UrhG cannot be transferred. Upon the author’s or performer’s death, it passes on to the author’s or performer’s heirs. According to the official Elvis Presley website (here http://www.elvis.com/about-epe/), his heirs were his parents and his daughter Lisa-Marie, and when his parents died they left everything to Lisa-Marie as well. Her inheritance was held in trust until she turned twenty-five; she then formed a new trust, the Elvis Presley Trust. Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. is the business entity of the trust and the parent company of the claimant. Since the author or performer may not transfer their § 32a UrhG right and the heir cannot have better rights than the author or performer, it is impossible for the heir to transfer her § 32a UrhG right, too. Therefore, as I see it Elvis Presley Enterprises, LLC lacks legal standing. That would be more of a technical issue that could easily be rectified if Lisa-Marie Presley were still the sole proprietor, but she sold 85% of Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. in 2005. Consequently, I would be frankly astonished if the current claim by Elvis Presley Enterprises, LLC were successful.
Under any scenario, the likelihood of Elvis Presley Enterprises, LLC being successful in their § 32a UrhG claim would seem very small indeed. Provided that German law is applicable, however, Lisa-Marie Presley stands a good chance of coming into some money if she claims further compensation pursuant to § 32a, 79 (2) (2) UrhG. Posted by
"In February 2011 His Honour Judge Birss, sitting in the Patents County Court (PCC), handed down a judgment in the case of Media CAT Limited v Adams & Others. The judgment is illuminating since it casts some light into the murky world of how some individuals and companies have sought to enforce copyright claims against members of the public in circumstances which could, at their most charitable, be described as suspect. It also highlights certain procedural issues which can arise in such cases and which will be of considerable interest to practitioners, not least in relation to the potential abuses which can arise from unfettered use of the Norwich Pharmacal procedure".
"Musicologists (experts in music) provide crucial evidence to courts in copyright infringement actions, especially in an age of digital samples and ‘mash-ups’. Surprisingly, there are only two reported decisions in Canada in which a musicologist or professor of music was qualified as an expert witness. In this article, we examine those cases and consider the practical application and challenges of retaining a musicologist in copyright infringement cases".
"British and German law provide diametrically opposed answers to the question of the transferability and thus the marketability of copyright property assets. Under the current legal situation in Germany, the non-transferability dogma of copyrights is maintained. The law thus continues to follow the monistic theory. However, in recent years it has been observed in German legal literature that this dogma has been eroded. In fact, there are examples showing that the copyright can be legally transferred. This development is interesting because German copyright goes one step further than the situation in the UK. Whereas moral rights cannot be transferred under British copyright law, and a waiver is possible at best, in Germany moral rights can factually be transferred under both the law of succession and employment law".
The Authors Guild, who sued Google for scanning in-copyright books back in 2005 (a suit that is still pending), are now suing the libraries that allowed Google to scan their collections. Google has given the libraries copies of their scans and the libraries have since pooled them in the HathiTrust Digital Library. Now the HathiTrust is on the point of permitting unlimited downloads of those works it deems to be ‘orphans’. Press release here.The UK government, meanwhile, is expected to start putting pressure on search engines, advertisers and credit card companies to take ‘reasonable steps’ to ‘make life more difficult’ for sites that openly flout copyright. See the FT report here for further details.
In the latest development in the ongoing saga of the file-sharing cases described in a previous post on this blog as "bullying, copyright trolling, public opinion blunder or what you will", the Solicitors Regulatory Authority has issued fines and costs totalling nearly £200,000 against two lawyers formerly of the firm Davenport Lyons.The SRA report is worth setting out in full.Davenport Lyons: Greed clouds judgement and results in £20K fine Six thousand letters demanding compensation sent on behalf of clients to alleged unlawful file sharers led to a hefty fine at a recent Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) hearing for solicitors David Gore and Brian Miller from law firm Davenport Lyons. The SDT found all six allegations proven and fined both men £20,000, awarding interim costs to the SRA of £150,000, with.full costs still subject to a detailed assessment. The letters the solicitors sent out demanded compensation and costs, and warned that recipients faced further action and increased costs if the matter was not settled as a matter of urgency. The SRA's investigation revealed that the concerns of those who had received letters and protested their innocence were ignored. The SDT found, in effect, that Mr Miller and Mr Gore became too concerned about making the scheme profitable for themselves and their firm. Their judgement became distorted, and they pursued the scheme regardless of the impact on the people receiving the letters—and even of their own clients. An SRA spokesperson said: "We welcome the decision of the SDT, which follows a lengthy and complex investigation by members of SRA staff. "Some of those affected were vulnerable members of the public. There was significant distress. We are pleased that this matter has been brought to a conclusion and hope that it serves as a warning to others. "Solicitors have a duty to act with integrity, independence and in the best interests of their clients. Solicitors who breach those duties can expect to face action by the SRA." Posted by
