DOCSLIB.ORG

Jurisdiction, Choice of Law, Copyright, and the Internet: Protection Against Framing in an International Setting

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Jurisdiction, Choice of Law, Copyright, and the Internet: Protection Against Framing in an International Setting Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal Volume 9 Volume IX Number 2 Volume IX Book 2 Article 8 1999 Jurisdiction, Choice of Law, Copyright, and the Internet: Protection Against Framing in an International Setting Kai Burmeister Haarmann, Hemmelrath & Partner; University of Hamburg, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Kai Burmeister, Jurisdiction, Choice of Law, Copyright, and the Internet: Protection Against Framing in an International Setting, 9 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 625 (1999). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol9/iss2/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Jurisdiction, Choice of Law, Copyright, and the Internet: Protection Against Framing in an International Setting Cover Page Footnote Professors Neil W. Netanel and Mark A. Lemley from UT; classmates from the International Intellectual Property Law Seminar and from the Inter- net Law Seminar; Angela Dusenbury This article is available in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/iplj/vol9/iss2/8 BURMEISTER.NEW.TYP.DOC 9/29/2006 4:37 PM Jurisdiction, Choice of Law, Copyright, and the Internet: Protection Against Framing in an International Setting Kai Burmeister* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 628 I. THE INTERNET .................................................................... 629 A. The Significance of the Internet and the Scope of the Analysis ................................................................. 629 B. What Exactly is Framing?........................................... 633 II. INTERNATIONAL JURISDICTION AND CHOICE OF LAW......... 636 A. International Personal Jurisdiction ............................ 636 1. General Principles................................................ 637 a. Jurisdiction to Legislate................................. 637 b. Jurisdiction to Adjudicate.............................. 638 2. Jurisdiction to Adjudicate in the United States.... 639 a. Subject Matter Jurisdiction ............................ 639 b. Territorial Jurisdiction................................... 640 * Attorney (Rechtsanwalt), Senior Associate at Haarmann, Hemmelrath & Partner, Munich, Germany; University of Hamburg, Germany Ph.D. candidate; University of Texas at Austin, LL.M. 1998; University of Hamburg, juristische Staatsprüfung 1990. Many thanks to Professors Neil W. Netanel and Mark A. Lemley from UT and to my classmates from the International Intellectual Property Law Seminar and from the Inter- net Law Seminar for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this Article. Special thanks to Angela Dusenbury for discussions, proofreading, and tirelessly insisting on fol- lowing the Bluebook rules. Many thanks also to the people from the Fordham Intellec- tual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal for doing an excellent job. For comments on and/or questions about this Article please contact the author at [email protected]. 625 BURMEISTER.NEW.TYP.DOC 9/29/2006 4:37 PM 626 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. [Vol. 9:625 (1) Minimum Contacts Standard ................... 641 (a) Foreseeability..................................... 642 (b) Fairness Factors................................. 643 (2) Jurisdiction in the Internet ....................... 644 (a) The Interactivity Approach................ 645 (b) Access................................................ 649 (c) Rule 4 (k) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.................................. 650 (d) Forum Non Conveniens ..................... 656 3. Intermediate Result.............................................. 657 B. Choice of Law.............................................................. 657 1. The Shortcomings of the Territoriality Principle in the Digital Arena .............................. 658 2. Alternative Approaches in the Digital Arena....... 661 a. The Victim Approach as a Solution............... 661 (1) The Restatement (Second) of Conflicts of Laws...................................... 662 (2) Place of Injury v. Place of Cause............. 663 b. Distinctive Cyberlaw..................................... 666 3. Determining the Applicable Law......................... 667 C. Intermediate Result ..................................................... 669 III. IS FRAMING COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT UNDER UNITED STATES LAW?........................................................ 670 A. The Subject Matter of Copyright................................. 670 1. The Standard of Originality ................................. 671 a. The Idea/Expression Dichotomy.................... 671 b. The Creativity Requirement........................... 673 2. Fixation in a Tangible Medium............................ 675 B. Infringement of Author's Exclusive Rights.................. 676 1. Framer’s Direct Infringement .............................. 676 a. The Right to Reproduce................................. 677 BURMEISTER.NEW.TYP.DOC 9/29/2006 4:37 PM 1999] CHOICE OF LAW, COPYRIGHT, AND THE INTERNET 627 b. The Right to Adapt......................................... 679 c. The Right to Distribute .................................. 682 d. The Right to Perform and Display Publicly... 683 e. Intermediate Result........................................ 