DOCSLIB.ORG

Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights E SCCR/19/7 ORIGINAL: English WIPO DATE: October 29, 2009 WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION GENEVA STANDING COMMITTEE ON COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS Nineteenth Session Geneva, December 14 to 18, 2009 WIPO STUDY ON THE COPYRIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR THE BENEFIT OF EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES FOR ASIA AND AUSTRALIA prepared by Daniel Seng* National University of Singapore, Singapore * The views and opinions expressed in this Study are the sole responsibility of the author. The Study is not intended to reflect the views of the Member States or the Secretariat of WIPO. SCCR/19/7 page i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 1 SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY ................................................................ 2 PART I: INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND INSTRUMENTS................................ 6 THE BERNE CONVENTION ............................................................................................... 6 Article 10(2): Free Uses for Teaching............................................................................... 6 Article 10(1): Free uses for quotations............................................................................ 10 Article 10(3): Attribution of authorship and source........................................................ 11 Articles 2(4) (Official texts), 2(8) (News of the day), 2bis (Political speeches and legal proceedings) and 10bis (Informatory purposes and current events) ................................ 12 Article 9(2): General exception concerning reproduction rights .................................... 13 Appendix to the Paris Act ................................................................................................ 15 THE ROME CONVENTION............................................................................................... 21 Article 15(1)(a): Private Use........................................................................................... 21 Article 15(1)(b): Short Excepts for Reporting of Current Events................................... 22 Article 15(1)(d): Teaching and Scientific Research........................................................ 22 Article 15(2): Limitations Equivalent to Copyright Limitations .................................... 22 PART II: REVIEW OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION .......................................................... 24 AUSTRALIA ........................................................................................................................... 25 BANGLADESH........................................................................................................................ 44 BHUTAN ................................................................................................................................ 44 BRUNEI DARUSSALAM .......................................................................................................... 46 CAMBODIA ............................................................................................................................ 51 CHINA ................................................................................................................................... 54 COOK ISLANDS...................................................................................................................... 57 DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA....................................................................... 59 FIJI ........................................................................................................................................ 59 INDIA..................................................................................................................................... 64 INDONESIA ............................................................................................................................ 70 IRAN...................................................................................................................................... 74 JAPAN.................................................................................................................................... 75 KIRIBATI ............................................................................................................................... 84 LAO....................................................................................................................................... 85 MALAYSIA ............................................................................................................................ 86 MALDIVES............................................................................................................................. 90 MARSHALL ISLANDS ............................................................................................................. 90 MICRONESIA ......................................................................................................................... 91 MONGOLIA............................................................................................................................ 92 MYANMAR ............................................................................................................................ 95 NAURU .................................................................................................................................. 95 NEPAL ................................................................................................................................... 96 NEW ZEALAND...................................................................................................................... 98 NIUE.................................................................................................................................... 103 PAKISTAN............................................................................................................................ 104 SCCR/19/7 page ii PALAU................................................................................................................................. 108 PAPUA NEW GUINEA........................................................................................................... 109 PHILIPPINES......................................................................................................................... 111 REPUBLIC OF KOREA........................................................................................................... 116 SAMOA ................................................................................................................................ 120 SINGAPORE.......................................................................................................................... 122 SOLOMON ISLANDS ............................................................................................................. 133 SRI LANKA .......................................................................................................................... 135 THAILAND ........................................................................................................................... 136 TIMOR-LESTE...................................................................................................................... 142 TONGA ................................................................................................................................ 142 TUVALU .............................................................................................................................. 