Martin Kretschmer, Professor of Information Jurisprudence andDirector, Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management at Bournemouth University and a friend of this blog has contributed the following thoughts on the copyright term extension. The comments are Martin's alone and do not purport to represent the views of any of the other authors of this blog:The deed is done. Copyright term extension for sound recordings from 50 to 70 years was adopted yesterday (12 September 2011) by qualified majority in the European Council. The remaining opposition came from Belgium, the Czech Republic, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden. Austria and Estonia abstained.The chorus of approval has been led by aging artists, masking the fact that for more than a decade the lobby for copyright extension has been resourced by the multinational record industry. Labels do not want to lose the revenues of the classic recordings of the 1960s which are reaching the end of their current 50 year term. Rather than innovating, right holders find it much easier to exclude competition. Europe is in danger of locking away her music heritage just as digital technology is enabling the opening of the archives.It is not surprising that many performers’ organisations and collecting societies support the Directive. They do not have to carry the costs – which will exceed EURO 1 billion to the general public (based on the Commission’s own figures – see calculations in Joint Academic Statement issued by Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management (CIPPM, Bournemouth University), the Centre for Intellectual Property & Information Law (CIPIL, Cambridge University), the Institute the Institute for Information Law (IViR, University of Amsterdam), and the Max Planck Competition and Tax Law (Munich) 72 percent of the financial benefits from term extension will accrue to record labels. Of the 28 percent that will go to artists, most of the money will go to superstar acts, with only 4 percent benefiting those musicians mentioned in the European Council press release as facing an "income gap at the end of their life times". Many performers also do not appear to understand that the proposal would lead to a redistribution of income from living to dead artists.In an interview with the NY Times yesterday, I said: "This is a dreadful day for musicians and consumers. Policymakers are schizophrenic, speaking a language of change and innovation, but then respond to lobbying by extending the right which gave rise to the problem in the first place. This only entrenches a cynical attitude toward copyright law and brings it into further disrepute."Sweden and Belgium issued dissents after the vote in the Council. They are worth quoting in full: Interinstitutional File: 2008/0157 (COD)Declaration by SwedenThroughout the negotiations, Sweden has had strong reservations regarding the commission’s proposal to extend the term of protection for sound recordings.As regards copyright regulation in general Sweden has always stressed the importance of taking all relevant aspects and involved interests into account, in order to maintain a fair balance in the copyright system. We believe this to be essential if we are to successfully uphold respect for the copyright system in the future.Extending the term of protection for sound recordings as proposed is neither fair nor balanced. It therefore risks undermining the respect for copyright in general even further. Such a development is very unfortunate for all those who depend on copyright protection to make a living.Sweden believes there to be good reasons for measures aiming at improving the situation for those professional musicians and other artists who often operate under economically difficult conditions. Extending the term of protection will however not primarily be of benefit to this group.Against this background Sweden regrets the decision to adopt the proposal amending Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights.Belgian declarationWith regard to the proposal for a directive on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights, Belgium believes that a term extension is not an appropriate measure to improve the situation of the performing artists. Furthermore, we believe that the negative consequences the proposal entails do not outweigh the advantages it brings. We can therefore not support this proposal.It seems that the measure will mainly benefit record producers and not performing artists, will only have a very limited effect for most of the performing artists, will have a negative impact on the accessibility of cultural material such as those contained in libraries and archives, and will create supplementary financial and administrative burdens to enterprises, broadcasting organisations and consumers. Therefore, the overall package of the proposal appears, as demonstrated by a large amount of academic studies [1], unbalanced.Finally, one has to observe that several initiatives which have clear links with and impact on the proposal, have recently been adopted or announced by the Commission in its Communication of 24 May 2011 [2]. These initiatives include for example a proposal for a directive on orphan works, a new initiative on collective management, and a new initiative on online distribution of audiovisual works. Taking into account this global approach of copyright issues in the internal market, we think that it would only be reasonable to re-examine the merits of this proposal in the context of this global approach.[1] See e.g. "The Proposed Directive for a Copyright Term Extension – A backward-looking package" Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management (CIPPM, Bournemouth University), the Centre for Intellectual Property & Information Law (CIPIL, Cambridge University), the Institute the Institute for Information Law (IViR, University of Amsterdam), and the Max Planck Competition and Tax Law (Munich); N. HELBERGER, N. DUFFT, S. VAN GOMPEL, B. HUGENHOLTZ, ‘Never forever: why extending the term of protection for sound recordings is a bad idea’, EIPR 2008, 174; S. DUSOLLIER, ‘Les artistes-interprètes pris en otage’, Auteurs & Media 2008, 426.[2] Communication from the Commission of 24 May 2011, A Single Market for Intellectual Property Rights Boosting creativity and innovation to provide economic growth, high quality jobs and first class products and services in Europe, COM (2011) 287
There is of course no formal text yet, but the language which will form the new Directive can largely be found here As usual, lots of "minor" details are left to Member States to implement and no doubt that is where the lobbying machine will next be turning - for example, for sound recordings where copyright will revive, Member States have to protect the "acquired rights of third parties" who have been exploiting public domain material.Interestingly, the list of dissenting countries is quite long - Belgium, the Czech Republic, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden all voting against and Austria and Estonia abstaining - so enthusiasm for this measure is still far from unanimous.
This year's Blaca-IPI seminar takes place on 5 October 2011 at the London office of Bird & Bird (15 Fetter Lane , London EC4A 1JP). Its theme is "The 50th Anniversary of the Rome Convention" -- an anniversary that might easily have slipped by quite unnoticed in the heat of the various live copyright debates over file-sharing, ISP liability, orphan works, the cloud, collecting societies, piracy and so on. The first session ("The Rome Convention’s History and Future") is chaired by Professor Johanna Gibson, wearing her IPI hat, and features the following contributions:
Blaca-IPI seminar