DOCSLIB.ORG

Committee Reports 2015-2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Committee Reports 2015-2016 Committee Reports 2015-2016 IFRRO Annual General Meeting 2016 2 November 2016 Amsterdam, Netherlands IFRRO World Congress and Annual General Meeting 2016 Amsterdam, Netherlands Committee Reports CONTENT 1. IFRRO Regional Groups and Committees 1.1. European Group 1.2. Asia Pacific Committee 1.3. European Development Committee 1.4. Development Committee for Africa 1.5. Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean 2. IFRRO Technical Committees and Working Groups 2.1. Newspapers and Periodicals Working Group 2.2. Visual Working Group 3. IFRRO FORA 3.1. Equipment Levy Forum 1. Regional Groups and Committees CHAIR’S REPORT of the EUROPEAN GROUP Annual Report on activities July 2015 - June 2016 In conjunction with the Board Meeting – AMSTERDAM – 31 October 2016 Document prepared on: August 10th 2016 Item(s) for consideration by Update of consequences to expect from HP- and Vogel-cases in EU BOARD/IWC countries 1. EG meeting The European Group met in Brussels in June 2016 and welcomed as key note speaker Mrs. Maria Martin-Prat, Head of the Copyright Unit at the European Commission. She mainly confirmed that the general approach of the Commission would consist of proposing harmonization of copyright when there would be a cross-border effect, like f.i. in the case of usages in education and libraries. This has led the IFRRO Secretariat to focus in 2016 a.o. on an in-depth analysis of the concept of ‘illustration for teaching’ which has been implemented differently in the various member states. Globally, IFRRO is advocating a rather narrow definition of that concept, in conformity with its recent submission on the EC consultation in the framework of its current review of the EU Copyright regulations. 2. Review of copyright rules within the EU Three key issues for IFRRO members within this review are exceptions in favour of education, libraries, and Text & Data Mining (TDM). Until the Commission’s proposal on the review of the EU Copyright rules is published (scheduled for 21 September), the Secretariat in conjunction with the EG Executive Committee will continue to have a main focus on the Commission, representatives of the country currently in presidency of the EU and selected MEP’s. Further, replies to the recent EC consultations regarding publisher’s neighbouring rights and the issue of the freedom of panorama have been drafted by the Secretariat in consultation with other international federations representing authors and publishers. 3. CJEU Reprobel-HP case and Vogel-case in Germany: latest developments 3.1 Belgium The Government has drafted a proposal of a new copyright law with a (national) ‘sui generis’ right for publishers. The scope of that new right will however not be as large as that of the authors and it is hence expected that (if nothing changes) the current 50/50 distribution between both groups of rightholders would be jeopardy in Belgium. In addition, prints would be broadly excluded from the new remuneration scheme, as well as the current B2B equipment levies, with an important drop of future revenues of Reprobel as a consequence. Finally, a very large ‘educational exception’ has been proposed, with among others a right for the educational institutions to copy most copyright works without having to care anymore about the limits of a ‘short fragment’. Reprobel and its member CMO’s are currently lobbying actively in order to try to modify in depth these worrisome legislative proposals. The new law is not expected to come into effect before 2017. : 21927/15402 3.2 Germany According to the German Federal Court, only authors and creators are, at the outset, considered as rightholders. Hence, publishers may not receive a share of the fair compensation paid for reprographic reproduction under the relevant exceptions in the German Copyright Act. VG Wort may thus only pay a share of the collected remunerations to publishers on the condition that individual authors have transferred their rights to a publisher. This has to be checked on a case-by-case basis (administrative nightmare). As the situation currently stands, substantial amounts may have to be reclaimed from publishers. During the summer, a new legislative proposal has been drafted and it is currently under review. It remains to be seen however whether that initiative will solve the open issues in a satisfactory manner. 4. Particular developments regarding copyright licensing in EU member states -Ireland: amendments to the Irish copyright legislation have been proposed in order to introduce fair use and the broadening of exceptions and limitations regarding copyright. -Greece: draft legislation to implement the EU CRM Directive has been presented to the Greek Parliament. It is not expected to include extension of devices to be levied like PC’s.f.i.. -Austria: apparently a law has been enacted in Austria which foresees the allowance of reprography rights to publishers, outside the scope of the directive 2001/29 (to be further investigated). 