144 VANUATU............................................................................................................................ 144 VIETNAM............................................................................................................................. 145 PART III: SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION ................... 148 BREADTH OF EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES AND THE EXCEPTIONS IN NATIONAL LEGISLATION ............................................................................................................................................ 148 THE INFLUENCE OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES PERMITTING EDUCATIONAL EXCEPTIONS .. 148 THE THREE-STEP TEST AS A DOUBLE-BARRELLED EXCEPTION ........................................... 150 EXCEPTIONS FOR THE BENEFIT OF EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES TEACHING AND RESEARCH AND THEIR RELATED EXCEPTIONS ............................................................................................... 151 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 151 Approaches to Formulation of Education-related Exceptions ....................................... 151 Scope of Permissible Educational Activities ................................................................. 155 Limitations and Restrictions........................................................................................... 161 COPYRIGHT LICENSING SCHEMES ....................................................................................... 172 Rationale for Licensing Schemes................................................................................... 172 Types of Licensing Schemes.......................................................................................... 174 QUOTATION EXCEPTIONS .................................................................................................... 182 Approaches to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 8. Putting Artists and Guardians of Indigenous Works First
    8 Putting Artists and Guardians of Indigenous Works First: Towards a Restricted Scope of Freedom of Panorama in the Asian Pacific Region Jonathan Barrett1 1 Introduction ‘Freedom of panorama’2 permits use of certain copyright-protected works on public display; for example, anyone may publish and sell postcards of a public sculpture.3 The British heritage version of freedom of panorama, which is followed by many jurisdictions in the Asian Pacific region,4 applies 1 Copyright © 2018 Jonathan Barrett. Senior Lecturer, School of Accounting and Commercial Law, Victoria University of Wellington. 2 The term ‘freedom of panorama’ recently came into common usage in English. It appears to be derived from the Swiss German ‘Panoramafreiheit’, which itself has only been used since the 1990s, despite the exemption existing in German law for 170 years. See Mélanie Dulong de Rosnay and Pierre-Carl Langlais ‘Public artworks and the freedom of panorama controversy: a case of Wikimedia influence’ (2017) 6(1) Internet Policy Review. 3 Incidental copying of copyright works is not considered to be a feature of freedom of panorama. See Copyright Act 1994 (NZ), s 41. 4 Asian Pacific countries are those west of the International Date Line (IDL), as defined for the purposes of the Asian Pacific Copyright Association (APCA) in Brian Fitzgerald and Benedict Atkinson (eds) Copyright Future Copyright Freedom: Marking the 40 Year Anniversary of the Commencement of Australia’s Copyright Act 1968 (Sydney University Press, Sydney, 2011) at 236. 229 MAkING COPyRIGHT WORk FOR THE ASIAN PACIFIC? to buildings, sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship on permanent display in a public place or premises open to the public.5 These objects may be copied in two dimensions, such as photographs.
    [Show full text]
  • Orphan Works and Mass Digitization Report
    united states copyright office Orphan Works and Mass Digitization a report of the register of copyrights june 2015 united states copyright office Orphan Works and Mass Digitization a report of the register of copyrights june 2015 U.S. Copyright Office Orphan Works and Mass Digitization ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This Report reflects the dedication and expertise of the Office of Policy and International Affairs at the U.S. Copyright Office. Karyn Temple Claggett, Associate Register of Copyrights and Director of Policy and International Affairs, managed the overall study process, including coordination of the public comments and roundtable hearings, analysis, drafting, and recommendations. I am also extremely grateful to Senior Counsel Kevin Amer and Attorney- Advisor Chris Weston (Office of the General Counsel), who served as the principal authors of the Report and made numerous important contributions throughout the study process. Senior Advisor to the Register Catie Rowland and Attorney-Advisor Frank Muller played a significant role during the early stages of the study, providing research, drafting, and coordination of the public roundtable discussions. In addition, Ms. Rowland and Maria Strong, Deputy Director of Policy and International Affairs, reviewed a draft of the Report and provided important insights. Barbara A. Ringer Fellows Michelle Choe and Donald Stevens provided helpful research and analysis for several sections of the Report. Senior Counsel Kimberley Isbell, Counsels Brad Greenberg and Aurelia Schultz, Attorney-Advisors Katie Alvarez and Aaron Watson, and Law Clerk Konstantia Katsouli contributed valuable research and citation assistance. Finally, I would like to thank the many interested parties who participated in the public roundtables and submitted written comments to the Office.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Protection Under the TRIPS Component of the WTO Agreement
    J.H. REICHMAN* Universal Minimum Standards of Intellectual Property Protection under the TRIPS Component of the WTO Agreement I. Preliminary Considerations The absorption of classical intellectual property law into international economic law will gradually establish universal minimum standards' governing the relations between innovators and second comers in an integrated world market.2 This author's previous articles focused on the broader legal and economic implications of this trend.3 The object here is to convey a more detailed and comprehensive *B.A., Chicago, 1958; J.D., Yale, 1979. Professor of law, Vanderbilt Law School, Nashville, Tennessee. The author wishes to thank Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, Paul Edward Geller, Paul Goldstein, Robert E. Hudec, and David Nimmer for helpful comments and critical suggestions, John Henderson and Jon Mellis for their research assistance, and Dean John J. Costonis for the grants that supported this project. 1. For a perceptive analysis of the conditions favoring the growth of universal legal standards generally, see Jonathan I. Charney, Universal International Law, 87 AM. J. INT'L L. 529, 543-50 (1993) (stressing "central role" of multilateral forums "in the creation and shaping of contemporary international law" and the ability of these forums to "move the solutions substantially towards acquiring the status of international law"). 2. See, e.g., J.H. Reichman, The TRIPS Componentof the GATT 's Uruguay Round: Competitive Prospectsfor Intellectual Property Owners in an Integrated World Market, 4 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP., MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 171, 173-78, 254-66 (1993) [hereinafter Reichman, TRIPS Component]. For background to these negotiations, see also J.H.