685 2. End Users Direct Infringement ............................ 685 a. Author's Reproduction Rights........................ 686 (1) Copy in User's RAM................................ 686 (2) MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc. ........................................................... 687 (3) A User's RAM Copy Pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act........... 691 b. Author's Remaining Exclusive Rights ........... 692 c. Defenses......................................................... 693 (1) First Sale Doctrine ................................... 694 (2) Implied License........................................ 695 (3) Fair Use.................................................... 698 (a) Purpose and Character of the Use...... 699 (b) The Nature of the Copyrighted Work .................................................. 701 (c) The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used................................ 702 (d) The Economic Effect of the Use........ 703 i. Indirect Effect.............................. 704 ii. Direct Effect................................. 708 (e) Balancing the Four Factors................ 709 C. Liability ....................................................................... 709 1. Direct Infringement.............................................. 710 2. Indirect Infringement ........................................... 711 a. Vicarious Infringement .................................. 712 b. Contributory Infringement............................. 713 (1) Internet Service Provider ......................... 713 BURMEISTER.NEW.TYP.DOC 9/29/2006 4:37 PM 628 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. [Vol. 9:625 (a) Knowledge......................................... 715 (b) Substantial Participation.................... 717 (c) The Internet Service Provider's Liability pursuant to the Digital Millennium Act.................................. 719 (2) Framer...................................................... 720 (a) Knowledge................................... 720 (b) Substantial Participation.............. 721 3. Intermediate Result.............................................. 721 CONCLUSION................................................................................. 722 APPENDIX ..................................................................................... 723 INTRODUCTION With the Internet playing an increasingly dominant role in the way people communicate and the World Wide Web becoming a major medium by which ideas are exchanged and business con- ducted, more disputes over intellectual property rights in cyber- space are making their way towards the courts. Moreover, in a medium in which geographical boundaries are almost meaningless, questions of where these disputes can be resolved are often diffi- cult. This Article intends to contribute to the present discussion con- cerning how to properly address the pertinent legal questions aris- ing from the utilization of the Internet as a means of communica- tion. To understand the Internet’s development allows us to gain a better understanding of its particular significance today as well as in the near future. This leads to the insight of how important it is to find appropriate answers to the pertinent legal questions deter- ring copyright holders from posting their works on the Internet.1 1.See the Senate’s Judicial Committee, with regard to the Digital Millennium Act, S. REP. NO. 105-190, at 8 (1998), stating that “copyright owners will hesitate to make their works readily available on the Internet without reasonable assurance that they will be protected against massive piracy”. After the Senate also Congress on Oct. 13, 1998 voted for the Digital Millennium Act,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Law Applicable to Online Copyright Infringements in the ALI and CLIP Proposals: a Rebalance of Interests Needed?*
    Rita Matulionyte The Law Applicable to Online Copyright Infringements in the ALI and CLIP Proposals: A Rebalance of Interests Needed?* by Rita Matulionyte, Hannover LL.M. (Munich) IP research fellow at the Institute for Legal Informatics, Leibniz University of Hannover. Abstract: The article discusses the problems of appli- a compromise between the territoriality and univer- cable law to copyright infringements online. It firstly sality approaches suggested in respect of ubiqui- identifies the main problems related to the well es- tous infringement cases. At the same time; the paper tablished territoriality principle and the lex loci pro- draws the attention that the interests of “good faith” tectionis rule. Then; the discussion focuses on the online service providers (such as legal certainty and “ubiquitous infringement” rule recently proposed by foreseeability) have been until now underestimated the American Law Institute (ALI) and the European and invites to take these interests into account when Max Planck Group for (onflicts of Law and Intellec- merging the projects into a common international tual Property !( IP). The author strongly welcomes proposal. Keywords: applicable law; copyright; Internet; ALI; CLIP; ubiquitous infringement; territoriality © 2011 Rita Matulionyte Everybody may disseminate this article by electronic means and ma e it available for do!nload under the terms and conditions of the "i#ital $eer $ublishin# %icence &"$$%'. A co)y of the license te*t may be obtained at htt)+,,nbn-resolvin#( de,urn+nbn+de+000.-d))l-v/-en0( Recommended citation: Rita Matulionyte, 2he %aw A))licable to 3nline 4o)yri#ht Infrin#ements in the A%I and 4%IP $ro)osals: A Rebalance of Interests Needed?, 2 (2011) JI$I2EC 26, para.
