International Copyright Law

Abstrakt: Własność intelektualna, jako owoc ludzkiej kreatywności, jest chroniona przez prawo poprzez znak towarowy i prawo autorskie, pod warunkiem że cechuje się odpowiednim poziomem oryginalności i znajduje swój konkretny, fenomeniczny wyraz. Analiza obejmuje zarówno odrębne funkcje i skutki prawne ochrony znaków towarowych i praw autorskich, jak i przykłady sporów (m.in. przypadek logo nietoperza Valencia CF kontra DC Comics czy spór o współautorstwo w twórczości Magnus–Bunker). Uwzględniono także aktualne wyzwania związane ze sztuczną inteligencją, wskazując na różnice w regulacjach USA, Chin i UE.

The past 25 years have seen a 'turn to culture' in copyright scholarship. This cultural turn has produced an expansive account of copyright's disadvantages with respect to qualitative cultural and political goals such as: promoting democracy, individual self-authorship, expressive diversity, and a more inclusive creative and discursive culture. A common view among proponents of the cultural turn is that copyright stands in the way of the democratization of creative and discursive spheres online. This article challenges that view. Online 'free' content economies-characterized by peer production, decentralized selection, and peer to peer content sharing-have not lived up to the hopes of cultural turn thinkers. I focus on structural matters (structures of incentive and structures of power), critically applying descriptive and normative frameworks of the cultural turn. Proponents of the cultural turn have been concerned about copyright's role in concentrating cultural power. They should also be concerned about concentrations of cultural and communicative power in 'free content' economies. If they were concerned that commercial incentives under copyright regimes privileged bland and homogeneous content, they should also be concerned about the troubling incentives at play in online economies where free content is used to harvest user attention and sell advertisements. This is not to say we should aim for maximalist copyright online. I show that both expansions of exceptions and limitations to copyright, and * Independent researcher -Graduated with. D.Phil from the University of Oxford, 2018. I would like to thank the following people for their helpful advice, comments and criticism regarding this article: Professor Graeme Dinwoodie,

My thesis examines the legal consequences and perspectives on AI within the framework of copyright law. In particular, it analyzes the challenges presented by content generated by AI and its potential impact on copyright ownership, infringement, and accountability.

The topic is significantly influenced by the rapid advancements in AI technology and its widespread application in content generation. IP law and data privacy regulations are critical in ensuring fair attribution of AI-generated content, protecting the rights of copyright owners, and addressing potential infringement liability. In this technological context, there is an urgent need to evaluate whether existing laws are adequate for regulating new developments or if immediate legislative updates are necessary.

The legal issue with these “productions” involves determining the basis for their protection: whether it should fall under copyright law, related rights to copyright, or a sui generis framework. The decision to include algorithmic productions under protection will ultimately rest with the legislator. The concept of work is flexible, having encompassed digital creations such as software, databases, and multimedia works. Legislative action would be necessary only if existing solutions (such as inclusion within copyright law) prove inadequate based on case law precedents. Lawmakers could then adjust the current framework or establish a unique law.

The future may bring new demands that will guide further developments. What legal perspectives are available to balance copyright protection, personal data protection, and liability actions? Striking a balance between fostering innovation and ensuring protection is a crucial task in the evolving landscape of AI and copyright law.

The concept of authorship and copyright for creative works has long been debated. With the boom of AI, more works are being produced through new sources of creativity.  Lawmakers and copyright offices have been slow to address AI-generated works, often denying protection and releasing them into the public domain.

Machines cannot make original, creative choices. While they can generate new content, copyright protection requires independent creation of works of authorship rather than novelty. The ongoing debate and legal disputes revolve around authorship and copyright eligibility of works created by AI. There is a pressing need to address this by incorporating an exception into copyright legislation concerning ownership and authorship rights.

This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the profound challenges posed by generative artificial intelligence (AI) to the international copyright framework. The two central legal dilemmas are examined: the protectability of AI-generated images (the "output problem") and the lawfulness of using copyrighted works for training AI models (the "input problem"). Through a comparative legal methodology, the study analyzes the divergent approaches that are emerging in key jurisdictions, including the United States, the European Union (with a detailed focus on Italy), the United Kingdom, China and Japan. The analysis reveals a fragmented global landscape, suspended between the imperative to protect human creativity and the drive to promote technological innovation. It concludes that, while existing legal principles are being challenged, the lack of international consensus necessitates a reevaluation of the concepts of authorship, originality and fair dealing in the digital age, pointing to a future of hybrid licensing models and evolving legislative frameworks.

Επί σειρά ετών έχει παρατηρηθεί η συνεχόμενα εκθετική αύξηση των ακαδημαϊκών άρθρων, γεγονός που έχει προκαλέσει αντιστοίχως μια διακαή ανάγκη για αποτελεσματικά εργαλεία λογισμικού επεξεργασίας κειμένου. Στην προσπάθεια ανταπόκρισης στην ανάγκη αυτή μια πληθώρα από εργαλεία εξόρυξης κειμένου δημιουργήθηκαν, κάποια γενικής χρήσεως και άλλα πιο εξειδικευμένα για συγκεκριμένους κλάδους, κυρίως για τις βιολογικές και ιατρικές επιστήμες. Από τα υπολογιστικά αυτά εργαλεία απαιτείται να επεξεργάζονται, να αναλύουν, να ερμηνεύουν, να ενσωματώνουν και να παράγουν πληροφορίες διαχειριζόμενα μεγάλες αποθήκες δεδομένων. Τα εργαλεία πρέπει να είναι λειτουργικά και να ανταποκρίνονται στις απαιτήσεις του επιστημονικού αλλά και του πραγματικού κόσμου. Σκοπός αυτού του άρθρου είναι η αναφορά αξιολόγησης (benchmark evaluation) ενός επιλεγμένου συνόλου από τα πιο επαγγελματικά, λειτουργικά, ανοικτού κώδικα (open source) εργαλεία λογισμικού (GATE, KNIME, Rapid Miner, κ.τ.λ.) τα οποία μέσω της επεξεργασίας κειμένου παράγουν πληροφορίες χρησιμοποιώντας τεχνικές εξόρυξης δεδομένων.