5. Elections of a new EG Executive Committee in Amsterdam Anna Bleszynska-Drewicz (KOPIPOL), Sandra Chastanet (CFC) and Hege Døssland (Kopinor) were elected as the new European Group Nominating Committee to prepare for the election of the EG Executive Committee at the next EG meeting in Amsterdam. 6. Next meeting of the European Group Is scheduled to take place on November 3rd 2016 in Amsterdam. [END OF DOCUMENT] Signature of the Chair: Date: 10/0//2016 : 21927/15402 CHAIR’S REPORT ASIA PACIFIC COMMITTEE Report on activities Jan 2016 – Jun 2016 Board Meeting – AMSTERDAM – 1 OCTOBER 2016 Document prepared on: 10 September 2015 Item(s) for consideration by 1. New Chair to be appointed due to Caroline Morgan new role as IFRRO BOARD/IWC CEO 2. Australia: Resolution opposing Productivity Commission Inquiry into IP recommendations 3. Singapore: Resolution opposing proposed changes to Singaporean copyright law 4. Indonesia: YRCI has changed name due to domestic legislative requirements, and will need to reapply for IFRRO membership • Committee Members Caroline Morgan (Chair) CA Viscopy Kartini Nurdin PRCI Sarah Tran CA Viscopy Dillys Yu HKRRLS Michael Healy CCC Paul Wee CLASS Madeleine Pow CLA Paula Browning CLNZ Hong Taek Chung KORRA Rohit Kumar IRRO Noma Yutaka JAC Zhang Hongbo CWWCS Takaya Inada JRRC Alvin Bonn FILCOLS Pham Duy Khuong VIETRRO • Current Priorities Newly Established RROs • Indonesia • Philippines • Vietnam • India Awareness Raising & Network Building • Malaysia • Thailand • Recent and Upcoming Activities The annual Asia Pacific Committee meeting was held in Sydney, 22-23 August 2016. All committee members, with the exception of representatives from FILCOLS, PRCI, and IRRO were able to attend. Australian copyright review – APC Resolution opposing draft recommendations Copyright Agency has highlighted the potentially detrimental effects of recent legal developments in Australia, with the Draft Report of the Productivity Commission recommending sweeping changes to Australian copyright law, including the introduction of ‘fair use’. Delegates unanimously passed a Resolution opposing the draft findings of the Productivity Commission, the final text of which is below: : 21927/15402 IFRRO ASIA PACIFIC COMMITTEE RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSIONS DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS ON COPYRIGHT IN AUSTRALIA The Asia Pacific Committee of the International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organisations (IFRRO) brought together 21 representatives of 10 countries in the Asia Pacific region at its Annual Meeting 22-23 August 2016 in Sydney, Australia. Represented countries included: United States of America, United Kingdom, Singapore, China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, New Zealand, and Australia. The Committee noted with concern the Productivity Commission’s Draft Recommendations on Copyright in Australia, and passed the following Resolution: Copyright is vital to the global creative community and to its various audiences. In these days of globalisation and homogenisation of culture, a country's creative community is a rich wellspring which should be protected and nurtured. The Asia Pacific Committee of IFRRO therefore urges the Australian Government to reject the findings of the Productivity Commission report in three respects: • The recommendation to introduce the US doctrine of Fair Use should be rejected. Unlike the USA, Australia does not have the case law background for the introduction of fair use in the Australian legislation; its introduction is therefore likely to be costly and dependent on case laws in countries outside Australia • The recommendation to abolish territorial copyright should be rejected. Australia would be out of step with other major English language countries who have territorial copyright in place. Abolishing this right would provide those countries with a commercial advantage in terms of selling Australian books to Australians. • Finally, the suggestion that the term copyright should be between 15-25 years, while not a formal recommendation, represents a serious gulf in the Commissioners' understandings of the copyright industries and the role they play in shaping a country's culture over centuries. The Productivity Commission will submit its final recommendations on Australia’s intellectual property arrangements to the Treasurer in late September, but it is unlikely that the Government’s views will be known until early 2017. Copyright Agency asks that the IFRRO Board consider including this issue for discussion at the forthcoming AGM, and asks that the full IFRRO community consider passing
Load more

Recommended publications
  • International Survey on Private Copying
