Educational Copying – the “Very Antithesis of Fair Dealing” or Within Copyright’s “Breathing Space”? Part 1: Statutory Provisions

The research analyses the reception of good faith in both civil law and common law countries. The discussion includes the background, development and reception of the concept of good faith in various jurisdictions. Germany, France and Italy represent the civil law legal system in which the concept of good faith had been codified into the civil law codes. However, the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand represent the common law legal system, whereby good faith is recognised in a particular contract. US, on the other hand, is the only common law country which recognises good faith in the statutory provision despite inheriting the common law legal system. On the contrary, the People’s Republic of China is influenced by both the civil law and socialist law, which has been of interest due to China’s economic expansion. Apart from its recognition at the national level, good faith is also recognised at the international level, where many international trade instruments refer to good faith.

One of the most important issues for world libraries at the present time is to extend copyright limitations and exceptions for reproduction, for library preservation and distribution services including lending and ILL/DDS, the printout and transmission of Internet information resources, copying of library materials which are rarely available through normal trade channel and government publications, and the reproduction and electronic transmission of materials for persons with disabilities. Korean copyright law restricts access to information for persons with disabilities and often overrides their fair use rights. For these reasons, this study analysed the copyright exceptions for persons with disabilities in six major countries (United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Japan, and Republic of Korea) and suggested a re-draft of the Copyright Law of Korea to improve library services for persons with disabilities.

The Evolution of Financial Markets: 1870-2010 - Legal Origin and the Great Reversal

The paper analyzes similarities and differences between fair use and fair dealing doctrines in copyright law that allow for limited use of copyright-protected material without the need of permission from the rightholder. Both concepts have long been part of legislation but have recently gained special interest due to the wide spread of digital technologies and the ease of copying materials, both text ones and any other digitized materials. What kind of use may be deemed fair and what may not, has become the question of everyday interest. Copyright exceptions implemented in the form of fair use or fair dealing concepts are of special importance to libraries. However, their application is far from trivial and the situation is further complicated by insufficiently understood difference between the two concepts. The paper reviews general approach implemented in both described doctrines, terminology issues, similarities and dissimilarities of the doctrines, their territorial coverage, and historic origins of doctrine differences. The doctrine having originated in the United Kingdom and developed in the United States has become an example, a pattern that is followed in legislation of many countries worldwide. Fair use/fair dealing concepts have found their reflection in Russian copyright law in the form of “free use” of a work without author’s permission and without copyright fee payment. The paper further deals with the significance of fair use doctrine for library collections digitization and other applications of technology innovation. A prediction is made for growing importance of fair use and fair dealing copyright exceptions in the nearest future.

The paper shows how the publication of court decisions influenced the formation of a precedent. The author reviewed scientific works devoted to research the precedent in common and continental law. The research explains that the formation of precedent in England was accompanied by development of the judgment’s reviews and their prevalence among lawyers. Of course, publication of court decisions was not a major factor in setting a precedent, but it played a significant role in this. The paper also describes facts of the publication of court decisions in Italy, Germany, France and the Netherlands, as well as the admissibility of their citations at the court of cassation. The general idea of the paper is that convincing precedent exists and is used although the countries of continental law do not have a «classic» precedent. The paper gives a review of the importance of the state register of court decisions for setting a convincing precedent in Ukraine. The author analyzes the pros and cons of citing court decisions. It’s stated that, unfortunately, the quotations of court decisions is not always correct and sometimes amounts to rewriting the «right» legal position without comparing the circumstances of the case. The article concludes that the practice of applying a convincing precedent in Ukraine is only emerging and needs further improvement. It has been found out that the publication of judgments of supreme courts is one of the factors that helped to establish precedent in common law countries. The publication of court rulings also created the conditions for a convincing precedent in civil law countries (especially in private law). At the same time, the formation of a “convincing precedent» in countries where court decisions are published in publicly available electronic court registers is much faster than in common law countries. Of course, the structure and the significance of the precedent in the common law and civil law countries are different, but one cannot dismiss that publication of court decisions as one of the factors for establishing the precedent.

The article examines the ways in which three common law countries—the United Kingdom, the United States, and Israel—have introduced new rules for the revocation of citizenship that diverge from the traditional common law model. The main thrust of the article is to demonstrate how these new regulations are based on three distinct models of citizenship: citizenship as security, citizenship as a social contract, and citizenship as an ethnonational bond. Instead of critically evaluating each model, the article offers a fourth model for revocation based on the civic notion of citizenship. This model offers a new formulation of the traditional common law duty of allegiance, of its breach, and of the revocation of citizenship as punishment. The article will conclude with the suggestion that this model may be able simultaneously to guarantee the protection of political rights and to safeguard the political community.