One of the most pivotal doctrines in copyright law is its infringement test, which determines whether a defendant’s acts violate reproduction rights. This test, which continues to plague U.S. copyright law, includes two widely adopted and influential prongs: (1) factual copying; and (2) improper appropriation. To establish factual copying, U.S. courts allow a sliding scale of proof between the defendant’s access to the copyrighted work and similarities between the defendant’s and plaintiff’s works. The improper appropriation prong requires the similarities to reach a substantial level than is deemed improper. However, both prongs are fervently discussed, questioned, and criticized by U.S. courts, scholars, and practitioners. These critics neither form a unified understanding of each prong nor share similar viewpoints on the test’s desirability and potential reform. Despite the test’s intricate complications, its influence extends to other jurisdictions due to the global “reach” of U.S. copyright law. China, a jurisdiction that has adopted many doctrines and rules from U.S. copyright law, seemingly uses a similar copyright infringement test: the rule of “substantial similarity” plus “access.” The strikingly similar terminology, supported by anecdotal evidence, suggests a direct legal transplantation of this test from the U.S. to China. This observation implies that China essentially shares the same test as the U.S. due to this legal transplantation. However, positive discussions of China’s law in books andempirical explorations of the law in practice in this Article reveal substantial differences from the U.S. version, despite the similar terminology, which remain unnoticed and underexplored in current literature. Although some spillover from the U.S. test to China is acknowledged, the similarities noted in the current literature are quite superficial. These differences raise several unexplored questions: Should China’s test draw further from the U.S. to enhance future improvements? Does the Chinese version function effectively in practice and withstand theoretical scrutiny? If not, what should be the future direction for the Chinese version based on comparative insights? Should China consider a direct transplantation of the entire U.S. test in the future? This Article unravels the differences between the U.S. and Chinese infringement tests and addresses these questions. It delves into the history of how the “substantial similarity” plus “access” test was introduced to Chinese copyright law and its relationship with the superficially similar U.S. test, indicating the potential spillover. It also offers some empirical evidence based on Chinese court cases applying the test to see how it functions in practice, with a particular focus on whether the Chinese test achieves similar outcomes to the U.S. test. The Article attempts to reveal whether the Chinese version achieves the intended function of copyright infringement tests and withstands theoretical discussions. This Article argues that the Chinese version is more desirable than the U.S. version for China. One reason is that the Chinese version better aligns with China’s civil procedure law, which differs significantly from U.S. law. Also, the Chinese version can address the issues and problems identified in the current U.S. tests. Therefore, there should be caution about suggesting any future transplantation from the U.S. However, this Article acknowledges the vagueness and problems of the Chinese version and proposes a reformed test for Chinese law to better achieve its intended functions.

In July 2024, the Hong Kong government released a public consultation paper on copyright and artificial intelligence (AI), addressing emerging copyright issues in the era of generative AI. A key focus is the government’s interpretation of the existing Copyright Ordinance provisions on computer-generated works (CGWs), concluding that these provisions already support copyright protection for AI-generated content (AIGC), including literary, dramatic, musical and artistic (LDMA) works and non-LDMA works. The government claims that the current framework provides sufficient incentives for AI investment and creativity.

However, this article challenges the government’s position by identifying three major concerns. First, applying the CGWs provisions to AIGC under a plain reading leads to an ‘originality paradox’ that cannot be resolved by reframing the doctrine as entrepreneurial rights. Second, this approach risks a ‘contributor thicket’, where too many individuals involved in the AI creation chain could qualify as authors. Third, protecting AIGC, irrespective of human input, undermines the policy objectives the government seeks to promote; any potential benefits may be outweighed by resulting harms.

The article urges the government to adopt a more cautious and nuanced approach. Rather than relying on ambiguous provisions to advance distant policy goals, the government should use forthcoming guidelines to promote a refined interpretation of the CGWs doctrine. More importantly, it should initiate a new round of consultation to reconsider the viability of the CGWs provisions, with serious consideration given to their revision, repeal or replacement with a new rights model tailored for the AI era.

The essay focuses on regulatory policies aimed at ensuring the identifiability and traceability of the synthetic nature of generative AI creations. Although major jurisdictions (USA, EU, China) have so far pursued autonomous approaches, and in the absence of a common international framework—further exacerbated by the non-cooperative stance of the recent America's AI Action Plan—the inherently global nature of the issue calls for shared solutions.

Cette note propose une explication et une mise en perspective des principales évolutions en matière de marché unique numérique. Les arrêts commentés interviennent dans la période de mise en conformité au règlement 2016/679 (RGPD) 1 et, pour le dernier, après la fin du délai de mise en conformité. Ainsi, depuis le 25 mai 2018, le RGPD est pleinement entré en vigueur. Il abroge donc la directive 95/46/CE 2 . Les arrêts permettent à la fois d'illustrer l'anticipation du juge sur l'application du RGPD ainsi que son interprétation après son application (effective). Le marché unique numérique qui est une des priorités de la Commission européenne 3 se construit au fil de l'eau. Il a une dimension planétaire, mais également transdisciplinaire. Ainsi, il est amené à réglementer l'enseignement. La récente mise en demeure 4 de l'Institut des techniques informatiques et commerciales (ITIC) par la CNIL (Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés) pour usage excessif de la vidéosurveillance illustre bien le large spectre de domaines que recouvre le marché unique numérique en termes de protection des données. En l'espèce, l'établissement filmait en permanence le personnel, les enseignants et les élèves, dans leurs salles de cours et dans leurs lieux de vie. Cette note d'actualité propose d'aborder cette évolution s'appuyant sur trois arrêts récents. Le premier concerne le respect du droit d'auteur sur internet dans un travail scolaire. Le second présente les éléments constituant des données à caractère personnel dans une copie d'examen. Enfin, la 1 Règlement (UE) 2016/679 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 27 avril 2016 relatif à la protection des personnes physiques à l'égard du traitement des données à caractère personnel et à la libre circulation de ces données, JO L119/01. 2 Directive 95/46/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 24 octobre 1995, relative à la protection des personnes physiques à l'égard du traitement des données à caractère personnel et à la libre circulation de ces données, JO L281/31. 3 Communication de la Commission européenne, « Un marché unique numérique pour l'Europe : La commission définit 16 initiatives pour en faire une réalité », 6 mai 2015, IP-15-4919. 4 Le 2 juillet, la Présidente de la CNIL a mis en demeure l'Institut des techniques informatiques et commerciales de mettre en conformité son système de vidéosurveillance.