    [Show full text]
  • German Mdps: Lessons to Learn Laurel S
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 2000 German MDPs: Lessons to Learn Laurel S. Terry Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Terry, Laurel S., "German MDPs: Lessons to Learn" (2000). Minnesota Law Review. 1781. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/1781 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. German MDPs: Lessons to Learn Laurel S. Terryt I. Introduction: Why Study MDPs in Germany? ........... 1548 II. Background Information ............................................. 1551 A. Common MDP Regulatory Issues .......................... 1551 1. Threshold Issues ................................................ 1551 2. Functional Issues ............................................... 1552 3. Substantive Ethics Issues .................................. 1552 B. German Terminology and Background ................. 1553 1. Legal and Other Professionals .......................... 1553 2. Lawyer Regulatory Provisions ........................... 1557 3. Bar Associations and Lawyer Regulatory Authorities .......................................................... 1559 III. Germany's Regulation of MDPs ................................. 1560 A. The Development of MDPs ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Law Applicable to Unregistered IP Rights After Rome II
    R. L. R. The Law Applicable to Unregistered IP Rights After Rome II Haimo SCHACK＊ Until a few years ago, the con ict of laws problems of intellectual property rights have rarely been thoroughly treated.1) For con ict of laws people IP law was a remote special subject, and the IP people believed that they need not bother with the arcana of con icts law because the territoriality principle and the international conventions supposedly provided all the necessary rules. This mistake has been pointed out, at the latest, by the internet. Today the transborder use and infringement of IP rights is most common and legal proceedings are long since brought not only in the country for which protection is sought. More and more often the country of origin, the protecting country and the forum state are not identical, and one action apart from actions for injunctive relief asserts IP infringements in several protecting countries. That holds true in particular for unregistered and for Community-wide IP rights the reach of which not necessarily coincides with the national borders of a registering state. In the last years, however, the German and foreign literature on the law applicable to IP rights has been swelling very much. 2) Of late, even the European legislator has tried its hand with a rst partial rule in this eld of con icts law. The Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to non- contractual obligations ( Rome II )3) of 11 July 2007 provides in art.
    [Show full text]
  • IP and Applicable Law in Recent International Proposals
    IP and Applicable Law in Recent International Proposals IP and Applicable Law in Recent International Proposals: Report for the International Law Association by Rita Matulionytė, Vilnius, Dr. iur. (Munich and Freiburg), LL.M. IP (Munich), deputy director at the Law Institute of Lithuania Abstract: The report compares applicable law against particular solutions suggested in the propos- rules to intellectual property (IP) disputes as pro- als. This report was presented in the 1st meeting of posed in the recent international projects(ALI, CLIP, the Committee on Intellectual Property and Private Transparency, Kopila and Joint Japanese-Korean pro- International Law of the International Law Associa- posals). Namely, it identifies the differences among tion (15-17 March 2012, Lisbon) and is expected to proposals, reveals the underlying reasons of differ- contribute to the merge of current international pro- ing rules, looks at how particular issues have been posals into a single international initiative. until now solved at international and national levels, and finally, overviews the main arguments for and Keywords: Intellectual property, applicable law, conflict of laws, lex loci protectionis, lex originis, initial ownership, ubiquitous infringement, party autonomy © 2012 Rita Matulionytė Everybody may disseminate this article by electronic means and make it available for download under the terms and conditions of the Digital Peer Publishing Licence (DPPL). A copy of the license text may be obtained at http://nbn-resolving. de/urn:nbn:de:0009-dppl-v3-en8. This article may also be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License, available at h t t p : // creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2004-2005: Rankings & Listings
    Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2004-2005: Rankings & Listings Capital Markets Foreign firms China 1. Allen & Overy LLP Baker & McKenzie Clifford Chance LLP Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Herbert Smith Linklaters Shearman & Sterling LLP Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Sullivan & Cromwell LLP 2. Davis Polk & Wardwell Deacons Debevoise & Plimpton LLP Johnson Stokes & Master Jones Day Latham & Watkins LLP Morrison & Foerster O’Melveny & Myers LLP Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP Richards Butler Simmons & Simmons White & Case LLP 3. Allens Arthur Robinson Gallant Y.T.Ho & Co Gide Loyrette Nouel Kaye Scholer LLP Livasiri & Co Lovells Mallesons Stephen Jaques Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP Woo, Kwan, Lee & Lo Firms are listed A-Z in tiers which are ranked in order of priority Source: Legal 500 Asia Pacific, 2004/2005 edition. Latham & Watkins operates as a limited liability partnership worldwide with an affiliate in the United Kingdom and Italy, where the practice is conducted through an affiliated multinational partnership. © Copyright 2005 Latham & Watkins. All Rights Reserved. Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2004-2005: Rankings & Listings Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP Infrastructure and Project Stephenson Harwood Woo, Kwan, Lee & Lo Finance Firms are listed A-Z in tiers which are ranked in order of Foreign firms priority China 1. Latham & Watkins LLP is a major name Allen & Overy LLP in projects worldwide, and has extensive Baker & McKenzie experience on significant projects in China Clifford Chance LLP from its Hong Kong office. The firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer advised the PRC and the international Gide Loyrette Nouel bank lenders on the US $4.3bn Nanhai Herbert Smith Petrochemical complex.
    [Show full text]
  • Portrait of a Firm Photos: Karsten De Riese, 83623 Dietramszell Portrait Photos: Eleana Hegerich, 81925 Munich Photos: Karsten De Riese, 83623 Dietramszell Portrait
    PETERS, SCHÖNBERGER & PARTNER PORTRAIT OF A FIRM PHOTOS: KARSTEN DE RIESE, 83623 DIETRAMSZELL PORTRAIT PHOTOS: ELEANA HEGERICH, 81925 MUNICH PHOTOS: KARSTEN DE RIESE, 83623 DIETRAMSZELL PORTRAIT Legal Advice Audit Tax Advice Family Office MUNICH ZURICH SHANGHAI SCHACKSTRASSE 2 80539 MUNICH PHONE: +49 89 38172-0 FAX: +49 89 38172-204 [email protected] www.psp.eu THE FIRM BETWEEN SIEGESTOR AND UNIVERSITY On the basis of its successful history spanning more than 35 years, Peters, Schönberger & Partner is one of the most highly regarded mid-sized firms in Germany. As tax consultants, auditors and lawyers, we assist you when you make important decisions and help you put them into effect. Our clients include small and medium-sized firms, family enterprises, wealthy private persons and private equity firms that seek interdisciplinary and customised advice. You will find that we are a professional, reliable and assertive partner that represents your legal and tax interests with passion and also performs the traditional tasks of auditors. The PSP Family Office also assists you in structuring your wealth and has proven expertise in the fields of succession, foundations and real estate. “We offer interdisciplinary and customised advice.” INTERDISCIPLINARY ADVICE TO SECURE YOUR SUCCESS Peters, Schönberger & Partner has long taken an interdisciplinary approach in which tax consultants, auditors, lawyers and our Family Office work together. This is also a key element in our business culture. On the basis of the combined efforts of various disciplines, we develop solutions that are specially tailored to you and therefore take account of your specific concerns. In this way, we avoid inefficiencies, communication gaps and duplicate costs.