The aim of this study is to investigate whether the impact of the SEC's Form 20-F reconciliation requirements on non-US firms' choices of foreign stock exchanges was different for firms from common law and code law countries, that is, for firms with different accounting, legal and financial systems. We examined attributes of 253 cross-listed firms from the UK, Australia, France, Germany and Japan in the 1999 financial year. We found the ability to raise further capital in the home market was relevant for firms from both groups. In addition, firms from code law countries listing on the NYSE or NASDAQ were more likely to have greater foreign revenue and lower leverage. We expected differences in accounting requirements to be a greater barrier to listing on the NYSE or NASDAQ for code law firms. However, we found firms from code law countries were more likely to select a Form 20-F exchange than firms from common law countries, providing support for suggestions that a NYSE/NASDAQ cross-listing has a bonding role for code law firms.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Firm Financial Risk Reduction: On the Moderating Role of the Legal Environment

1956년에 영국의회가 도서관(이용자 또는 서비스)을 위한 저작자의 권리를 제한하는 방향으로 저작권법을 개정한 이래로 최근 몇 십년간 도서관과 관련된 권리제한은 각국의 저작권법에서 중요한 부분으로 인식되어 왔다. 그 이유는 도서관을 위한 저작권의 제한이 지적 문화유산을 보존하고, 지식정보에 대한 공정한 접근을 촉진하며, 학습 및 연구를 지원하는데 중요한 법적 수단이기 때문이다. 이에 본 연구는 주요 6개국(미국, 영국, 독일, 프랑스, 일본, 한국)을 대상으로 현행 저작권법의 구조 및 도서관관련 권리제한을 비교․분석하였다.

Study on Copyright Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives

One of the most noteworthy developments in transnational copyright law over the past twenty years has been the adoption of statutory moral rights regimes in a number of countries that had previously ardently rejected the civil law concept of moral rights as completely alien to their legal tradition, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand. The standard scholarly reaction to these developments is to ask what they mean for the two classic questions of comparative moral rights law, namely whether the common law countries fulall the requirements for moral rights protection under international law and whether the common law countries provide a degree of protection comparable to that available in civil law countries.1 In this context, the enactment of statutory moral rights appears to be simply another factor to be considered when measuring the substantive level of moral rights protection in the United States, just as the Supreme Court’s recent Dastar decision,2 the copyright management information provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998,3 or the Family Movie Act of 20054 are factors

Busy, practicing anesthesiologists are often looking for a method to familiarize themselves with new medical knowledge, techniques, and equipment but are challenged to do so in an evidence-based fashion. This first volume of The Year in Anaesthesia and Critical Care aims to do just that. It is geared toward providing the practicing clinician with a balanced view of the recent literature with commentaries from a stellar, international group of editors.

The article is devoted to the research of the balance between private and public interests through the concept of exceptions and limitations on economic rights of author. The concept of free use of works applied in the legislation of Ukraine is analyzed, as well as exceptions and limitations on copyrights inherent in the copyright of the European Union. It is concluded that the concept of «free use» in the context of copyright is not used in the legislation of most countries of the world, and is inherent in the Ukrainian Law of Ukraine «On Copyright and Related Rights». Copyright limitations and exceptions in the specific cases are envisaged in the laws of different countries of the world by the following two main systems: a system of general abstract principles implemented in common law countries ('fair use' in the US and 'fair dealing' in the UK, Canada). The first approach is characterized by the fact that a generally exhaustive list of ways of free use of works is provided for in a legislative act and does not allow for the consideration of additional general principles. The second, implies that the court applies the general principles (first and foremost the principle of fair use) and pre-established criteria to determine the lawfulness of a use. The three-step test of the Berne Convention and its relevance to the copyright of Ukraine and the EU are being analyzed. The three-step test, as one of the means of ensuring a balance of private and public interest in copyright, can be used both in law-making and in court-specific dispute resolution. The different approaches to copyright exceptions proposed in the draft Wittem Group's copyright code are explored compared to those existing in the European Union Directive on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. It is noted that the draft Wittem Group's Copyright Code differs from that adopted in the EU and Ukraine in that it provides for an open list of cases of use of copyright objects, thereby altering the existing balance of interests towards the public. Copyright restrictions in the said Directive apply to specific proprietary rights under certain conditions, which may include the purpose, subjects and specific scope, which provides for a list of exceptions and restrictions that are considered to be closed and not subject to extended interpretation in their content.

This concluding chapter identifies the four major causes of the growth and origin of judicial review in the G-20 common law countries and in Israel. First, the need for a federalism umpire, and occasionally a separation of powers umpire, played a major role in the development of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation in the United States, in Canada, in Australia, in India, and most recently in the United Kingdom. Second, there is a rights from wrongs phenomenon at work in the growth of judicial review in the United States, after the Civil War; in Canada, with the 1982 adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; in India, after the Indira Gandhi State of Emergency led to a massive trampling on human rights; in Israel, after the Holocaust; in South Africa, after racist apartheid misrule; and in the United Kingdom, after that country accumulated an embarrassing record before the European Court of Human Rights prior to 1998. This proves that judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation often occurs in response to a deprivation of human rights. Third, the seven common law countries all borrowed a lot from one another, and from civil law countries, in writing their constitutions. Fourth, and finally, the common law countries all create multiple democratic institutions or political parties, which renders any political attempt to strike back at the Supreme Court impossible to maintain.

The fair use doctrine is one of the most important and enigmatic doctrines in the copyright law of the United States. IP scholars and experts have suggested introducing flexible open-ended copyright exception such as fair use instead of the restrictive exceptions adopted in many countries to accommodate copyright laws to keep pace with digital and technological developments and suit social and cultural needs. This chapter studies the merits and demerits of this proposal from the perspective of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) that follows the continental European system of author’s rights. It reviews copyright exceptions in the UAE Federal Copyright Law No. 7 of 2002, as amended (UAE Copyright Law), and compares it with copyright laws in other countries including the United States (US), United Kingdom (UK) and France. It examines the various options available to the UAE legislator to reform its copyright regime and suggests the adoption of a liberal system of exceptions to suit the needs of the UAE and its citizens in the twenty-first century.