|
International
Development
Click on
a topic below (most recent first)
| |
|
WIPO Broadcasting Treaty
As part of its digital Agenda, WIPO has been trying to advance a
Treaty on the protection of broadcasters updating the framework
provided in the Rome Convention of 1961 and improving the level
of protection specifically against piracy of the broadcasting
signal.
WIPO published a non paper for
discussion in March before issuing a new text to be voted on at
the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related rights in June
2007.
Despite the Draft Broadcasting
Treaty being on the Agenda of the SCCR in March 08 its future is
more than uncertain.
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=89692 |
| |
|
WIPO Development Agenda
Back in Nov 04 discussions
started to gain momentum at WIPO as to how WIPO should take into
account the interests of developing countries when formulating
intellectual property policy and treaties. These discussions,
prompted by ‘Friends of Development’, a group of 14 states led
by Brazil and Argentina, have raised questions about whether
intellectual property laws are a help or a hindrance to
developing countries which on the one hand need copyright laws
to help grow their own creative industries and, on the other,
require access to medicines and educational materials.
The first meeting of the
Committee on development and intellectual property (cdip) will
take place in March 08.
http://www.wipo.int/portal/en/events/2008/article_0001.html |
| |
|
Bars and Grills exception, s.110
(5) US Copyright Act
This key copyright trade dispute
between the European Union and the US concerns section 110 (5)
of the US Copyright Act (the “bars and grills exception”).
This section, introduced in 1998 by the Fairness in Music
Licensing Act, exempts some 70 per cent of US bars and
restaurants
and more than 45 per cent of shops and boutiques, from having to
pay copyright royalties for public performance of music (on TV
and radio) in their premises.
Following
a complaint by the EU Commission, a WTO Panel ruled in 2000 that
US Copyright Law is not compliant with TRIPS and ordered the US
to amend its legislation and to compensate European right
holders for related economic losses until the Act is amended.
The US has still not amended its
legislation. For the last 3 years it has paid a derisory
compensation of US$ 1.2 million to European rights holders. The
amount was calculated by an independent arbitrator using an
approach which arguably dramatically under-valued the actual
lost income to European rights holders which the European
Commission estimated at $25 million. As of the end of 2004, the
compensation period has expired, and discussions are now
underway between the relevant parties on possible next steps.
Further information:
http://www.bmr.org/page/article-3 |
|
|
Private International Law
· The
Brussels Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement
of judgments in civil and commercial matters deals with the area which
was formerly an EU Convention which has been converted into a European
Regulation. Text:
http://europa.eu.int/servlet/portail/
· Article
16(4) of the Brussels Convention, with a similar provision in the
Regulation, provides exclusive jurisdiction for the courts of the state
of registration in cases dealing with validity. The ECJ has opted for a
broad interpretation of that exclusive jurisdiction in its judgment of
13th July 2006 in Case C-4/03 GAT v LUK. It rules that Article 16(4) of
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement
of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as last amended by the
Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of
Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, is to be
interpreted as meaning that the rule of exclusive jurisdiction laid down
therein concerns all proceedings relating to the registration or
validity of a patent, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way
of an action or a plea in objection. It is important to keep in mind
though that the clause does not apply to copyright, as there is no
registration requirement. In the past attempts have been made to extend
it to copyright, but in the light of the recent judgment the
desirability of such an extension must now be highly questionable. Text:
http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgibin/form.pl?
· On
30th June 2005 the Hague Conference on Private International
Law concluded the
Convention on Choice of Court
Agreements, which also applies to copyright (the validity clause does
specifically not exclude copyright, Article 2 para 2 (o)).
http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.text&cid=98
·
A
Rome II Regulation, currently discussed at the European Parliament (the
European Parliament has adopted its Rome II report on 6 July 2005) and
the European Council in a co-decision procedure, will regulate the law
applicable to non-contractual obligations incl. copyright infringement,
in cross border situations. Whilst Article 8 provides a special rule for
copyright, the actual wording deviates from the still applicable
international obligation in the Berne Convention (Article 5 (2)).
|