    International Survey on Private Copying For more information contact WIPO at www.wipo.int Law & Practice 2 012 World Intellectual Property Organization 34, chemin des Colombettes 2012 International Survey on Private Copying – Law & Practice P.O. Box 18 CH-1211 Geneva 20 Switzerland Telephone: +4122 338 91 11 Fax: +4122 733 54 28 WIPO Publication No. 1037E ISBN 978-92-805-2271-6 International Survey on Private Copying Law & Practice 2012 Acknowledgement and thanks for front cover illustrations (Image of headphones courtesy of: www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=2133&picture=headphones by Anna Langova and all other images courtesy of www.copyright-free-images.com) Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 1. REVENUES PER CAPITA 12 2. TARIFFS ON BLANK CARRIERS 13 3. TARIFFS ON DEVICES (ALL THE AMOUNTS IN THIS REPORT ARE IN EUROS [€].) 14 4. AUSTRIA 15 5. BELGIUM 20 6. BULGARIA 25 7. BURKINA FASO 30 8. CANADA 33 9. CROATIA 37 10. CZECH REPUBLIC 41 11. CZECH REPUBLIC 45 12. DENMARK 48 13. FINLAND 51 14. FRANCE 56 15. GERMANY 61 16. GREECE 65 17. HUNGARY 69 18. ITALY 74 19. JAPAN 80 20. LATVIA 86 21. LITHUANIA 90 22. NETHERLANDS 97 23. NORWAY 102 24. PARAGUAY 104 25. POLAND 107 26. PORTUGAL 112 International Survey on Private Copying 27. ROMANIA 114 28. RUSSIA 118 29. SLOVAKIA 121 Law & Practice 2012 30. SLOVENIA 124 31. SPAIN 127 32. SWEDEN 132 33. SWITZERLAND 136 34. TURKEY 141 1 35. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 144 Executive Summary 1. Introduction The present Survey represents a collection of key data on private copying compensation systems around the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Private Copyinc in the Digital Age: an Analysis of the Canadian Approach to Music
    RETHINKING PRIVATE COPYINC IN THE DIGITAL AGE: AN ANALYSIS OF THE CANADIAN APPROACH TO MUSIC BY John Davidson A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Laws Graduate Department of the Faculty of Law University of Toronto O By John Davidson 2001 National Library Bibliothèque nationale du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliogmphic Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington mwa ON K1A ON4 OtlawaON K1AW canada Canada The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allouwing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Cana&. to Biblothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute 9r seil reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of diis thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette îhèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/fïlm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fkom it Ni la thése ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. RETHINKING PRIVATE COPYING IN THE DIGITAL AGE: AN ANALYSIS OF THE CANADIAN APPROACH TO MUSIC John Davidson B.Comm. (U. Syd.), LL.B. (Hons.) (U. Syd.) Admitted to Practice Law in New South Wales, Australia Master of Laws Faculty of Law University of Toronto 200 1 ABSTRACT Digital technotogy and the Internet in particular have fundamentally altered the dynamics of private copying.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Copying and Fair Compensation: an Empirical Study of Copyright Levies in Europe
    Private Copying and Fair Compensation: An empirical study of copyright levies in Europe Martin Kretschmer Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management www.cippm.org.uk Bournemouth University [email protected] WIPO, 15 February 2012 EC levy definition (2006) A private copying levy is a form of indirect remuneration for right holders, based on the premise that some acts of private copying cannot be licensed for practical purposes by the relevant right holders. A copyright levy is typically attached to certain products (equipment or blank media) that can serve to reproduce audio, audio-visual and textual material such as music, films or books. Policy context ESRC Fellowship at UK IPO (2010/11) – UK: What position on EU wide regulation? – UK: Can a private copying exception be introduced without providing compensation? Limitations and exceptions – Are exceptions just a response to market failure? – What activities should be possible without permission? – If without permission, requirement to pay? Empirical approach: If we don’t know how a “regulated” market works, we can’t intervene. Levy history in the EU – 1965: Germany UrhG §53 – 2001: Info Soc Directive (“fair compensation”) – 2006: EC recommendation (almost) – October 2010: ECJ Padawan (“uniform interpretation”, “calculation based on harm”) – May 2011: EC announces “comprehensive legislative action” regarding private copying levies (+ “mediator”) – August 2011: UK commitment to introduce private copying exception without compensation (“Hargreaves”) – [Norway], Finland,
    [Show full text]
  • FEP Report of Activities 2011 - 2012 3 4 FEP Report of Activities 2011 - 2012 Foreword by Fergal Tobin, FEP President