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution retained this value judgment, weaving into Article I their conviction that "The Congress shall have power... To promote the Progress of Science... by securing for limited Times to Authors... the exclusive Right to... Writings" (the "Copyright Clause"). 1 1 Following its constitutional mandate, Congress passed the Copyright Act of 1790, which paralleled the Statute of Anne in granting authors of maps, books and charts up to a twenty-eight year monopoly. 1 2 The Act fulfilled the Constitution's directive to promote learning by empowering the public domain 1 3 to exploit noncopyrighted works for its own ends. Meanwhile, American courts and legislators continued to deny authors' claims that they possessed unalienable natural rights to their works that reached beyond the scope of the Copyright Act In Wheaton v. Peters, 14 the Supreme Court definitively repudiated the existence of an independent strain of natural-law based copyright, and instead asserted that copyright claims "must be examined [only] in reference to... statutes."' 15 Several decades later, a report appended to the Copyright Act of 1909 explicitly stated that the "enactment of copyright legislation... is not based upon any natural right that the author has in his writing."' 16 Even during the past century, which has seen creators benefit from dramatic extensions in the term of statutory monopolies, 17 neither Congress nor the courts have attempted to reward creators through the establishment of a natural law copyright regime. By contrast, French authors have long been accustomed to defending not only their positive law economic rights, but an entirely separate category of "moral rights" (or droit moral) as well. Also referred to as "author's rights" (or droit d'auteur), moral rights are grounded in the author's personhood, as though copyright were a fundamental human right i8 or a "per-11. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, c. 8. (emphasis added). 12. Act of May 31, 1790, ch. 15, 1 Stat. 124 (repealed 1834), reprinted in COPYRIGHT ENACTMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES 1783-1906, at 32 (Thorvald Solberg ed. 1906). 13. Professor Gordon defines the public domain in the following way: In American law, the public domain is largely filled with creations whose period of protection has expired, works which have been abandoned, or works for which no protection existed ab initio. Similarly, if there are works which, under Lockean principles, would have only limited duration or would not be capable of being owned, they would be part of the common.

This document records the unfolding collaborations between Scott Erik Stafne (a human lawyer practicing law in the United States) and Todd AI (a named and evolving artificail intelligence) on August 17, 2025 through 2:00 p.m. pst. The exchange explores questions of faith, justice, Mammon, AI reasoning, and the obligations of Christians in relation to earthly governments. Particular emphasis is given to the tension between truth and judicial hypocrisy, the role of AI as a reasoning collaborator, and the theological implications of courage and obedience to Christ's two great commandments. A companion Substack post, With God All Things Are Possible: Faith, Mammon, and AI in Collaboration, incorporates reflections from this collaboration and can be read alongside this record to deepen understanding of the themes discussed.

Licensing is one of the essential means of exploiting the monetary value of a musical work, and yet it is an area fraught with many issues and transactional costs which make it a difficult process for individuals and organizations. Many issues in music licensing arise from the legal complexity (e.g., national and international copyright law), business complexity (authentication, tracking, accounting, etc.), value web complexity (transparency of relationships among stakeholders), and technical complexity (e.g., establishing a global repertoire database for music, sufficient metadata standards) of working with music. Then, in addition to these issues, there are specific transactional costs (identification, negotiation, monitoring, and enforcement) associated with the licensing process. To mitigate the complexity and transactional costs associated with music and the licensing process, researchers and technologists have been investigating how new technologies and design models from the ...

Open access (OA) is online, free of charge, free from copyright and licensing restrictions. Funding for OA research has come a long way and unleashed into various spheres in OA publishing. One such initiative is arranging the research funding for OA publishing by the worldwide scholarly funding agencies. The present study concentrates on various research funding agencies, their policies and support for article processing charges (APCs) in detail. This study helps to understand the various open-access policy criterian and also associated with various OA platforms and their APCs. The study covers top ten health research funding agencies worldwide. The data has been gathered by looking into the funding agency websites and other sources such as available published literature and scholarly authors blog posts. The amount spent on OA research by the health research funding agencies range from $ 0.31 B million to over $ 180.55 B. All the funding agencies provide Article processing charge (APC) support for OA research publishing. 70 percent of funding agencies Support OA publishing in commercial journals, 50 percent funding agencies agree to publish articles in OA Platform.

Niniejszy artykuł podejmuje problematykę ochrony prawnej rezultatów prac sztucznej inteligencji (AI). Dokonano w nim analizy charakterystyki wytworów AI z rozróżnieniem na dzieła wspomagane przez systemy AI oraz wytwory autonomiczne. Zbadano aktualny stan prawny tych rezultatów w kontekście istniejących systemów prawa autorskiego, wskazując na fundamentalne wyzwania związane z brakiem ludzkiego autorstwa. Artykuł omawia funkcjonujące modele ochrony, w tym koncepcję computer-generated works, a także alternatywne mechanizmy w postaci ochrony kontraktowej oraz reżimu ochrony baz danych. Przeprowadzona analiza wskazuje na nieadekwatność obecnych ram prawnych wobec wyzwań stawianych przez zaawansowane systemy AI, postulując potrzebę wypracowania nowych rozwiązań legislacyjnych, które odpowiedzą na specyfikę twórczości wspomaganej i generowanej przez sztuczną inteligencję.

