Burden of diarrhoeal diseases among hospitalised patients in Thailand: a retrospective national database analysis (2014-2022).

Music and songs are copyrighted works protected by Law Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright. However, the rights of the copyright holder, as the owner of the economic rights to musical works, are often not fulfilled because coffee shop and restaurant business actors fail to meet their obligations by paying royalties to the copyright holder. Failure by coffee shop and restaurant business actors to pay royalties constitutes a violation of the economic rights held by copyright holders. The purpose of this study is to examine the legal protection afforded to creators for the use of their works, in the form of music or songs, for commercial purposes in public places such as coffee shops or restaurants. The research method used is a normative legal research method with a legislative approach, namely by examining copyright law instruments that provide legal protection for copyright holders, as well as copyright provisions related to royalties, particularly in the context of playing music in coffee shops and restaurants, and a conceptual approach, namely by examining views and doctrines consistent with the development of legal science. The data used in this study consist of primary data and secondary data. Primary data are obtained from legal sources, while secondary data are obtained from books, journals, and articles

As the applications of artificial intelligence continue to burgeon across every industry, it has created a crisis in copyright law. AI challenges the foundational assumption that authorship is distinctly a human title. While courts have historically adapted to new creative technologies, the recent rejection of copyright claims in Thaler v. Perlmutter and the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Naruto v. Slater revealed a critical gap in the legal doctrine. Current U.S. law is unclear on what circumstances human and artificial intelligence collaboration satisfy the constitutional and statutory requirement of human-centered and originality. This paper argues that courts can and should recognize intellectual property rights for artificial intelligence assisted works that exhibit a spark of human creativity, without redefining authorship. It does this by taking account of historical precedence of seminal cases like Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony and Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., and by comparing international approaches taken by China, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. The paper proposes a statutory Human Contribution test that requires three key elements, demonstrable creative direction, intellectual shaping of product, and an authorial intent to create said work. By clarifying the boundaries of authorship in AI-assisted work, this paper introduces a framework that resolves a pressing legal dilemma and ensures copyright law continues to incentivize human innovation, prevent market distortions, and fulfill its constitutional purpose to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" in the age of artificial intelligence.

The article discusses the issues of adaptation of intellectual property legislation to the challenges associated with the development of generative artificial intelligence. It is concluded that it is necessary to use of works for artificial intelligence training is allowed only on the basis of prior permission from the copyright holders. The use of collective copyright management mechanisms is proposed to obtain licenses for the use of works for the purpose of training neural networks and distributing remuneration in favor of authors.

The article briefly characterizes the trends in book design caused by the influence of the dynamics of the digital world: the involvement of artists with an established fan base on the Internet in creating illustrations, the use of generative neural network, and additional decoration of book products. The rules for marking publications on the cover are considered, depending on their content. Examples of court cases related to copyright infringement during the development of book cover design are given, conclusions are drawn about the characteristic mistakes of copyright holders and persons infringing on other people's intellectual property.

The digital economy is driving the global film industry to shift from sole reliance on box office revenue to a multi-channel monetization model integrating "box office + streaming subscription + copyright licensing + derivative product sales". In this context, the three major regions, the United States, China, and Europe, exhibit differentiated development characteristics. This article takes the film industries of the United States, China, and Europe as the research objects, adopting case study methods, cross-regional comparison methods, and literature research methods to explore the key influencing factors and cross-border mechanism differences of the multi-channel performance of the film industry in the digital economy era. Research findings show that high-quality content, digital variables driving, multi-channel synergy, traditional factors interacting with digital variables are the commonalities of cross-border multi-channel performance; the United States focuses on global IP operation and cross-channel linkage as the core, China relies on social media traffic to achieve rapid monetization; Europe relies on public funds to ensure the small-scale dissemination of art films. The differences arise from the fundamental differences in industry foundation, market environment, and policy orientation.