    Report of Activities May 2011 – May 2012 Table of Content Table of Content Foreword by Fergal Tobin, FEP President . 5 DG Internal Market & Services . 25 25. Review of the Enforcement Directive27 FEP . 7 26. Effective Enforcement of copyright 28 28. Directive on orphan Works 30 FEP Meets 29. out-of-commerce Dialogue 31 FEP in Brussels and in Europe 30. viP stakeholders Dialogue 32 FEP Networks 31. collective Management 33 FEP statistics 32. Levies 34 DG Culture & Education . 9 DG Justice . 33 9. Multilingualism 33. Data protection 35 10. European cultural platforms Green Paper on 35. Brussels i Regulation cultural industries 11. European Union Prize for Literature 12. High level expert group on literacy DG Home Affairs . 36 36. Data retention DG Entreprise . 13 13. Toy Safety DG Research & Innovation . 38 DG Environment . 15 DG Taxation . 39 15. Eco-label 16. Obligations of operators who place timber and 39. Reduced rates of vAt timber products on the market 41. vAt on books in the member countries DG Health & Consumers . 17 DG Trade . 42 17. Review of the consumer Acquis 42. Anti-counterfeiting trade Agreement (ACTA) 43. External EU actions against piracy and counterfeiting DG Information Society & Media. 19 19. task force for the coordination of the Media The Publications Office of the European Union 20. European Digital Library - Europeana (publications office) . 45 21. ARROW – ARROW + 22. Revision of the directive 2003/98/Ec on the re- use of public sector information 24 23. Net Neutrality 25 FEP REPoRt oF ActivitiEs 2011 - 2012 3 4 FEP REPoRt oF ActivitiEs 2011 - 2012 Foreword by Fergal Tobin, FEP President Ebook, epublishing, elibraries, ebookshops… if the word of them are developing digital works, innovative tools to that defines you does not start with an e, you are pretty access them, tailor-made licences for all types of users.
    [Show full text]
  • English and Collections Stream
    ANNUAL REPORT 2018 Content President’s foreword by Jean-Michel Jarre CISAC is a unique “united nations” of creators 02 Foreword by Eric Baptiste Pushing for a creators-centric agenda 03 Introduction by Gadi Oron Building a better future for creators of all repertoires 04 CISAC Vice Presidents Champions for creators’ rights internationally 06 Key data The world of CISAC in numbers 08 Key figures 09 CISAC work programme in review 10 Special features Pingyao International Film Festival 29 UNESCO & CISAC team up on transfer of value 30 Algiers Creators Conference 31 CISAC structure and committees CISAC key services CISAC’s structure and committees Transfer of value campaign 32 at a glance 46 Bringing fairness to authors Education in the digital world Public education and raising awareness 48 Audiovisual campaign 34 Creators Councils Fair remuneration for film directors and screenwriter CIAM: Extending international influence 49 Resale right campaign 36 W&DW: New leadership, new frontiers 50 Fair royalties for visual artists CIAGP: Action and transition at the top 51 Private copying campaign 38 Regional Reports A key collections source for creators Asia Pacific 52 Technology and innovation 40 Africa 54 Developing effective data Latin America & the Caribbean 56 management tools Canada/USA 58 Governance 42 Europe 60 Strengthening collective management worldwide CISAC Members 62 Management team and Board 64 Publications 44 Authority, information, awareness Credits 65 CISAC ANNUAL REPORT # 2018 / 1 President’s foreword by Jean-Michel Jarre CISAC is a unique “united nations” of creators As the “United Nations” of creators, CISAC has a unique voice – one which speaks for the whole world, for five repertoires and for four million creators.
    [Show full text]
  • FAQ – Extending the Private Copying Levy to MP3 Players
    FAQ – Extending the Private Copying Levy to MP3 Players Why should the private copying levy be extended to MP3 players like the iPod? The private copying levy exists to provide fair compensation to songwriters, composers, music publishers, recording artists, musicians and recording companies for private copies made of their music. Currently, the levy only applies to CD-Rs. The time has come to extend the levy to reflect how private copies of music are actually made today – not how they were made a decade ago. Of the 1.9 billion songs copied annually in Canada, 62% are copied onto MP3 players like the iPod. Modernizing the levy by extending it to MP3 players will bring the current copyright legislation in line with the way people use and copy music today. Why is this so “urgent”? MP3 players have become the method of choice for copying music. The percentage of private copies being made on to CD-Rs is decreasing significantly. Revenue from the current levy has dropped 68% since 2008 and is drying up quickly. Rights holders are no longer being compensated for the majority of private copies being made of their music. Canadians have changed the technology used to copy music – our copyright law needs to change also, so that artists, songwriters and other rights holders can continue to receive the compensation to which they are entitled. Isn’t this just another tax? No. The private copying levy is not a tax. It is a royalty paid to music rights holders. Unlike a tax, which is collected by the government, the private copying levy is collected by the Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC) to provide remuneration to rights holders for private copying.