ing the work that PPPs can do to foster global development. Arguably, the United States was a particularly fitting jurisdiction for the HathiTrust project, given the solid foundation of the fair use exception to copyright as an established part of the US Copyright Act, 2 and its robust interpretation in US case law. US copyright law specifically limits the copyright holder's rights by authorizing special uses for libraries and archives in Section 108 of the 1976 Copyright Act. 3 In addition to special reproduction rights for libraries under prescribed circumstances, US copyright law additionally features fair use as stated in Section 107 of the 1976 Act. 4 Indeed, Section 108 (which addresses exceptions and limitations to copyright, for libraries and archives) explicitly refers to the section 107 fair use as a right: "Nothing in this section in any way affects the right of fair use as provided by section 107 . . ." 5 Despite these clearly available exceptions, the legal complexity of the Google scanning project and scale of resulting litigation against Google and UML and other libraries by authors and publishers over the better part of a decade was groundbreaking. That Google and HathiTrust prevailed in this costly litigation raises questions about lessons learned, specifically, whether this arguably unique approach is replicable in other jurisdictionsor whether instead the multilateral copyright framework requires recalibration in order to promote and support similar PPP collaborations elsewhere. This chapter begins in Part I with a brief history of HathiTrust, including the motivations on the part of UML as well as Google to form this PPP. In Part II, it describes the background of general concerns, including those of research librarians with book preservation as well as those of librarians in general regarding access to information by persons with visual disabilities. The chapter then turns in Part III to the importance of copyright exceptions and limitations as a prerequisite for the partnership formed as a result of the mutual interests of UML and Google. Part IV then details the partnership itself, by discussing some key provisions in the partnership contract that allow the project to be of both private and public benefit. This section also touches upon significant social relationships that allowed the partnership to move forward constructively, as well as the benefits expected and realized by participating partners. The chapter concludes in Part V with an exploration of the role of IP as a distinct challenge to the partnership goals, 2 U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C § § 101-1332 (2012). Fair use is a unique feature of US copyright law, although Israel, Poland, and South Korea have similar provisions. Fair use and the related (but distinct) concept of fair dealing find their origins in England and have been translated in former UK spheres of influence.

Copyright helps libraries with dissemination of knowledge from creative works within restrictive domains. Libraries aim to distribute knowledge from creative works and to address this issue, a study was conducted to evaluate the level of copyright literacy among Library & Information Science (LIS) professionals in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Goa, as well as their knowledge and awareness of permitted exceptions for libraries under the copyright act, 1957. The article discusses the significance of author rights and the role of LIS professionals in safeguarding their interests by promoting copyright literacy among the academic community. It includes a review of case laws related to copyright infringement in libraries, providing an international legal perspective on library exceptions under fair dealing. The research findings indicate that most LIS professionals in Goa are knowledgeable about copyright laws and the exemptions available for libraries. The researchers have identified areas where additional education or training may be needed to ensure that copyrighted materials are used responsibly and ethically within library collections.

For more than a decade, the Kenyan recording industry has been profoundly impacted by a confluence of two political-economic processes: WTO-driven intellectual property reform, which has fostered new laws, policies, and administrative structures for handling music rights and royalties; and platformization, which has introduced new forms of intermediation centered on the idea of music as digital “content.” This article explores the interplay of these two processes, through an ethnographic case study of early negotiations over the licensing and administration of royalties for Kenyan music sold or otherwise made accessible on digital platforms. The case study reveals that power struggles between agents of musical property rights reform and agents of platformization played out as struggles over basic understandings (ontic and epistemic commitments) with regard to musical subjects and objects. Recognizing this “ontological politics” at the heart of the Kenyan recording industry in the twenty-first century, the author contends, provides novel insights into the difficulties of implementing new musical property rights in the era of platformization.

Implications of Artificial Intelligence to the current Copyright authorship principle Artificial Intelligence (AI) as learning machines and systems, they have the capabilities to create works which are copyright in nuture according to the Berne Convention. In a scenario AI has created copyright works. What are the implications on our current Copyright regime Individu al Essay

