Protection Of Moral Rights Research Articles

The Visual Artists Rights Act in augmented and virtual realities

The expansion of augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) has brought to light the gaps in U.S. law regarding moral rights protections in the digital age. The U.S. offers limited protection of moral rights under the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA). Although protections are limited, AR and VR programs could violate artists’ moral rights under VARA by modifying existing art used in their programs and by not giving an artist’s work attribution. Another question that has emerged is whether VARA could protect digitally produced art. VARA is a limiting statute and narrowly defined visual art to exclude most digitally produced art. Therefore, in order for digital art to be protected under VARA, the U.S. needs to modernize the statute to fit into a digital world.

Defects in the Moral Rights Regimes of the Countries of the Middle East

Abstract This article focuses on the protection of moral rights in Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, and the UAE. While moral rights are recognised in the four jurisdictions subject to this study, the level of protection is unsatisfactory. This article analyses the many defects surrounding the subsistence and exercise of moral rights and makes a host of suggestions to enhance the level of protection granted under national laws.

ПОРЯДОК ПРИПИНЕННЯ ПОРУШЕНЬ АВТОРСЬКОГО ПРАВА З ВИКОРИСТАННЯМ МЕРЕЖІ ІНТЕРНЕТ: НОВАЦІЇ ПРАВОВОГО РЕГУЛЮВАННЯ

ПОРЯДОК ПРИПИНЕННЯ ПОРУШЕНЬ АВТОРСЬКОГО ПРАВА З ВИКОРИСТАННЯМ МЕРЕЖІ ІНТЕРНЕТ: НОВАЦІЇ ПРАВОВОГО РЕГУЛЮВАННЯ

Moral rights and their position in the digital world

The proliferation of technology and the internet has made moral rights more vulnerable than ever. Although the digital age plays a significant role in disseminating culture to a larger audience, the online environment also comes with a threat to the author’s personal interests. Their “spiritual children” are more easily under attack. However, under international law, moral rights have not been considered duly. The Berne Convention, the TRIPS Agreement, WIPO Internet Treaties, and even EU Harmonize Directives all shy away from the moral rights issue in the “Digital age”. In an era when technology is developing faster than the laws regulating it, the exigency for moral rights development in copyright law must be paid more attention. This paper examines how the internet influences the protection of moral rights and to what extent it has made them more susceptible.

Protection of the rights of performers in accordance with German law

Keywords: rights of the performer, moral rights, rights to use, communication tothe public, the right of the performer to demand payment of remuneration, the validityperiod of the rights to use
 The article examines the protection of performers' rights in Germany, introduced by the Act amending copyright regulations of 24 June 1985. The Copyright Act includes Part 2 «Neighboring Rights», section 3 of which deals with the protection of performers' rights, and the law itself is called the «German Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act». The German Law of 10 September 2003 on the regulation of copyright in the information society completely amends §§ 73−83 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, which governs the protection of performers' rights under the WPPT.The provisions of § 73 «Performer» are extended to the performance of works of folk art. Paragraphs 74−76 are devoted to the protection of moral rights, which were indicated fragmentarily by previous legislation. In the corrected form, moral rightstake precedence over rights of use, which confirms the special adherence of German law to them. Whereas under previous legislation so-called “consent rights” were granted to performers, the updated paragraphs grants the present rights of use:recording, reproduction and distribution, communication to the public, rights of use, the right of the performer to demand payment of remuneration, the sharing of several performances.In Germany, the rights of the organizer of performances are protected. If the performance of the performer is organized by a company, then the rights to use belong, in addition to the performer, also to the owner of the company. According to §83, the provisions of Section 6 «Copyright Restrictions» of Part I «Copyright» of the Copyright and Related Rights Act apply respectively to the restriction of the rights of the performer and the organizer of the performance.The protection of performers in Germany is in accordance with the provisions of the Rome Convention, the WPPT, the relevant EU directives. With further improvement of the protection of the rights of performers in Ukraine, it would be useful to use the experience of Germany regarding the protection of the rights of the organizer of a performance and determining the term for the protection of rights to performances recorded on a phonogram.