    [Show full text]
  • ELDRED V. ASHCROFT: the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT by Michaeljones
    COPYRIGHT ELDRED V. ASHCROFT: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT By MichaelJones On January 15, 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Copyright Term Extension Act ("CTEA"), which extended the term of copyright protection by twenty years.2 The decision has been ap- plauded by copyright protectionists who regard the extension as an effec- tive incentive to creators. In their view, it is a perfectly rational piece of legislation that reflects Congress's judgment as to the proper copyright term, balances the interests of copyright holders and users, and brings the3 United States into line with the European Union's copyright regime. However, the CTEA has been deplored by champions of a robust public domain, who see the extension as a giveaway to powerful conglomerates, which runs contrary to the public interest.4 Such activists see the CTEA as, in the words of Justice Stevens, a "gratuitous transfer of wealth" that will impoverish the public domain. 5 Consequently, Eldred, for those in agree- ment with Justice Stevens, is nothing less than the "Dred Scott case for 6 culture." The Court in Eldred rejected the petitioners' claims that (1) the CTEA did not pass constitutional muster under the Copyright Clause's "limited © 2004 Berkeley Technology Law Journal & Berkeley Center for Law and Technology. 1. Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 108, 203, 301-304 (2002). The Act's four provisions consider term extensions, transfer rights, a new in- fringement exception, and the division of fees, respectively; this Note deals only with the first provision, that of term extensions.
    [Show full text]
  • Digitising the Edwin Morgan Scrapbooks: Copyright Guidance Notes (1St Edition)
    Digitising the Edwin Morgan Scrapbooks: Copyright Guidance Notes (1st Edition) Ronan Deazley, Kerry Patterson & Paul Torremans COPYRIGHT IN TITLES AND NEWSPAPER HEADLINES 1 COPYRIGHT IN THE TYPOGRAPHICAL ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLISHED 7 EDITIONS COPYRIGHT IN PSEUDONYMOUS AND ANONYMOUS WORKS 10 COPYRIGHT IN NEWSPAPER ARTICLES 13 COPYRIGHT IN PHOTOGRAPHS: DURATION 19 COPYRIGHT IN PHOTOGRAPHS: OWNERSHIP 26 USING INSUBSTANTIAL PARTS OF A COPYRIGHT PROTECTED WORK 33 COPYRIGHT ACROSS BORDERS 38 MORAL RIGHTS: ATTRIBUTION 45 MORAL RIGHTS: FALSE ATTRIBUTION 52 MORAL RIGHTS: INTEGRITY 55 MORAL RIGHTS: THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN CERTAIN PHOTOGRAPHS AND 66 FILMS This is a compendium of the first version of the Guidance Notes on aspects of UK Copyright law that were created as part of Digitising the Edwin Morgan Scrapbooks, through support by the RCUK funded Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy (CREATe), AHRC Grant Number AH/K000179/1. The second edition, edited by K. Patterson, can be downloaded individually or as part of the CREATe Working Paper: Digitising the Edwin Morgan Scrapbooks: Copyright Guidance Notes (2nd Edition) available at www.digitisingmorgan.org/resources. Date Created: January 2017 Cite as: R. Deazley, K. Patterson and P. Torremans, Digitising the Edwin Morgan Scrapbooks: Copyright Guidance Notes (1st Edition) (2017), available at: www.digitisingmorgan.org/resources COPYRIGHT IN TITLES AND NEWSPAPER HEADLINES Ronan Deazley and Kerry Patterson 1. Introduction What are the implications of the law for digitisation projects involving newspaper headlines and other titles? This guidance explores the legal background to copyright protection in titles and newspaper headlines, with reference to relevant cases. 2. Legislative Context Literary works first received statutory protection in the UK under the Statute of Anne 1710.