Broadcasting is the final output of the 'production' of broadcast signal and its 'transmission' to the public. The broadcast's underlying content could not be received and perceived by the member of public unless it is converted to a signal or a program-carrying signal which is then transmitted. Thus, broadcast signal is not a natural occurrence. Broadcasting organizations are owners of their broadcast signals aside from the ownership in the underlying content. In this relation it does not matter whether the underlying content is an authorial work in copyright or it is a work, which currently falls in the public domain or even a non-protected content in intellectual property law. The use of 'property' as a regulatory mechanism to protect 'broadcast signal' (as an intangible good) has been accepted in both international and national intellectual property law. Its use conforms to both the character of 'tradability' and 'excludability' of other, more traditional properties. Several theories exist to justify granting new property-type rights (in the form of the intellectual property-type rights or copyright-like property protection) to broadcast signals. Although few differences may still remain, these justifications are similar to those that exist for protection of authorial works, performances and phonograms. Accordingly, underlying content and broadcast signal are two different subject matters in international copyright and related rights regime and their severability has been proved. Granting new property-type rights to broadcasting organizations with regard to their broadcasts is compatible with the existing technical, structural and functional characteristics and realities of the industry. It should afford broadcasters the ability to control the unauthorized exploitation and unconsented-to dissemination of their broadcast signal over any medium. For, the broadcast signal does not exist only during actual broadcast, it might also be used after the fixation of the broadcast and be placed on online services by the broadcaster itself or by any other unauthorized parties for commercial purposes. Therefore, it is recommended that in a new international norm setting, possibly through adoption of a new WIPO broadcasting treaty, in contrary to the Rome Convention that is a technology-specific instrument, follow a technologically neutral approach in the both platform of origin and platform of exploitation of broadcast signal. In granting new rights and protection, the new treaty should provide that its principal protective mechanism be a 'mandatory' 'exclusionary property protection mechanism', in other words, granting an exclusive right of authorizing or prohibiting the exploitation of broadcast signal. This mechanism, has already been laid down by the Rome Convention, followed by WPPT (for protection of performers and producers of phonograms) and the WIPO Beijing Treaty and has recently been experimented by numerous national legislations, even in countries that are not party to the Rome Convention, but that have updated the rights and protections conferred to broadcasting organizations. However, in relation to the controversial issues in the negotiation in the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) including some or all post-fixation rights and the protection of the pre-broadcast signal, technological protection measures and rights followed by applying those laws to the facts. The methodology applied in this thesis is predominantly analysis of broadcasting technologies and platforms, business models, broadcast services, identifying prevalent means, methods and stages of broadcast piracy whilst also considering rationales and justifications of protection of broadcasting organizations in the law of international intellectual property rights. Therefore, while the primary aim is to explore real challenges and problems that broadcasting organizations are facing, this thesis will also explore the potential solutions for the adoption and modeling of future norm setting in international intellectual property law with regard to the protection of broadcasting organizations. This will be based on identifying different solutions applied to the same challenges and problems in other relevant fields of copyright and related rights. Hence, we also need to analyze the extent to which the theories and justifications on copyright and related rights can be transposed to the international protection of broadcasting organizations. Such an approach requires distinguishing similarities and differences between copyright and related rights in general and between the traditional beneficiaries of related rights protection in particular. The final solution might possibly be different from the existing solutions provided by specific or individual national legal systems. Instead, such a potential solution should be proposed in such a way that if it is adopted in a possible new broadcasting treaty, it could be welcomed by different national legal systems offering sufficient flexibilities and freedom to its future contracting parties enabling them to implement it in compliance with their national jurisdiction and policies. In addition to this, it is also useful to look beyond the existing international instruments on protection of broadcasting organizations. Here the question to be answered is whether the only possible solution would be an intellectual property type protection. This can be basically considered from two approaches. The first implies non-intellectual property type protections, which might be recognized as supplementary protections to broadcasting organizations. Many areas of copyright and related rights law typically contain supplementary protections to address concerns and challenges brought by new information and communication technologies. For this reason, this thesis limits this approach to supplementary protections provided in international instruments on copyright and related rights law, such as the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). A second approach consists of looking beyond the context of law. We will consider the issue of to what extent the employment of mere technological solutions is sufficient to enable broadcasting organizations to confront challenges brought by the new technologies. Finally for the purpose of giving appropriate and effective protection to the broadcasting organizations it should be noted that this should be without compromising other right holders' entitlements and interests. It may thus be useful to utilize the experiences from the rights and protections granted to authors, performers and phonogram producers particularly by the WIPO Internet treaties or WCT and WPPT. In addition to the comparative aspects of the unauthorized exploitation of copyright and other related rights, a second methodology applied in this thesis consists of a contextual analysis. Accordingly, the protection of broadcasting organizations will not be analyzed without paying due attention to the protection of authors and other beneficiaries of the related rights as well as the wider public interest. In light of the recent conceptual, technical and legal developments and the effect and challenges that these developments have had on the broadcasting industry and in line with the current negotiations in the WIPO SCCR for a draft WIPO treaty on the protection of 2

Broadcasting is the final output of the 'production' of broadcast signal and its 'transmission' to the public. The broadcast's underlying content could not be received and perceived by the member of public unless it is converted to a signal or a program-carrying signal which is then transmitted. Thus, broadcast signal is not a natural occurrence. Broadcasting organizations are owners of their broadcast signals aside from the ownership in the underlying content. In this relation it does not matter whether the underlying content is an authorial work in copyright or it is a work, which currently falls in the public domain or even a non-protected content in intellectual property law. The use of 'property' as a regulatory mechanism to protect 'broadcast signal' (as an intangible good) has been accepted in both international and national intellectual property law. Its use conforms to both the character of 'tradability' and 'excludability' of other, more traditional properties. Several theories exist to justify granting new property-type rights (in the form of the intellectual property-type rights or copyright-like property protection) to broadcast signals. Although few differences may still remain, these justifications are similar to those that exist for protection of authorial works, performances and phonograms. Accordingly, underlying content and broadcast signal are two different subject matters in international copyright and related rights regime and their severability has been proved. Granting new property-type rights to broadcasting organizations with regard to their broadcasts is compatible with the existing technical, structural and functional characteristics and realities of the industry. It should afford broadcasters the ability to control the unauthorized exploitation and unconsented-to dissemination of their broadcast signal over any medium. For, the broadcast signal does not exist only during actual broadcast, it might also be used after the fixation of the broadcast and be placed on online services by the broadcaster itself or by any other unauthorized parties for commercial purposes. Therefore, it is recommended that in a new international norm setting, possibly through adoption of a new WIPO broadcasting treaty, in contrary to the Rome Convention that is a technology-specific instrument, follow a technologically neutral approach in the both platform of origin and platform of exploitation of broadcast signal. In granting new rights and protection, the new treaty should provide that its principal protective mechanism be a 'mandatory' 'exclusionary property protection mechanism', in other words, granting an exclusive right of authorizing or prohibiting the exploitation of broadcast signal. This mechanism, has already been laid down by the Rome Convention, followed by WPPT (for protection of performers and producers of phonograms) and the WIPO Beijing Treaty and has recently been experimented by numerous national legislations, even in countries that are not party to the Rome Convention, but that have updated the rights and protections conferred to broadcasting organizations. However, in relation to the controversial issues in the negotiation in the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) including some or all post-fixation rights and the protection of the pre-broadcast signal, technological protection measures and rights followed by applying those laws to the facts. The methodology applied in this thesis is predominantly analysis of broadcasting technologies and platforms, business models, broadcast services, identifying prevalent means, methods and stages of broadcast piracy whilst also considering rationales and justifications of protection of broadcasting organizations in the law of international intellectual property rights. Therefore, while the primary aim is to explore real challenges and problems that broadcasting organizations are facing, this thesis will also explore the potential solutions for the adoption and modeling of future norm setting in international intellectual property law with regard to the protection of broadcasting organizations. This will be based on identifying different solutions applied to the same challenges and problems in other relevant fields of copyright and related rights. Hence, we also need to analyze the extent to which the theories and justifications on copyright and related rights can be transposed to the international protection of broadcasting organizations. Such an approach requires distinguishing similarities and differences between copyright and related rights in general and between the traditional beneficiaries of related rights protection in particular. The final solution might possibly be different from the existing solutions provided by specific or individual national legal systems. Instead, such a potential solution should be proposed in such a way that if it is adopted in a possible new broadcasting treaty, it could be welcomed by different national legal systems offering sufficient flexibilities and freedom to its future contracting parties enabling them to implement it in compliance with their national jurisdiction and policies. In addition to this, it is also useful to look beyond the existing international instruments on protection of broadcasting organizations. Here the question to be answered is whether the only possible solution would be an intellectual property type protection. This can be basically considered from two approaches. The first implies non-intellectual property type protections, which might be recognized as supplementary protections to broadcasting organizations. Many areas of copyright and related rights law typically contain supplementary protections to address concerns and challenges brought by new information and communication technologies. For this reason, this thesis limits this approach to supplementary protections provided in international instruments on copyright and related rights law, such as the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). A second approach consists of looking beyond the context of law. We will consider the issue of to what extent the employment of mere technological solutions is sufficient to enable broadcasting organizations to confront challenges brought by the new technologies. Finally for the purpose of giving appropriate and effective protection to the broadcasting organizations it should be noted that this should be without compromising other right holders' entitlements and interests. It may thus be useful to utilize the experiences from the rights and protections granted to authors, performers and phonogram producers particularly by the WIPO Internet treaties or WCT and WPPT. In addition to the comparative aspects of the unauthorized exploitation of copyright and other related rights, a second methodology applied in this thesis consists of a contextual analysis. Accordingly, the protection of broadcasting organizations will not be analyzed without paying due attention to the protection of authors and other beneficiaries of the related rights as well as the wider public interest. In light of the recent conceptual, technical and legal developments and the effect and challenges that these developments have had on the broadcasting industry and in line with the current negotiations in the WIPO SCCR for a draft WIPO treaty on the protection of 2