    [Show full text]
  • Conflict-Of-Laws Rules Governing Copyrights in TV Format
    Conflict-of-Laws Rules Governing Copyrights in TV Format Anna Y. Ananeva1; Oksana V. Lutkova2; Sergey Y. Kashkin3 1,2,3Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL), Moscow, Russian Federation. Abstract The paper aims at finding and formulating conflict-of-laws principles governing TV format copyright relations. To achieve the goal, we used a vague range of methods standard for jurisprudence, e.g. formal- legal, comparative-legal, sociological, and legal modeling methods. As a main result, in comparison with the threads of copyrights conflict-of-laws regulation, we identified the groups of aspects of format issues that have been and have not been brought before courts yet, turned up and explained the approaches to the choice of law usually used by the courts, established in the documents of non-governmental organizations, and proposed our own approach. Moreover, we formulated a cascade of conflict-of-laws rules suitable for finding the proper jurisdictions in TV format contract relations in the absence of choice made by the parties. The paper is the first try to comprehend the issue of conflict-of-laws regulation of format copyright relations. Key-words: Copyright Law, International Private Law, Intellectual Statute, Contract Statute, Audio Visual Work Format. 1. Introduction Audiovisual work formats are widespread intellectual property (IP) in the modern world. They are usually defined as a set of distinctive characteristics of a TV program, making it recognizable and distinguishable by the audience, and therefore competitive among other equitable TV programs (LANE, 1992). The characteristics allow recreating a program that proved to be engaging in one country according to local cultural features of another country and minimizing the risks arising from developing a program from scratch.
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 10, Issue 2, August 2013
    Volume 10, Issue 2, August 2013 INTERNATIONALISATION OF FOSS CONTRIBUTORY COPYRIGHT ASSIGNMENTS AND LICENSES: JURISDICTION- SPECIFIC OR “UNPORTED”? Axel Metzger * Abstract Some of the major Free and Open Source (FOSS) projects use contributory copyright assignments and licenses to clarify the ownership of developer's contributions and to allow the project to grant sublicenses and enforce copyright claims in case of license violations. The paper gives an overview of typical provisions of these agreements and provides an analysis of the private international law principles applicable in Europe, United States, and Japan. As a conclusion, the paper suggests an internationalisation strategy for FOSS projects. FOSS copyright assignments and licenses should implement choice-of-law clauses to foster legal certainty for projects. DOI: 10.2966/scrip.100213.177 © Axel Metzger 2013. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence. Please click on the link to read the terms and conditions. * Dr. iur. (Munich and Paris), Dr. iur. habil. (Hamburg), LL.M. (Harvard), Professor of Law at Leibniz (2013) 10:2 SCRIPTed 178 1. Introduction The legal questions raised by Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) licenses have been the subject of an intense international debate among legal scholars and practising lawyers since the late 1990s.1 Courts in different jurisdictions have confirmed that the core features of FOSS licenses are compliant with the respective applicable laws and thus enforceable in the respective jurisdictions.2 This significant interest in the legal relationship between programmers and users of FOSS (“outbound licenses”) is in remarkable contrast to the disregard legal scholars have shown for the legal relationships between programmers and the organisations behind FOSS projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Kyoto Guidelines
    Kyoto Guidelines: Applicable Law International Law Association’s Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Private International Law (“Kyoto Guidelines”): Applicable Law by Marie-Elodie Ancel, Nicolas Binctin, Josef Drexl, Mireille van Eechoud, Jane C Ginsburg, Toshiyuki Kono, Gyooho Lee, Rita Matulionyte, Edouard Treppoz, Dário Moura Vicente Abstract: The chapter “Applicable Law” of the registered rights is governed by the lex loci protec- International Law Association’s Guidelines on In- tionis whereas the law of the closest connection is tellectual Property and Private International Law applied to determine the ownership of copyright. For (“Kyoto Guidelines”) provides principles on the choice contracts, freedom of choice is acknowledged. With of law in international intellectual property matters. regard to ubiquitous or multi-state infringement and The Guidelines confirm the traditional principle of the collective rights management in the field of copyright, lex loci protectionis for the existence, transferabil- the Guidelines suggest innovative solutions. Finally, ity, scope and infringement of intellectual property the chapter contains a Guideline on the law applica- rights. The law applicable to the initial ownership of ble to the arbitrability of disputes. © 2021 Marie-Elodie Ancel, Nicolas Binctin, Josef Drexl, Mireille van Eechoud, Jane C Ginsburg, Toshiyuki Kono, Gyooho Lee, Rita Matulionyte, Edouard Treppoz and Dário Moura Vicente Everybody may disseminate this article by electronic means and make it available for download under the terms and conditions of the Digital Peer Publishing Licence (DPPL). A copy of the license text may be obtained at http://nbn-resolving. de/urn:nbn:de:0009-dppl-v3-en8. Recommended citation: Marie-Elodie Ancel, Nicolas Binctin, Josef Drexl et al., Kyoto Guidelines: Applicable Law, 12 (2021) JIPITEC 44 para 1 A.