    [Show full text]
  • Reexamining Copyright's Incentives--Access Paradigm
    Texas A&M University School of Law Texas A&M Law Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 4-1996 Reexamining Copyright's Incentives--Access Paradigm Glynn S. Lunney Jr Texas A&M University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Glynn S. Lunney Jr, Reexamining Copyright's Incentives--Access Paradigm, 49 Vand. L. Rev. 483 (1996). Available at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/530 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]. VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 49 APRIL 1996 NUMBER 3 Reexamining Copyright's Incentives- Access Paradigm Glynn S. Lunney, Jr.* I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 485 II. THE INCENTIVES-ACCESS PARADIGM INTRODUCED ...........492 III. THE PARADIGM EXPLORED: THE ELEMENTS OF COPYRIGHT 499 A. Defining a Work's Unprotected Aspects ................. 504 1. Elements Left Unprotected to Ensure the Creation of Future Works .......................... 509 2. Aspects Left Unprotected to Avoid Undue M onopolization ........................................... 517 3. Summary: Access, Ideas, and Expression 525 B. Defining the Similarity Necessary to Establish Infringem ent ........................................................... 526 1. The Degree of Similarity Necessary to Establish an Infringement ......................... 526 2. The Type of Similarity Required to Establish an Infringing Appropriation ......533 C. Defining Fair Uses ................................................. 546 D. Summary of the Incentives-Access Paradigm........ 552 IV. AN INTERNAL CRITIQUE OF THE INCENTIVES-ACCESS PARADIGM .......................................................................... 554 A. Paradox: Incentive and Deadweight Loss............
    [Show full text]
  • The Freedom to Copy: Copyright, Creation, and Context
    The Freedom to Copy: Copyright, Creation, and Context Olufunmilayo B. Arewa* Although much separates them musically, George Harrison and Michael Bolton share a common legal fate. Both have been held liable in copyright infringement cases in which a court articulated theories of liability based on subconscious infringement. This Article discusses how decisions in the Bolton, Harrison, and other copyright infringement cases reflect a common failing. Such decisions highlight the incomplete nature of the theories of creativity and creation processes in copyright doctrine. After discussing current approaches to questions of creation, this Article suggests ways in which copyright theory can better incorporate a contextualized understanding of creativity and creation processes. Creativity in copyright is frequently characterized as not involving copying, which is typically thought to be antithetical to both originality and creativity. This stigmatization of copying, however, means that copyright theory cannot adequately account for the reality of not infrequent similarities between works that are a result of copying both ideas and expression in the creation of new works. This missing theoretical link has significant implications for copyright in practice. The lack of legal analysis of the full range of creativity and processes of creation is also a major reason why copyright theory often has such difficulty delineating what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate copying of existing works. * Associate Professor, Northwestern University School of Law. A.B. Harvard College; M.A. Anthropology, Ph.D. Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley; A.M. Applied Economics, University of Michigan; J.D., Harvard Law School. For their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts, I am indebted to Margaret Chon, Julie Cohen, Paul Heald, Kevin Jon Heller, Andrew Koppelman, Roberta Rosenthal Kwall, Jacqueline Lipton, Andrew P.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright System in Japan