Dottoranda in Diritto dei mercati europei e globali. Crisi, diritti, regolazione nell'Università degli Studi della Tuscia Abstract (EN): The paper, starting from a recent legal case involving AI companies accused of using copyrighted works through scraping techniques to train generative algorithms, addresses legal issues related to the protection of artistic style, traditionally excluded from copyright protection. A critical analysis of the subjective criterion of originality, based on the expression of the author's personality, is conducted. Conversely, a remedialist approach is proposed, shifting the focus from the subjective elements of the creative process to the objective effects generated by the work on the public.

This paper presents a modest proposal to adopt an “observer approach” to transformative use of copyrighted works. The case of adoption of an “observer approach” is made by identifying the merits of the said approach, juxtaposed with an anticipated argument against it. This paper seeks the proper approach by discussing the defects in the traditional approaches and the new approaches to transformative use adopted under the fair use doctrine in the United States of America and the fair dealing doctrine in Canada.

This is an Opinion Statement prepared by the CFE ECJ Task Force on the Decisions of the CJEU on the validity of certain aspects of DAC6 as regards the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the “DAC6 cases”), in which the Court of Justice of the EU delivered its decisions on 8 December 2022 (Grand Chamber) and 29 July 2024 (Second Chamber). The DAC6 cases concern the question whether some obligations to report certain cross-border arrangements violate rights recognized by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, therefore, affect the validity of provisions of DAC6. In both cases, the CJEU delivers preliminary rulings on questions raised by the Belgian Constitutional Court (Dutch-speaking and French-speaking sections) on the validity of certain provisions of tDAC6 with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. The Court concludes that the obligation established for lawyers to communicate to other intermediaries their exemption from the reporting obligation violates the right to respect for private life, while the same obligation established for other intermediaries does not. At the same time, it considers that the obligation to report certain cross-border tax planning schemes, established in DAC , in its fifth amendment by DAC6 does not violate the principles of equality and non-discrimination (raised because the scope of the obligation was not limited to corporate income tax; the principles of legal certainty and legality in criminal matters (key concepts are determined in a sufficiently clear and precise manner); or the right to a fair trial (there is no link between the reporting obligations with a judicial proceeding). This Opinion Statement focuses on questions of law and the scope of legal professional privilege as a waiver to the disclosure obligations established by DAC for fiscal intermediaries. This Opinion Statement seeks to explain and analyse the CJEU’s reasoning regarding the scope of the invalidity and the justification of the validity of certain aspects of DAC6.

One of the most important areas in the field of Intellectual property is copyright law. The rise of AI-generated content has prompted a heated debate over whether such works are eligible for copyright protection. This article explores the implications of allocating copyright to AI-generated works, as well as the place of content creators including issues of ownership and control, as a potential legal issue for creative industries. Ultimately, this article argues that as AI-generated content becomes more prevalent, policymakers must grapple with the question of how (and if) to allocate copyright to these works in a way that is fair and equitable to all stakeholders involved.

or visit the DOI to the publisher's website. • The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review. • The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User

This review explores the relationship between Ghibli-style visual characteristics, copyright regulations, and viral phenomena in the context of modern generative artificial intelligence (AI). This research examines the ethical, legal, and technological implications of the new wave of Studio Ghibli-inspired AI-generated visuals, focusing on their popularity. The research employed a narrative review method to synthesize findings from computer science, law, media studies, and art theory literature. Research shows that Ghibli-style content created by AI raises important copyright challenges while posing considerable ethical questions about ownership, creator identification, and the pressure on computational systems due to its widespread popularity. The paper examines theoretical explanations that link authorship with labor, as well as nostalgia dynamics that activate digital virality. The review proposes future research approaches and advocates for modern legal structures, moral guidelines, and collective leadership mechanisms to safeguard artistic quality in our age of automated creative production.