This study examines the duty of care for AI software developers, focusing on copyright infringement issues raised by the proliferation of generative AI. Specifically, this study attempts to interpret the specific provisions of copyright law that may be infringed by AI software developers amid the proliferation of generative AI technology, distinguishing between the learning stage and the output and distribution stages.Currently, there is considerable confusion among Korean developers regarding the duty of care they must bear when developing generative AI software. This study examines the potential for copyright infringement at each stage of generative AI software technology and examines the potential legal issues that may arise. Next, this study explores the relationship between generative AI technology and copyright. To assist Korean developers in pursuing a sophisticated legal approach, this study explains the differences between traditional copyright law and the copyright requirements for generative AI technology. Therefore, to address the current anxiety surrounding the still significant uncertainty surrounding the ex post facto, fact-based, and expost facto duty of care for generative AI software developers, it is necessary to consider enacting a universal legal principle that can be summarized as follows: 1) only use legally accessible data for training; 2) minimize the removal or modification of Rights Management Information (RMI) and ensure transparency; and 3) control substantial similarity and market substitutability at the output stage. This represents a balance that protects the legitimate interests of copyright holders without hindering the development of AI technology. Going forward, our legal system should also gradually establish explicit regulations on TDM, transparency standards, and an accountability structure centered on output control, rather than relying solely on fair use interpretations to address the uncertainty surrounding AI learning. Such institutional reforms will lay the foundation for transforming generative AI technology from a “dangerous gray area” to a predictable and reliable area of innovation.

The article examines the author’s approach to determining the legal nature of the transfer of rights to digital property. The author proposes the consolidation in the doctrine and practice of a new type of complex agree-ment – the agreement on the assignment of digital rights. The necessity of using cession in any transactions related to the transfer of rights to digital property is substantiated, and the theory of secondarity is put forward, which consists in the fact that relations on the alienation of digital objects are always secondary to the primary relations related to the realization of exclusive rights by copyright holders. In this regard, it is proposed to syn-thesize existing obligations for the transfer of certain types of digital property due to their different technical and legal nature. Particular attention is paid to the role of the information intermediary as one of the parties to the assignment of digital rights contract. Due to the secondary nature of the relationship, the information intermedi-ary, also the owner of the information system, facilitates the transfer of digital rights to objects classified as digi-tal property from the owner to the acquirer of the digital rights. Therefore, without this entity, the transaction cannot exist.

While there has been much discussion around the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for multilingual translations in other areas, recommendations pertaining specifically to the use of AI in the context of Clinical Outcome Assessment (COA) translation, linguistic validation, and electronic migration within clinical trials are lacking. Without published recommendations or guidelines, stakeholders involved in the COA translation process may be hesitant to explore or include AI. To address this gap, the AI Working Group of the ISOQOL TCA-SIG conducted a study to assess the landscape of AI in this specific context aimed at proposing recommendations for potential implementation of AI in COA translation, linguistic validation and electronic migration processes. The study consisted of three parts: (1) a literature review targeting studies using AI in COA translation; (2) a survey among relevant stakeholders assessing perceptions of AI use in COA translation; and (3) interviews with AI subject matter experts (SMEs). Survey responses were received from a total of 50 individuals from a wide variety of stakeholder groups, including COA copyright holders, representatives from pharmaceutical company COA/HEOR teams, respondents holding roles associated with the COA translation, eCOA, and AI industries, and authors of the 2005 ISPOR task force article on linguistic validation methodology. Survey data provided detailed feedback regarding the appropriateness of using AI during all reviewed process steps. Results of the literature review and AI expert interviews provided additional depth and nuance, allowing for the generation of detailed recommendations covering the use of AI within linguistic validation and eCOA migration processes. When assessing the potential use of AI tools within the linguistic validation process, it is important to consider not only the capabilities of the technology, but also the degree to which use of AI may or may not align with the spirit and intent of existing linguistic validation guidelines. The recommendations included in this manuscript are designed to balance considerations of technological capability and improved efficiency with concerns related to intellectual property protection, data privacy/security, and the goal of keeping patients at the center of outcomes research.

Song recycling is the activity of updating and re-singing a singer's previous song (old version). Recycling songs and/or music generally used Youtube as a publication medium. The purpose of this study is to determine the copyright protection of song and/or recycling through Youtube media as a medium that is often used to publish song recycling content. This research uses normative juridical research methods. The results showed that based on Law No. 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright, everyone who wants to recycle songs must obtain permission from the creator and/ or copyright holder because it includes exercising economic rights belonging to the creator and/or copyright holder. Law No. 19 of 2016 concerning Amendments to Law No. 11 of 2008 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions also regulated that the recycled version of the song is one form of electronic document, if it contains copyright infringement then electronic system operator has the right to cut off access.