    [Show full text]
  • New Private International Law in Korea 267 New Private International Law in Korea
    〔Kyung-Han Sohn 〕 New Private International Law in Korea 267 New Private International Law in Korea Kyung-Han Sohn ＊傘＊ I Introduction The “Sub-Oi-Sa-Beob ”（ Conflict of Laws Act of Korea). was enacted on January January 15, 1962 with no major changes until the Amendment of April 7, 2001. 2001. The purpose of the Amendment is to update the old law by incorporat- ing ing recent developments in Korean and international conflict of laws princi- ples. ples. The Amendment was proposed by the Ministry of Justice of Korea and passed passed the National Assembly, e宜ective as of July 1, 2001. The new law is renamed the “Kuk-J e-Sa-Beob ”（ Private International Law Act Act or the Conflict of Laws Act, ("new CLA ”） ) better defines the areas which were not su 任iciently addressed in the original act. such as jurisdiction, capac- ity ity to have rights, legitimation. legal person. intellectual property, agency, means of transportation. res in transitu, and security interest in claims. The new CLA also amends some provisions1u which may have been contrary to the the constitutional principle of gender equality. In addition, the new CLA adopts adopts the “Most Closely Connected Country ” rule in determining the gov- erning erning law and uses the concept of the “Habitual Residence ” as a connecting factor. factor. While the CLA broadens party autonomy, it also incorporates provi- sions sions to protect consumers and workers with weak societal and low eco ・ nomic nomic status. Also. the CLA narrowly defines the scope of renvoi which al- lows lows only remission but does not allow transmission in most cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Bulgarian Private International Law Code
    Bulgarian Private International Law Code Part One BASIC PROVISIONS Chapter One SCOPE OF CODE Subject Matter Article 1. (1) The provisions of this Code shall govern: 1. the international jurisdiction of the Bulgarian courts, of other authorities, and proceedings in international civil matters; 2. the law applicable to relationships at private law with an international element; 3. the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and other authentic instruments in the Republic of Bulgaria. (2) Within the meaning given by this Code, "relationship at private law with an international element" shall be a relationship involving two or more States. Closest Connection Principle Article 2. (1) Relationships at private law with an international element shall be governed by the law of the State with which the said relationships are most closely connected. The provisions contained in the Code regarding the determination of the applicable law express this principle. (2) If the applicable law cannot be determined on the basis of the provisions of Part Three herein, the law of the State with which the relationship has the closest connection by virtue of other criteria shall apply. Relations with International Treaties, International Instruments and Other Laws Article 3. (1) The provisions of this Code shall not affect the regulation of relationships at private law with an international element as established in an international treaty, in another international instrument in force for the Republic of Bulgaria, or in another law. (2) Upon application of an international treaty or of another international instrument, regard shall be had to the international character of the provisions thereof, to the qualification established in the said provisions, and to the need to achieve uniformity in the interpretation and application of the said provisions.
    [Show full text]
  • COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT in the INTERNET AGE—PRIMETIME for HARMONIZED CONFLICT-OF-LAWS RULES? by Anita B
    COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IN THE INTERNET AGE—PRIMETIME FOR HARMONIZED CONFLICT-OF-LAWS RULES? By Anita B. Frohlich† TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 852 II. CHOICE OF LAW AND COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT: A PORTFOLIO OF APPROACHES ......................................................... 856 A. THE SITUATION IN THE UNITED STATES ............................................. 856 1. The Ninth Circuit Approach ........................................................ 857 2. The Second Circuit Approach ..................................................... 861 3. Summary ..................................................................................... 863 B. THE SITUATION IN EUROPE ................................................................. 863 1. Great Britain ............................................................................... 864 a) Situation Before Introduction of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1995 ..................................................................................... 864 b) The Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 and Its Implementation by the British Courts ...................................................................... 866 2. Germany ...................................................................................... 869 3. France ......................................................................................... 872 4. Belgium ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]