Suchergebnisse

This study of author's reversion rights begins with the Statute of Anne and the debates that led up to the adoption of section 11, which vested in the author a second fourteen-year term, provided he or she was still alive at the end of the initial fourteen-year term. The study then will address the impact of the author's reversion right on publishing practice and authors' welfare in the United Kingdom through the eighteenth century to the demise of the reversion right in 1814. We will suggest that the apparent lack of use of the reversion right by authors in the eighteenth century was a result of a host of factors, including but not limited to the common (but by no means universal) contractual practice which purported to confer on a publisher the entirety of an author's rights. In addition, we call attention to the multiple and shifting interpretations of what was required by section 11, as well as the social and economic limitations on an author's capacity to take advantage of the reversion. The second half of this study turns to the law and publishing practices in the United States, where reversion rights have proved more enduring if not always more beneficial to authors. The study concludes that history and practice suggest at best inconsistent achievement of reversonary rights' aim to offset the author's weaker bargaining position by assuring her a future opportunity to make a better deal. Legislators might improve the reversion rights regime, but it is not clear that authors' lots will accordingly ameliorate. Substantive regulation of contracts of transfer, rather than rights to terminate those transfers, may offer the preferable path to ensuring meaningful and effective protection of authors' interests in reaping the fruits of their intellectual labors.

"Intellectual Property at the Edge addresses both newly formed intellectual property rights and those which have lurked on the fringes, unadmitted to the established IP canon. It provides a basis for studying and discussing the history of these emerging rights as well as their relationship to new technological opportunities and to the changing importance of innovation and creative production in the global economy. In addition to addressing the scope of new rights, it also focuses on new limitations to patent, copyright and trademark rights that spring from similar changes. All of these developments are examined comparatively: for each new development, scholars in two jurisdictions analyse the evolving legal norm. In several instances, the first of the paired authors writes from the perspective of the legal system in which the doctrine emerged, and the second addresses its reception in her jurisdiction"--

Hyperlinking, at once an essential means of navigating the Internet, but also a frequent means to enable infringement of copyright, challenges courts to articulate the legal norms that underpin domestic and international copyright law, in order to ensure effective enforcement of exclusive rights on the one hand, while preserving open communication on the Internet on the other. Several recent cases, primarily in the European Union, demonstrate the difficulties of enforcing the right of communication to the public (or, in U.S. copyright parlance, the right of public performance by transmission) against those who provide hyperlinks that effectively deliver infringing content to Internet users. This Article will first address the international norms that domestic laws of states members to the multilateral copyright agreements must implement. It next will explore how two of the most significant regional or national copyright regimes, the E.U. and the U.S., have coped with the question of linking, and then will consider the relationship of the emerging approaches to copyright infringement with national and regional laws instituting limited immunity for copyright infringements committed by internet service providers. We will conclude with an assessment of the extent to which the outcomes under U.S. and E.U. regimes, despite their apparently different approaches, in fact converge.

Hyperlinking, at once an essential means of navigating the Internet, but also a frequent means to enable infringement of copyright, challenges courts to articulate the legal norms that underpin domestic and international copyright law, in order to ensure effective enforcement of exclusive rights on the one hand, while preserving open communication on the Internet on the other. Several recent cases, primarily in the European Union, demonstrate the difficulties of enforcing the right of communication to the public (or, in U.S. copyright parlance, the right of public performance by transmission) against those who provide hyperlinks that effectively deliver infringing content to Internet users. This Article will first address the international norms that domestic laws of states members to the multilateral copyright agreements must implement. It next will explore how two of the most significant regional or national copyright regimes, the E.U. and the U.S., have coped with the question of linking, and then will consider the relationship of the emerging approaches to copyright infringement with national and regional laws instituting limited immunity for copyright infringements committed by internet service providers. We will conclude with an assessment of the extent to which the outcomes under U.S. and E.U. regimes, despite their apparently different approaches, in fact converge.

"The first topic ... concerned the role of technological protection measures in securing the digital communication of works of authorship ... The second topic ... compared the protections afforded by copyright and trademark laws, particularly with respect to characters and applied arts, and considered the extent to which trademark may be displacing copyright." p. vii

Please join us for a panel discussing the Aereo case and the public performance right of copyright law. Our distinguished panelists are as follows: Peter DiCola is an associate professor of law at Northwestern University. He received both his J.D. and his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan. His dissertation was about regulation of the radio and music industries. While in graduate school, he worked with the Future of Music Coalition as director of economic analysis from 2000–2004 and served as full-time research director from 2005–2006; he remains on the organization's board of directors. After law school, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable Thomas L. Ambro of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He is the co-author of Creative License: The Law and Culture of Digital Sampling with Kembrew McLeod (University of Iowa), published by Duke University Press in 2011. His recent work concerns the regulation of digital music services and the ways musicians earn revenue. Steve Effros has been deeply involved in telecommunications policy and practice for the past 40 years. Following stints at ABC and NBC Network News and The New York Times, Effros graduated with honors from NYU Law School ('70) and became part of the five-person FCC legal team which drafted the 1972 set of original comprehensive federal rules regulating cable television. He participated in the negotiation and drafting of portions of the comprehensive Copyright Act of 1976, the Cable Communications Acts of 1984 and 1992, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. He has been involved in the legislative and regulatory policy development of cable and broadband technology ever since. Steve spent five years at the FCC as an attorney-advisor and then became partner in the telecommunications Law Firm of Brown & Effros. In 1976 he became head of the Washington, DC based association representing independent cable television operators, The Cable Telecommunications Association (CATA). He was President of the association for ...