Students and early career professionals (jointly referred to as early career researchers, or ECRs) in aquatic sciences often learn how to perform the many necessary tasks in the field by doing them. For some, completing these tasks may be facilitated by direct guidance from someone with relevant expertise. For others, “doing” entails not only the action itself, but also spending countless hours, energy, and potentially financial resources first trying to figure out how to do the task. We have all struggled with a professional task at one moment or another—sometimes even when expert guidance was available. The L&O Bulletin is a great vehicle for sharing knowledge with peers, especially first-timers, and has previously published pieces on incorporating science communication into graduate training (e.g., Hundey et al. 2016), explaining the process of peer review (e.g., Poulson-Ellestad et al. 2020), negotiating your salary (e.g., Cziesielski 2020), managing your time (e.g., Filstrup 2020), and other topics. Scientists highly value such publications because they make their lives easier. The L&O Bulletin is actively seeking to further develop these resources and is pleased to announce this call for submissions to the upcoming “How to” Virtual Issue. This collection of manuscripts will compile guidance on various topics within the aquatic sciences and serve as a resource to those who need to perform a given task for the first time in their career or to anyone looking to refresh their knowledge or reimagine a routine task. We invite submissions from professionals at all career stages who have expertise in a particular area related to a career in aquatic sciences, such as (but not limited to) how to: plan a field trip or sampling protocol, create a sample tracking system, set up and run your own lab, organize a workshop, write a successful grant proposal, be a good mentor or mentee, create an effective learning and development plan, search for and apply for jobs, produce a survey questionnaire, among many other topics (Fig. 1). To contribute to the L&O Bulletin Virtual Issue, please submit a 250–300 word summary of your manuscript idea (expression of interest) and indicate the manuscript type you intend to write (more information in the AuthorGuidelines) by 30 September 2026. Submissions should be sent to the Editor of the L&O Bulletin, Laura Falkenberg, who will evaluate these along with the Virtual Issue Curator, Rita Franco-Santos. When preparing your summary, please consider that all contributions to the Virtual Issue must fit within the scope of the L&O Bulletin and will be assessed with the same level of rigor as regular journal contributions. As a general approach, you may wish to begin with the broader context, use your experience (and that of your co-authors) as a case study, and conclude with lessons or insights that are more widely applicable. Questions about submissions should also be sent to the Editor. Full manuscript submissions are expected by 31 March 2027. Accepted papers will be published online in Early View with a permanent DOI and then bound into the “How to” Virtual Issue and added to the journal website. If you have any questions, or would like to check the fit of your submission to the Virtual Issue, please reach out to Rita Franco-Santos (email: [email protected]) and Laura Falkenberg (email: [email protected]). You can also approach us in person if you're attending any of the next ASLO meetings (2026 Ocean Sciences Meeting in Glasgow, 2026 ASLO-SIL Joint Meeting in Montréal, and 2027 Aquatic Sciences Meeting in Puerto Rico). A version of this announcement was originally published on the ASLO Blog: News and Announcements and is republished with permission from the copyright holder, the Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography. LJF declares she is Editor of L&O Bulletin. RMF-S is a Member-at-Large in the ASLO Board of Directors.

Digital copyright piracy remains a growing legal issue in Indonesia alongside the rapid development of information technology. This practice not only causes economic losses to creators and copyright holders but also reflects a gap between legal norms and social realities. This study aims to analyze legal protection for digital copyrights and to assess the effectiveness of Law Number 28 of 2014 on Copyright. This research employs a normative legal method using a library research approach by examining statutory regulations and relevant academic literature. The findings indicate that although Indonesia has established an adequate legal framework for copyright protection, its implementation remains ineffective due to low public legal awareness, weak law enforcement, and challenges in monitoring digital platforms. These findings emphasize that effective copyright protection requires not only comprehensive regulations but also synergy between the government, law enforcement authorities, and the development of a strong legal culture within society.

This article affirms that infringement of intellectual property (trademarks, copyrights, patents, etc.) is a constantly growing phenomenon being nowadays of an international scale and poses a threat to the economy. Digital technologies facilitate the instant and global distribution of counterfeit goods. The development of the digital environment provides with new opportunities and challenges for copyright holders and the general public, and is accompanied by a number of sociological, philosophical, and legal issues. The proliferation of digital technologies has profoundly changed the creative sphere, facilitating the spread of mass infringements, such as downloading or streaming the content protected by copyright or related rights. The article analyzes the adaptability of the provisions of Article 146 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to the exponential growth of illegal downloading and sharing of copyrighted material using digital technologies, as well as the feasibility of combating these practices through criminal prohibition.

This article analyzes global patent activity in artificial intelligence technologies and explores patent portfolio strategies for leading companies. This research is relevant given the rapid growth of AI developments, intensifying international competition, and the growing role of intellectual property as a tool for ensuring sustainable competitive advantage. This paper presents a comprehensive patent analysis based on Questel Orbit platform data for 2005-2025. A search strategy was developed using keywords and relevant classes of the International Patent Classification (IPC), and a dataset of patent families was collected and processed. The distribution of patents by technology area, country, and copyright holder was analyzed, and the qualitativecharacteristics of the portfolios were assessed.