    [Show full text]
  • International Survey on Private Copying
    International Survey on Private Copying For more information contact WIPO at www.wipo.int World Intellectual Property Organization Law & Practice 2015 34, chemin des Colombettes P.O. Box 18 CH-1211 Geneva 20 Switzerland Telephone: +4122 338 91 11 Fax: +4122 733 54 28 WIPO Publication No. 1037E/16 ISBN 978-92-805-2707-0 Acknowledgement and thanks for front cover illustrations Acknowledgement and thanks for front right image courtesy of Carlos Porto at FreeDigitalPhotos.net Top image courtesy of Stuart Miles at FreeDigitalPhotos.net centre Top right image courtesy of tungphoto at FreeDigitalPhotos.net Top Lower left Image courtesy of stockimages at FreeDigitalPhotos.net image courtesy of xedos4 at FreeDigitalPhotos.net Lowewr centre Lower right image courtesy of watcharakun at FreeDigitalPhotos.net International Survey on Private Copying Law & Practice 2015 International Survey on Private Copying Law & Practice 2015 International Survey on Private Copying Law & Practice 2015 Table of Contents PREFACE 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 1. Introduction 3 2. Methodology and Scope 3 3. Legal background for private copying remuneration 4 4. Practical implementation of compensation systems 7 5. Liability 10 6. Collection and distribution 11 7. Revenue trends 13 8. Conclusion 22 9. Annex 24 1. AUSTRIA 30 2. BELGIUM 37 3. BURKINA FASO 44 4. CANADA 46 5. CROATIA 51 6. CZECH REPUBLIC 56 7. DENMARK 60 8. ESTONIA 64 9. FINLAND 68 10. FRANCE 74 11. GERMANY 81 12. GREECE 85 13. HUNGARY 90 14. ITALY 97 15. JAPAN 103 International Survey on Private Copying 16. LATVIA 109 17. LITHUANIA 112 18. NETHERLANDS 118 19. NORWAY 123 Law & Practice 2015 20.
    [Show full text]
  • P2P and the Future of Private Copying Peter K
    Texas A&M University School of Law Texas A&M Law Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 2005 P2P and the Future of Private Copying Peter K. Yu [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Internet Law Commons Recommended Citation Peter K. Yu, P2P and the Future of Private Copying, 76 U. Colo. L. Rev. 653 (2005). Available at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/383 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Texas A&M Law Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Texas A&M Law Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. P2P AND THE FUTURE OF PRIVATE COPYING PETER K. Yu* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 654 I. THE 2003 COPYRIGHT WARS ......................................................... 658 I. THE FUTURE P2P FILE-SHARING WARS ......................................... 676 A . Dom estic Challenges ............................................................... 676 1. Proliferation of New P2P Technologies ............................ 676 2. Transnational Nature of the Future Copyright Wars ......... 677 3. Increased Political Alienation of the Recording Industry. 679 4. Counterattacks and Setbacks ............................................. 685 B. InternationalChallenges ......................................................... 686 1. Heightened
    [Show full text]
  • FEP REPORT of ACTIVITIES 2010-2011 3 FOREWORD by Fergal Tobin, FEP President
    Federation of European Publishers Fédération des éditeurs Européens RepoRt oF ActivitiEs MAY 2010 - APRIL 2011 31, Rue Montoyer, box 8 • BE-1000 Brussels • TEL. 32 2 770.11.10 FAX. 32 2 771.20.71 E-mail: [email protected] • Website: www.fep-fee.eu Report of activities May 2010 - April 2011 1 Table of content Foreword by Fergal Tobin, FEP President ................................................................................................................................................... 5 FEP Networks ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 FEP Meets ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 FEP in Brussels and in Europe ......................................................................................................................................................................... 7 FEP Statistics ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 DG CULTURE AND EDUCATION .................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Multilingualism
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright, Competition and Development