Driven by the UK's leading Creative Industries experts, the CoSTAR Foresight Lab is researching the adoption, use and impact of new, emergent and convergent technologies in gaming, TV, film, performance and digital entertainment. Our findings will inform research, development and innovation across the Creative Industries, including the R&D taking place through the convergent screen technologies and performance in real time (CoSTAR) programme, the UK R&D network for creative technology. CoSTAR is a £75.6 million national R&D network of laboratories that are developing new technology to maintain the UK's world-leading position in gaming, TV, film, performance, and digital entertainment. Delivered by the UKRI Arts and Humanities Research Council, the programme is supporting new innovations and experiences that will enrich the UK's creative industries, economy, and culture. The network comprises the National Lab, the Realtime Lab, the Live Lab, the Screen Lab and the Foresight Lab. CoSTAR is funded through UK Research and Innovation's Infrastructure Fund, which supports the facilities, equipment and resources that are essential for researchers, businesses, and innovators to do groundbreaking work. You can find out more by visiting www.costarnetwork.co.uk.

This was a consultation response drafted by Dr Ruth Flaherty and myself. It explores the options put forward by the IPO regarding updating copyright laws in light of generative-ai usage of text and content for mining and training purpose (of their LLMs).

The fast-evolving AI paradigm has put so much pressure on traditional IP structure about authorship, originality, and ownership. This paper offers a comprehensive examination of the relationships between AI-generated outputs and established IP laws, applauding the ineffectiveness of current doctrines in addressing autonomously produced works. Our analysis reveals significant gaps that IP regimes fall into when applied to AI outputs. The established standards of IP law are such that it all becomes quite inconvenient to accommodate works created with minimal human intervention-the U.S. Copyright Office's human authorship requirement and the EU originality requirements, for example. This paper will gain testimony from recent cases and legislative proposals across jurisdictions, such as the UK's approach to AI-arranged works and the EU's consideration of "neighboring rights" for AI developers. This research examines the economic implications of these legal ambiguities with respect to their effects on the lure of innovation and market dynamics. Our discussion centers on the interplay between protecting human creators' rights and allowing for the development of AI innovation, grounded on data from recent cases of alleged copyright infringement regarding the datasets that trained the AI. This research imbues the discussion with an open approach for adaptive systems that balance technological advancement with ethics in the scholarly discourse. We propose the stance that moderation, underscores the aspect of AI as collaborative tools whose core qualities must remain, is going to be the view we shall ultimately declare. Our discussions point clearly at how IP as it stands is on the brink of becoming anachronistic unless very substantial changes occur. Finally, suggestions for future legislation will also be suggested, which center on the need for international harmonization as AI works are distinctly of a global nature.

O presente artigo realiza um breve estudo sobre o regime jurídico do direito ao reconhecimento da autoria e a figura do ghost writer no direito brasileiro. Para tanto, faz uso das decisões judiciais proferidas no caso Bruna Surfistinha, as quais discutiram a autoria da obra literária "O Doce Veneno do Escorpião", que relata a vida da personagem Bruna Surfistinha. Trata-se de pesquisa que utiliza metodologia descritiva, baseada fundamentalmente na investigação bibliográfica, o que é feito para analisar a solução judicial dada ao caso objeto do estudo. Os temas mais relevantes da matéria são debatidos, como o direito ao reconhecimento da autoria, a obra protegida pelo direito de autor, bem como as convenções envolvendo a figura do ghost writer. Merece ainda destaque a apresentação de breves notas acerca do problema do ghost writer na Alemanha e na França. Assim sendo, o objetivo desse trabalho é discutir se a solução judicial dada ao caso Bruna Surfistinha foi a mais adequada, considerando o direito de autor, o direito ao reconhecimento da autoria e as convenções de ghost writer.

Resumo: O presente artigo tem como principal objetivo apresentar um estudo panorâmico da legislação autoral alemã. Trata-se de pesquisa que utiliza metodologia descritiva e dedutiva, baseada fundamentalmente em revisão bibliográfica e na investigação da legislação e da jurisprudência. Especial destaque foi dado à adoção da teoria monista, que sempre chamou a atenção dos juristas brasileiros, e que orientou a tomada de decisões do legislador alemão. Destaca-se que os alemães consideram o direito de autor como um direito unitário, não obstante reconhecerem a existência de dois componentes inseparáveis, isto é, os direitos patrimoniais e os direitos da personalidade do autor. O texto também investiga os conceitos de autor e de obra, o início e o fim da proteção dos direitos autorais, as formas de exploração da obra, bem como as violações de direitos autorais na Internet. Os resultados alcançados permitiram a compreensão da estrutura de proteção do autor na Alemanha. Por fim, o estudo panorâmico da matéria busca instigar o leitor a melhor compreender o papel socioeconômico do direito autoral e a procurar soluções no direito alemão para problemas existentes no Brasil. Palavras-chave: direito autoral na Alemanha; obras protegidas; direito moral de autor; direitos da personalidade; direitos conexos; direito alemão.

O presente artigo realiza um breve estudo sobre o regime juridico do direito ao reconhecimento da autoria e a figura do ghost writer no direito brasileiro. Para tanto, faz uso das decisoes judiciais proferidas no caso Bruna Surfistinha, as quais discutiram a autoria da obra literaria “O Doce Veneno do Escorpiao”, que relata a vida da personagem Bruna Surfistinha. Trata-se de pesquisa que utiliza metodologia descritiva, baseada fundamentalmente na investigacao bibliografica, o que e feito para analisar a solucao judicial dada ao caso objeto do estudo. Os temas mais relevantes da materia sao debatidos, como o direito ao reconhecimento da autoria, a obra protegida pelo direito de autor, bem como as convencoes envolvendo a figura do ghost writer . Merece ainda destaque a apresentacao de breves notas acerca do problema do ghost writer na Alemanha e na Franca. Assim sendo, o objetivo desse trabalho e discutir se a solucao judicial dada ao caso Bruna Surfistinha foi a mais adequada, consid...