    Copyright System in Japan by Japan Copyright Office (JCO), Agency for Cultural Affairs, Government of Japan, October 2015 Edition Published by Copyright Research and Information Center (CRIC) Table of contents Ⅰ. COPYRIGHT AUTHORITIES OF THE GOVERNMENT Ⅱ. HISTORY OF COPYRIGHT SYSTEMS IN JAPAN (1) Establishment of the Modern Copyright System (2) Development of the Copyright System (3) Enactment of the New Copyright Law (4) Accession to International Conventions (5) Recent Developments in Relevant Legislations (6) Enactment of the Law on Management Business of Copyright and Neighboring Rights Ⅲ. DEVELOPMENT OF COPYRIGHT PROTECTION POLICIES FOR ADVANCED INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION NETWORKS [Background] [Strategic Actions] (1) Streamlining Laws and Regulations (2) Promoting Smooth Distribution Systems (3) Dealing with International Issues (4) Reinforcing Education for Copyright Ⅳ. AUTHOR'S RIGHT AND NEIGHBORING RIGHTS IN THE JAPANESE COPYRIGHT LAW 1. Author's Right (1) Definition/Classification of "Works" (2) Protected Works (3) "Author" and "Copyright Owner" (4) Rights of Authors 2. Neighboring Rights (1) Neighboring Rights Owners and the Scope of Protection (2) Neighboring Rights Granted by the Copyright Law 3. Term of Protection (1) Author's Right (2) Neighboring Rights 4. Limitation on Rights Ⅴ. MEASURES AGAINST INFRINGEMENT 1. Civil Remedies (1) General Provisions for Civil Remedies (Civil Code) (2) Special Provisions for Copyright (Copyright Law) 2. Criminal Remedies (1) Copyright Law (2) Penal Code and other Criminal Legislations 3. Acts Considered as Infringements (Copyright Law) 4. Border Measures and other Preventive Measures (1) Border Measures (Customs Tariff Law) (2) Preventive Measures Ⅵ. DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION PROGRAMS (1) APACE Program (1993~) (2) Asian Copyright Experts Invitation Program (1996~) (3) Asia-Pacific Copyright and Neighboring Rights Seminar (1997~) (4) JICA Group Training Course (1999~) Ⅶ.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case for a Longer Term of Copyright in Canada - Implications of Eldred V
    COMMENTAIRE A CASE FOR A LONGER TERM OF COPYRIGHT IN CANADA - IMPLICATIONS OF ELDRED V. ASHCROFT par Kamil Gérard AHMED* En 1993, une directive de l'Union européenne a obligé les États membres à prolonger dans leur droit interne la durée minimale du droit d'auteur de vingt ans, la portant ainsi à soixante-dix ans après le décès de l'auteur, et exclut cette prolongation ne s=appliquant pas aux États non membres qui n=offrent pas la même durée de protection. Cette directive a été le fer de lance de changements législatifs à l'échelle internationale. En 1998, le Congrès américain a adopté le Copyright Term Extension Act, qui prolonge de vingt ans la durée de la protection des droits d'auteur existants et futurs. En 2003, l'arrêt de la Cour suprême des États-Unis Eldred c. Ashcroft, a confirmé la légalité du Copyright Term Extension Act. La protection couvrant la vie de l'auteur et les soixante-dix années suivant son décès dans l'Union européenne et aux États-Unis a eu des répercussions au Canada, où le régime de protection dans la Loi sur le droit d'auteur couvre à ce jour la durée de vie de l=auteur plus cinquante ans. Le présent exposé soutient la position que le Parlement canadien ne doit pas ignorer les développements à l'égard du droit d'auteur dans l'Union européenne et aux États-Unis et qu'il devrait modifier la Loi sur le droit d'auteur du Canada afin de prolonger la durée du droit d'auteur à soixante-dix ans après le décès de celui-ci.