PENGGUNAAN LAGU DAN MUSIK SEBAGAI SUARA LATAR (BACKSOUND) YOUTUBE TANPA IZIN DALAM PERSPEKTIF PERLINDUNGAN HAK CIPTA

Social media has implications in terms of democratization of information, because whoever owns an account can be a prosumer (producer and consumer) in creating messages such as throughYouTube. In its implementation, there are many violations committed by YouTubers in creating content such as the use of songs and music as YouTube background sounds without permission by the creator or copyright holder. Songs and music are protected works as regulated in Article 40 letter d of Law Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright. The government protects copyright internationally through international conventions, including: TRIPs Agreement, Bern Convention, Universal Copy Rights Convention, Rome Concention and also bilateral agreements between countries and nationally through Law No. 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright, in it regulates the protection of moral rights as regulated in Article 5 and economic rights as regulated in Article 8 as exclusive rights. The government's efforts to provide legal protection for Copyright by implementing the provisions of Article 54 of Law Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright and implementing regulations regarding royalties, namely Government Regulation Number 56 of 2021 concerning Management of Royalties for Song and Music Copyrights.Keywords :Copyright Protection, Songs, Music.

Tinjauan Konsep Hak Eksklusif dalam Hak Cipta Berdasarkan Teori Hegel

Copyright is a protection in a form of an exclusive right which is attached with the creator, including moral rights which are possessed by the creator for the embodiment for their personality in the creation. The referred moral rights are recognized in the international treaties, specifically in Berne Convention and TRIPS Agreement, which put forward the moral rights as a copyright protection. The protection of moral rights evolved from the Continental Europe countries, which recognizes author’s rights. The principle of moral rights could be analyzed with Hegel’s theory from the writing in his book entitled “Philosophy of Rights”, postulating the principle of how a person could claim his right of property possessions. In accordance with Hegel’s theory, this research will be focused on the scope of copyright as an exclusive right, which will also analyze the copyright law of Indonesia regulated in Law Number 28/2014. The copyright protection regarding moral rights in Law Number 28/2014 principally regulates the right given to the creator to signify their identities in their creation or to claim for their creation which adheres with their personalities. Moral rights are also given to performers in the form of related rights, as a right for the performers to claim the performance of the creation.

Legal Perspective of Law No. 28 of 2014: About The Moral Aspects on Digital Works

The current utilization of digital content platforms has a serious impact on Intellectual Property Rights. Platforms that display digital copyright works are indeed much in demand by netizens today because it is practical and efficient but not only the perceived benefits of digital content platforms but there is a moral responsibility that must be known by all parties both content lovers and content creators. In today's digital era, copyrighted works in the form of digital content are widely misused by various parties, the occurrence of violations of their main rights moral rights is less realized by various parties. It is the duty of all parties to create the protection of moral rights because rights are elements that must be protected in a digital copyright work. This research aims to find out the regulation of aspects of moral rights in Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright. This research uses normative juridical research methods using the legal sources of literature. The protection of moral rights is an important issue in the protection of intellectual property. National regulations are expected to protect the moral rights of copyright creators/owners, especially digital copyright works.

Pelaksanaan Perlindungan Hukum bagi Pemilik Hak Cipta Musik dan Lagu dalam Pembayaran Royalti oleh Yayasan Karya Cipta Indonesia

Copyright gives an exclusive title to the work of the author which is granted by law as an award. The copyright function protects creators from copyright infringement. This study aims to explain the form of legal protection for music and song copyright owners in royalty payments by the Indonesian copyright works foundation and to describe what factors influence royalty payments and dispute resolution efforts faced by music and song copyright holders in royalty payments by the Karya Foundation. Indonesian copyright. This type of research is an empirical legal research with a conceptual approach to legal issues of fact and sociology. The data sources used were primary and secondary legal materials. The results of the study indicated that copyright is regulated in Law Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright. The form of copyright law protection, namely legal protection of moral rights and legal protection of economic rights. Creators and the KCI Foundation have rights and obligations, in the process of paying royalties experiencing several obstacles and supporters experienced by the KCI Foundation creators and copyright users. Dispute settlement efforts through alternative arbitration and court dispute resolution.

Origins, Evolution and Comparison of Moral Rights between Civil and Common Law Systems

The protection of moral rights embraces the now widespread personal sphere of copyright and originated much later than the economic exploitation of the work itself. Some of its components can be found in the English and German thought between the 17th and 18th centuries and, starting from the early 19th century, would have a substantial development through the contribution of both the French legal scholarship and case law. The legal foundations, in any case, date back to some codifications of the German area and to the earliest international treaties, making it a discipline that did not take into consideration the extent of the national territory. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relevance of the European models and their influence in Italy after the national Unification, in particular in the first decades of the 1900s. In fact, the international protection of moral rights takes root in Italy during the 1928 Rome Conference for the revision of the 1886 Berne Convention. The United States joined it only later, in 1989, with the Berne Convention Implementation Act (BCIA). Thirty years later, the Copyright Office published in April 2019 an extensive study about the American protection of moral rights. The document is studied in this paper in comparison with the European Directives and with the Copyright Directive definitively approved a few days before the Copyright Office document. While in the USA the interest in moral rights up to now rather limited seems to be increasing, in Europe the protection of moral rights risks being waned as it is handed down to individual countries with the explicit declaration that it is not the subject matter of the Directives. Moral rights, origins, codification, Europe, Italy, Berne Convention, international treaties, USA, EU Directives, Canada