A study has been conducted on the problems of judicial evidence in cases arising from relations for the issuance of compulsory licenses for inventions, regulated by paragraph 1 of Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Particular attention is paid to the application of the rules of arbitration procedural law on the distribution of the burden of proof in disputes on compulsory licensing. The means of proof in such cases are analyzed; the author comes to the conclusion that the predominant role is played by written evidence, expert opinions and specialists. Based on the results of the study of literature, legislation and judicial practice, it was established that paragraph 1 of Article 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation was first applied in the case of the Moscow Arbitration Court No. A40-185112/2022. It is noted that there is no single answer to the question of the distribution of evidentiary duties of the parties in disputes on compulsory licensing, since different instances interpreted the provisions of art. 1362 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and art. 65 of the APC of the Russian Federation in different ways. It is proposed to impose on the plaintiff claiming to use the invention the burden of proving the following circumstances: 1) insufficient use of the invention by the copyright holder; 2) the causal relationship between insufficient use and insufficient supply of goods on the market; 3) the relevance of the patent to the defendant's invention as a criterion for the plaintiff's willingness to use the inventions. It is concluded that it is necessary to develop mandatory clarifications at the level of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on this category of cases

The evolution of character merchandising from its initial role as an adjunct to exploiting the distinctive traits of real or fictional personalities has resulted in significant revenue generation. However, stakeholders in India's entertainment landscape have encountered legal disparities amidst this evolution. This article elucidates the legal intricacies of character merchandising, focusing on celebrity or personality merchandising. It examines the inherent conflicts among Indian laws governing character merchandising and analyzes recent judicial developments, and the need for a balanced dispute resolution framework between copyright holders and celebrities. Through this analysis, the article provides valuable insights into navigating legal challenges and fostering equitable solutions in character merchandising within India's evolving legal framework. It delves into recent judicial pronouncements about character merchandising within the Indian legal landscape and examines the existing legal framework. Moreover, the study endeavors to devise a framework for harmonizing the interests of copyright holders and celebrities within the realm of character merchandising.

Small Claims, Big Problems: A Critical Look at the Copyright “Small Claims Court”

Legal Protection of Works Generated with the use of a Generative Artificial Intelligence System

This article analyses the allocation of authors’ economic rights in public contracts under EU and Estonian law, with particular focus on the choice between assignment and licensing of copyright in public procurement. EU public procurement law does not harmonise the regulation of intellectual property rights, leaving contracting authorities wide discretion and resulting in divergent contractual practices. Drawing on doctrinal analysis and a case study of Estonian public contracts concluded between 2022 and 2024, including design contests and innovation partnerships, the article examines how economic rights are regulated in practice. The analysis shows a strong preference for assignment of economic rights, frequently combined with contractual clauses characteristic of licensing. This hybrid approach enables contracting authorities to secure extensive control while shifting legal and financial risks onto tenderers and authors, particularly in relation to remuneration, liability, and third-party infringement. The article argues that such practices are often inconsistent with the legal logic of copyright assignment. It concludes that licensing, especially exclusive licensing, can in many procurement contexts provide a more proportionate and legally coherent alternative, ensuring functional control, fair remuneration, and balanced risk allocation.

This Paper attempts to examine the relationship between Copyright Law and its role in shaping the cultural memory of India by focusing on how Piracy has today become an informal yet significant mechanism for preserving lost and inaccessible cultural works. As multiple forms of media like, films, TV programs, music and other digital media vanish or degrade due to neglect, format obsolescence, institutional failures, or restrictive rights regimes, Copyright frameworks often concentrate on ownership and commercial control over maintaining cultural access in the long term. In response to this, pirates ranging from informal collectors to online archives have assumed the role of de facto custodians of endangered media. Through the analysis of Indian Copyright Law, media history, and case studies of lost or unavailable works, this paper makes an argument for piracy in the Indian context cannot be viewed as solely as a crime. Instead, it functions within a complex ecosystem of weak archival infrastructure uneven digitization, and economic and linguistic diversity. This study will attempt to highlight the tension between legal frameworks designed to protect creators of copyrighted works and copyright holders and the need to preserve and circulate cultural heritage. Ultimately the paper seeks to bring in a reimagining of the copyright policy and archival practices in India and advocates for preservation-oriented exceptions and public-interest approaches that synchronises cultural continuity with legal protection.