    [Show full text]
  • The Orrin Hatch – Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act
    The Orrin Hatch – Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act A Guide for Sound Recordings Collectors This study was written by Eric Harbeson, on behalf of and commissioned by the National Recording Preservation Board. Members of the National Recording Preservation Board American Federation of Musicians National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences Billy Linneman Maureen Droney Alternate: Daryl Friedman American Folklore Society Burt Feintuch (in memoriam) National Archives and Records Administration Alternate: Timothy Lloyd Daniel Rooney Alternate: Tom Nastick American Musicological Society Judy Tsou Recording Industry Association of America Alternate: Patrick Warfield David Hughes Alternate: Patrick Kraus American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers SESAC Elizabeth Matthews John JosePhson Alternate: John Titta Alternate: Eric Lense Association for Recorded Sound Collections Society For Ethnomusicology David Seubert Jonathan Kertzer Alternate: Bill Klinger Alternate: Alan Burdette Audio Engineering Society Songwriters Hall of Fame George Massenburg Linda Moran Alternate: Elizabeth Cohen Alternate: Robbin Ahrold Broadcast Music, Incorporated At-Large Michael O'Neill Michael Feinstein Alternate: Michael Collins At-Large Country Music Foundation Brenda Nelson-Strauss Kyle Young Alternate: Eileen Hayes Alternate: Alan Stoker At-Large Digital Media Association Mickey Hart Garrett Levin Alternate: ChristoPher H. Sterling Alternate: Sally Rose Larson At-Large Music Business Association Bob Santelli Portia Sabin Alternate: Al Pryor Alternate: Paul JessoP At-Large Music Library Association Eric Schwartz James Farrington Alternate: John Simson Alternate: Maristella Feustle Abstract: The Music Modernization Act is reviewed in detail, with a Particular eye toward the implications for members of the community suPPorted by the National Recording Preservation Board, including librarians, archivists, and Private collectors. The guide attemPts an exhaustive treatment using Plain but legally precise language.
    [Show full text]
  • ELDRED V. ASHCROFT: the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT by Michaeljones
    COPYRIGHT ELDRED V. ASHCROFT: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT By MichaelJones On January 15, 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Copyright Term Extension Act ("CTEA"), which extended the term of copyright protection by twenty years.2 The decision has been ap- plauded by copyright protectionists who regard the extension as an effec- tive incentive to creators. In their view, it is a perfectly rational piece of legislation that reflects Congress's judgment as to the proper copyright term, balances the interests of copyright holders and users, and brings the3 United States into line with the European Union's copyright regime. However, the CTEA has been deplored by champions of a robust public domain, who see the extension as a giveaway to powerful conglomerates, which runs contrary to the public interest.4 Such activists see the CTEA as, in the words of Justice Stevens, a "gratuitous transfer of wealth" that will impoverish the public domain. 5 Consequently, Eldred, for those in agree- ment with Justice Stevens, is nothing less than the "Dred Scott case for 6 culture." The Court in Eldred rejected the petitioners' claims that (1) the CTEA did not pass constitutional muster under the Copyright Clause's "limited © 2004 Berkeley Technology Law Journal & Berkeley Center for Law and Technology. 1. Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 108, 203, 301-304 (2002). The Act's four provisions consider term extensions, transfer rights, a new in- fringement exception, and the division of fees, respectively; this Note deals only with the first provision, that of term extensions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Exhaustion Doctrine in the United States
    IP Exhaustion around the World: Differing Approaches and Consequences to the Reach of IP Protection beyond the First Sale The Exhaustion Doctrine in the United States NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRACTICE SECTION FALL MEETING—2013 HANOI, VIETNAM L. Donald Prutzman Tannenbaum Helpern Syracuse & Hirschtritt LLP 900 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 (212) 508-6739 -and- Eric Stenshoel Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178-0061 (212) 696-8878 The Exhaustion Doctrine in the United States L. Donald Prutzman and Eric Stenshoel I. Overview Intellectual property rights are limited monopolies a government grants for the use or distribution of products that embody or use the intellectual property, whether a patented invention, a copyrighted work, or a brand name protected by a trademark. The value of the intellectual property right depends upon both the underlying demand for the products subject to the patent, copyright or trademark, and the ability of the rights holder to exploit the monopoly position. One traditional means of maximizing returns on a monopoly position is to divide markets among different licensees by putting various restrictions on their use of the licensed intellectual property. These restrictions can be, for example, limited geographic territories, or limitations on the field of use or market segment. Patentees can use field of use restrictions in the biopharma industry, for example, to distinguish uses of an invention in the diagnostic, therapeutic and research markets, or in human and animal applications. Copyright owners may grant separate licenses for hard cover and soft cover books, for manufacture and sale in different countries or for different language editions.
    [Show full text]