Artificial intelligence and moral rights

Whether copyrights should exist in content generated by an artificial intelligence is a frequently discussed issue in the legal literature. Most of the discussion focuses on economic rights, whereas the relationship of artificial intelligence and moral rights remains relatively obscure. However, as moral rights traditionally aim at protecting the author’s “personal sphere”, the question whether the law should recognize such protection in the content produced by machines is pressing; this is especially true considering that artificial intelligence is continuously further developed and increasingly hard to comprehend for human beings. This paper first provides the background on the protection of moral rights under existing international, U.S. and European copyright laws. On this basis, the paper then proceeds to highlight special issues in connection with moral rights and content produced by artificial intelligence, in particular whether an artificial intelligence itself, the creator or users of an artificial intelligence should be considered as owners of moral rights. Finally, the present research discusses possible future solutions, in particular alternative forms of attribution rights or the introduction of related rights.

Shaping Intellectual Property Rights Through Human Rights Adjudication: The Example of the European Court of Human Rights

In Europe, important developments such as the entering into force of the Treaty of Lisbon—which placed the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union at the very top of the hierarchy of norms—and the direct applicability by national courts of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in private law disputes have been highly influential for the rise in human rights reasoning by courts deciding intellectual property (IP) issues. The envisaged E.U. accession to the ECHR is likely to increase this process further. This article reflects on these developments by studying the role of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or Strasbourg Court) in shaping European intellectual property standards. It presents an updated and modified version of the chapter entitled “Intellectual Property Before the European Court of Human Rights,” published by the authors in 2018, and provides the first comprehensive overview of ECtHR case law on IP from the court’s inception in January 1959 until today, March 2020. The article results from an analysis of more than ninety such cases, many of which have never been discussed before in the literature. Certain issues that are currently pending before the Strasbourg Court are also given exposure. The article spans subjects from the protection of the rights of IP holders under the property provision of the ECHR to the possibility of restricting such protection on the basis of the right to freedom of expression and information often invoked by the users of IP-protected content. It also analyzes the situations in which freedom of expression was invoked by the (actual or potential) IP holders themselves in order, for instance, to insure that their trademark applications are registered. The potential of the right to privacy to serve both as a defense against certain IP enforcement measures—such as search orders—and as a basis for the protection of moral rights of creators is likewise discussed. The article further reviews the most prominent IP disputes which raised questions under the right to non-discrimination and the right to a fair trial. This comprehensive overview of the case law of the ECtHR shows the emergence of a human rights framework for the intellectual property system in Europe, which—in combination with the increasing use of fundamental rights by national courts to solve private party disputes—is gaining coherence and relevance in framing the conception and use of IP law.

Evaluation of moral rights protection in Egypt

... Although Egypt belongs to the droit d’auteur tradition and moral rights were specifically recognised in its first Author’s Rights Law of 19541 (‘the 1954 Law’), there is a dearth of scholarly works and case law on the protection of moral rights.2 Neither the nature nor the function of moral rights was meaningfully discussed in the travaux préparatoires of the 1954 Law. This seems to have misguided Professor Sanhuri, who was one of the drafters of that law, to conclude that the legislature intentionally refrained from choosing between the monism and dualism theories of moral rights protection.3 It should be noted that the provisions of the 1954 Law and its successor, the IP Code of 2002,4 support the view that moral rights are a subset of personality rights.5 To that end, they are purposely characterized as inalienable and imprescriptible.6 In case of a conflict between moral rights and economic rights, the former prevail. Furthermore, a teleological interpretation of the moral rights provisions may render Professor Sanhuri’s view inaccurate. By granting moral rights perpetual protection, the legislature has undoubtedly followed the dualism theory of French law and rejected the monism theory of German law.7

The Inadequacy of UK Moral Rights Protection: A Comparative Study on the Waivability of Rights and Recontextualisation of Works in Copyright and Droit D’auteurs Systems

The paper examines two aspects of UK moral rights protection, namely the waiver of rights provided for under section 87(2) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (‘CDPA’) and the protection of copyright works from recontextualisation, in a comparative study. The jurisdictions compared are the UK, Canada, and the Nordic Countries. The paper argues that UK protection of authors’ moral rights are insufficient, chiefly due to the operation of section 87(2) CDPA and the lack of protection against recontextualisation (‘the spirit of the Convention’). The purpose of comparison is to furnish alternative solutions existing under the same international framework as the CDPA. In concluding, the paper finds that comparing the copyright law system of the UK to the Canadian hybrid system and the Nordic droit d’auteurs systems reveals a scale from least to most substantial protection of moral rights, with a greater emphasis on protection of the spirit of the work in droit d’auteurs jurisdictions, as illustrated by Swedish case law.