    Copyright, Competition and Development Report by the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Munich December 2013 Preliminary note: The preparation of this Report has been mandated by the World Intellectual Property Organization to the Max Planck Institute and has been released in December 2013. Most of the information that is provided in the Report was collected in the second half of 2012 and has only partially been updated until summer 2013. This Report is authored by Professor Josef Drexl, Director of the Max Planck Institute. Many other scholars at the Institute took part in the research that led to this report. These include in particular Doreen Antony, Daria Kim and Moses Muchiri, as well as Dr Mor Bakhoum, Filipe Fischmann, Dr Kaya Köklü, Julia Molestina, Dr Sylvie Nérisson, Souheir Nadde‐Phlix, Dr Gintarė Surblytė and Dr Silke von Lewinski. The author will be happy to receive comments on the Report. These may relate to any corrections that are needed regarding the cases cited in the Report or additional cases that would be interesting and that have come up more recently. It is planned to publish the Report in a revised version in form of a book at a later stage. Comments can be sent to [email protected]. As regards agency and court decisions, the author would highly appreciate if these decisions were delivered in electronic form. Structure of this Document: Summary of the Report 2 Report 13 Annex: Questionnaire 277 1 Summary of the Report 1 Introduction (1) This text presents a summary of the Report of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law on “Copyright, Competition and Development”.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Taxation and EU Environmental Policies
    EEA Report No 17/2016 Environmental taxation and EU environmental policies ISSN 1977-8449 EEA Report No 17/2016 Environmental taxation and EU environmental policies Cover design: EEA Cover photo: © AlexSava (www.istockphoto.com) Small photos: © JacobH (www.istockphoto.com) Layout: Pia Schmidt Legal notice The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the European Commission or other institutions of the European Union. Neither the European Environment Agency nor any person or company acting on behalf of the Agency is responsible for the use that may be made of the information contained in this report. Copyright notice © European Environment Agency, 2016 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016 ISBN 978-92-9213-755-7 ISSN 1977-8449 doi:10.2800/296823 European Environment Agency Kongens Nytorv 6 1050 Copenhagen K Denmark Tel.: +45 33 36 71 00 Web: eea.europa.eu Enquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries Contents Contents Authors and acknowledgements .............................................................................................. 4 Executive summary .................................................................................................................... 5 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 6 2 Market-based instruments
    [Show full text]
  • Faculty of Law Research Report 2006 Contents
    Faculty of Law Research Report 2006 CONTENTS Message from the Associate Dean (Research) 1 Australian Research Council (ARC) Fellowships 2 ARC Federation Fellowship – Tim Lindsey 4 ARC Research Fellowship – Christine Parker 6 ARC Postdoctural Fellowship – Ann Genovese 8 Funded Research 10 Grants Commencing in 2006 11 Selected Grants in Progress 14 Centres and Institutes 27 Asian Pacific Centre for Military Law 28 Asian Law Centre 30 Centre for Employment and Labour Relations Law 33 Centre for Corporate Law and Securities Regulation 36 Centre for Media and Communications Law 38 Centre for Resources, Energy and Environmental Law 40 Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies 42 Centre for the Study of Contemporary Islam 45 Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia 48 Institute for International Law and Humanities 50 The Tax Group 53 Academic Research Profiles 55 Simon Evans 56 Belinda Fehlberg 58 Michelle Foster 60 Andrew Mitchell 62 Published Research 64 Journals And Newsletters 75 Journal Affiliations 79 Faculty Research Workshop Series 86 International Research Visitors Scheme 90 Student Published Research Prize 91 Academic Staff 92 Research Higher Degrees Completed in 2006 101 Research Degrees in Progress 103 message from the associate DeaN (research) It is a great pleasure to present this report on the research activities in the Faculty of Law during 2006. The Faculty was delighted to have three Australian Research Council (ARC) Fellowships commence in 2006. Professor Tim Lindsey began his Federation Fellowship on Islam and Modernity: Syari’ah, Terrorism and Governance in South East Asia, Associate Professor Christine Parker began her ARC Research Fellowship on The Impact of ACCC Enforcement Action: Evaluating the explanatory and normative power of responsive regulation and responsive law and Dr Ann Genovese began her ARC Postdoctoral Fellowship on Has Feminism Failed the Family? A History of Equality, Law and Reform.
    [Show full text]