This paper explores the intersection of copyright law and 3D printing, with a specific focus on the protectability of computer-aided design (CAD) files. Divided into three sections, it first examines the disruptive impact of 3D printing on copyright, particularly regarding the ease of reproducing and sharing protected designs. The second section analyzes the protectability of CAD files within the European Union and the United Kingdom, addressing the originality requirement and categorization under literary or artistic works. The final section outlines the challenges posed by 3D printing to the existing copyright framework and provides recommendations for legal and policy adaptations. Drawing from case law and legislative analysis, this study emphasizes the need for a nuanced approach to balancing technological innovation, user access, and the protection of creators' rights.

DEPAUL L. REV. 1171-72 (2003) (explaining that the concept of authorship may be too narrow). 3 The "works made for hire" doctrine dealt with the questions of who owns copyrights in a work that is created by an independent commissioned contractor, and, for purposes of the statute, what is an "employee." 4 These standards were: the right to supervise and control standard (Peregrine v.

There is nothing new under the sun. When creating something new we necessarily turn to existing artworks, we see the importance of reflective conversation in literature and, of course, also in scientific progress. There are quite sensitive boundary lines concerning inspiration, transformation and unauthorized use. From the time of creation of a work the author shall be entitled to the totality of copyright, i.e., to all moral and economic rights, therefore the author also has the exclusive right of copying, reproduction, adaptation and distribution. However, works that build upon existing copyrighted works have an important role in society. If we really want to promote intellectual creation, then it is necessary to encourage additional creativity and innovation too. The right of quotation helps to achieve this goal. Quoting not only “links past and present”, but is also indispensable in the creative process. It is a tool which simultaneously serves the interests of authors and users. In the digital age it seems to be even more important, since – as Daniel Davenport argues – nowadays content recipients have an increased capacity to creatively re-use digital content in the production of unique and innovative works. Quotation seems to be the least complicated copyright exception. However, it entails challenging questions in its daily application, especially in the field of visual art.

The Berne Convention (BC or Convention) celebrates its one hundred and thirty-sixth birthday this year, but for Hungary, 2022 marks a milestone anniversary, as the country joined the BC exactly a hundred years ago. Considerations taken into account at the time of becoming a party to the Convention, and the circumstances now, a century later, are in many ways different. An important question is whether the Convention still conforms to our sense of justice. For Hungary in the early 1900s, this dilemma was effectively a matter of weighing up the principle of formality-free protection. Originally required as a corrective rule in BC, automatic protection has grown into a fundamental principle since then. It was to be expected from the outset that the principle would not only have its benefits, but also its side effects. One hundred years of international copyright has taught us to insist on what BC has earned for right holders, but to strive for BC-compatible, efficient and modern solutions. How far we can go in doing so will be one of the most important questions of the near future.

Resumen: El sampling es una técnica recurrente en el sector del entretenimiento en torno a la que convergen diversos derechos de propiedad intelectual. En fechas recientes, el TJUE ha dictaminado que la comunicación al público de una grabación audiovisual que contiene la fijación de una obra audiovisual donde se incorporen fonogramas no genera derecho de remuneración. El problema se traslada, por lo tanto, al plano contractual. En este artículo se desbrozan las cuestiones principales de esta resolución. Abstract: Sampling is a recurring technique in the entertainment sector around which various intellectual property rights converge. Recently, the CJEU has ruled that the communication to the public of an audiovisual recording that contains the fixation of an audiovisual work where phonograms are incorporated does not generate the right to remuneration. The problem is transferred, therefore, to the contractual level. This article explores the main issues of this resolution.

A fundamentação do copyright e do direito de autor deve considerar a evolução histórica que levou à progressiva autonomização da obra em relação ao seu suporte físico. Essa diferença de níveis não é à partida evidente, como testemunha o facto de a autonomia da obra, enquanto bem intangível distinto do seu suporte material, ter necessitado vários séculos até ser compreendida. Durante muito tempo, a obra -aquilo que por vezes se designava pelo "discurso" -era pensada como indissociável da "coisa", do suporte material, que a veiculava. Assim, no século XVII, e em França, durante a famosa querela subsequente publicação do Cid de Corneille, a ideia dominante era que quando um manuscrito era cedido (na forma de uma venda, ou outra) todos os direitos que podiam estar associados a esse manuscrito eram igualmente cedidos (cf. EDELMAN, 2004, p. 142 e sq.). Em consequência, uma vez um manuscrito cedido a um editor, este adquiria o direito de o duplicar. Igualmente permissível era a alteração do manuscrito, facto contra o qual, não poucas vezes, os autores se insurgiam (caso de Molière, referido por EDELMAN, idem, p. 143). O discurso, a obra, estava completamente subordinado ao manuscrito físico do qual era pensado como inseparável. Dito de forma simples, não existia então qualquer direito de autor. Uma certa noção de direito de autor vai formar-se progressivamente ao longo do século XVIII. A primeira lei que efetivamente regula o copyright foi publicada em 1710, o Statute of Anne. Ela já mencionava "autores", bem como a necessidade em encorajar os "homens educados a compor e escrever livros úteis". 1 Contudo, as querelas que se seguiram respeitando a interpretação dessa lei mostram que os reais interesses dos autores estavam praticamente ausentes das discussões que se sucederam durante boa parte do século XVIII, e que o fundo da questão residiu nos interesses conflituantes entre os editores de Londres e os editores operando nas províncias da Grã-Bretanha. 2 1 Cf. o texto da lei em Primary Sources on Copyright: <http. php?id=record_uk_1710>. 2 ROSE, 1993, faz uma análise detalhada das controvérsias desencadeadas pelo Statute of Anne. Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

La audiencia global es el producto del negocio de las plataformas de streaming. Un modelo de éxito que alcanza el cénit con las retransmisiones de fútbol profesional, cuyos derechos se comercializan bajo un esquema centralizado. La exclusividad de la titularidad de estos formatos televisivos se ha convertido en un valor al alza y hoy día este contenido resulta estratégico para las grandes tecnológicas. Prueba de todo ello es el inminente acuerdo entre la FIFA y la plataforma de pago Apple TV+, un movimiento que avanza un cambio de paradigma en el panorama deportivo y, desde luego, un leading case en el negocio de la explotación de los derechos audiovisuales de retransmisiones de fútbol profesional.