Intellectual Property before the European Court of Human Rights

In the past years, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR, or Strasbourg Court), Europe’s principal human rights watchdog, has played an ever larger role in the resolution of intellectual property (IP) disputes. The ECtHR’s engagement in IP adjudication has already influenced national judges, who increasingly have recourse to human rights to solve cases between private parties, thus calling for closer scrutiny of the Court’s practice on this matter. The present chapter provides the first comprehensive overview of the ECtHR case law on IP for the period since the Court’s inception (in January 1959) until today (February 2018). It results from an analysis of more than 90 such cases, many of which have never been discussed before in the literature. Certain issues that are currently pending before the Strasbourg Court are also given exposure. The chapter spans subjects from the protection of the rights of IP holders under the property provision of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention) to the possibility of restricting such protection on the basis of the right to freedom of expression and information (Article 10 ECHR) often invoked by the users of IP-protected content. We also discuss the potential of the right to privacy (Article 8 ECHR) to serve both as a defence against certain IP enforcement measures (such as search orders) and as a basis for the protection of moral rights of creators. The most prominent IP disputes which raised questions under the right to non-discrimination (Article 14 ECHR) and the right to a fair trial (Article 6 ECHR) are also discussed in detail. This comprehensive overview of the case law of the ECtHR shows the emergence in Europe of a human rights framework for the intellectual property system, which – in combination with the increasing use of fundamental rights by national courts to solve private-party disputes – is gaining in coherence and relevance when framing the conception and use of IP law.

Правовые пределы свободы творчества

The author based on the fundamental ideas freedom of opinion and expression, prohibition of censorship, etc. analyses the natural and legal content of the principle of artistic freedom in copyright law and the limits of this freedom. The author builds a position to address specific theoretical and applied problems, compares the mechanisms of protection of moral rights in terms of public and civil law.

Colombia A Place Where You Could Be Sentenced to Two Years in Jail for Plagiarism: A Crime That Does Not Exist!

Colombian copyright law does not expressly incorporate plagiarism as a crime. Nonetheless, Colombian courts have proclaimed plagiarism to be an act worthy of incarceration. Colombian copyright law protects moral rights of the author as human rights. In this regard, moral rights enjoy special protection that economic rights, for instance, do not have. Somewhat counter-intuitively, protecting moral rights as human rights, without set boundaries, may unbalance the copyright system and even violate other human rights, which is the case in Colombia. First, this Article describes the special protection of moral rights as a guaranteed human right under Colombian law. Second, it explains the Sentencia de Casacion No. 31403 from 2010, a case law sentencing a professor to jail term for plagiarism. Finally, this Article analyses the said case law and concludes that the protection of moral rights as human rights in the terms established by the Colombian Supreme Court may unbalance the copyright system and violate other human rights.

Moral Rights 2.0

When the protection of moral rights is brought up in the United States, commentators have always emphasized the differences between continental Europe and the United States.2 Cases that have been widely used as textbook illustrations include Soc. Le Chant de Monde v. Soc. Fox Europe3 and Turner Entertainment Co. v. Huston.4 While the Anglo-American copyright regime and the French author’s right (droit d’auteur) regime were quite similar in the eighteenth century, 5 the protection of moral rights did not attain formal international recognition until 1928.6 The gap between the U.S. and French systems has also grown considerably since the enactment of the 1909 U.S. Copyright Act.

American Moral Rights and the Dastar Decision

When the United States acceded to the Berne Convention in 1988, Congress concluded that a compendium of causes of action under American law, including Lanham Act claims, provided the moral rights protections mandated by Berne Article 6bis. This claim of patchwork protection of moral rights has always been widely criticized, but became more dubious in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Dastar v. Twentieth Century Fox. In Dastar, the Court held that vis-a-vis works in the public domain there is no Lanham section 43(a) obligation to credit the original creator or copyright owner as the origin of the work. The Dastar ruling was unquestionably important for a robust public domain, but makes it more difficult for the United States to claim that it provides Article 6bis protection. This paper concludes that Dastar reached the right result in a poorly reasoned way, but that Justice Scalia's opinion, properly read, is much narrow than many believe. The paper concludes that American scholars who have been critical of the patchwork protection argument have often been unfamiliar with Berne implementation in other countries and have not judged the U.S.'s Berne compliance by public international law standards.