They are just trying to go down a road that the Italians have already travelled: https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2022/10/uffizi-museum-sues-jean-paul-gaultier.html
"For our part, we have found no case establishing the historical availability of audio recordings of court proceedings when a party can attend a trial, receive a transcript, and request the right to record the proceedings themselves. We are not the only court to come back empty-handed in this regard."
I suggest the bench in this particular appeal should consider returning to law school and re-sitting the module on the common law. The absence of any relevant precedent concerning an issue is no bar to the court creating a precedent if it feels that is warranted by the facts in the case they are hearing. How do they think precedents come about, via some sort of justice fairy?
maximalism is the philosophy or end state espoused by maximalists; maximalis/zation is the process by which it is achieved. cf capitalist, capitalism and capitalisation. I suspect we live on different sides of the Atlantic hence we may differ in the use of our shared language.
Raziel is entirely correct.
No-one infringes copyright by visting a website and reading what's there; similarly someone who knows the foreign language which is in use on a site and translates the contents in his head, does not infringes copyright. Translation software used in the same context is exactly the same.
However pumping the contents of the latest French blockbuster novel through translation software and then publishing the English version without permission would infringe copyright, but the same would apply if a human translator did that, so no change in the law there.
Any one doing the the latter deserves whatever the law throws at them, and that isn't maximalisation, it's the current situation.
Taking a more real world example, any website which republished verbatim the whole front page of Le Monde would infringe copyright regardless of whether they translated it into English or left it in the original French.
Reverse Passing-off has been a thing for over 20 years, so it's no giant leap to reverse confusion.
The Internet Archive suggestion is entirely sensible and legal. The same would apply to other archives dedicated to preserving cultural heritage. Section 75 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 specifically permits this:
"75 Recording of broadcast for archival purposes
(1) A recording of a broadcast or a copy of such a recording may be made for the purpose of being placed in an archive maintained by a body which is not established or conducted for profit without infringing any copyright in the broadcast or in any work included in it.
(2) To the extent that a term of a contract purports to prevent or restrict the doing of any act which, by virtue of this section, would not infringe copyright, that term is unenforceable."
Incidentally, Section 70 of the same Act makes the home recording itself legal. However this section does not allow the recording to be exploited, even for free, by the home user.
We are going somewhat off topic here, but I still fail to see how your proposal that a work has to be first registered before it can gain international recognition is an improvement on what Berne (and the UCC, WIPO Copyright treaty etc) already achieves. Articles 3 and 5 of Berne specifically apply the kind of reciprocal protection, right to royalties etc that you advocate, without requiring pre-registration. Indeed a French (for example) author who finds one of their works is being infringed in the USA can file a claim in the US without first having to register their work with the US Copyright Office, unlike a US citizen who wants to bring a claim there. This is the result of the USA having to apply the no formalities requirement of Berne to non-US citizens.
As you know trademarks and patents continue to operate solely within individual national territorial limits in much the same way as copyright did pre-Berne, but despite the obvious commercial advantages of a worldwide treaty for mutual recognition of patents and trademarks, virtually nothing has been done to bring this about. It is doubtful if we were starting from scratch today whether the nations would be able to achieve for copyright what Berne currently does.
I know you guys were pretty dismissive of Berne, and even spoke about the nuclear option of the US leaving Berne, but Daniel is wrong to say at 37.29 that the Berne Convention allows formalities. Article 5(2) expressly rejects formalities. The reason the USA gets around this currently is because the registration requirement only applies if a person wishes to commence a legal action in the Federal courts. The underlying copyright exists ab initio.
But that whole discussion of Berne missed the point that if the USA was to leave Berne (and by extension TRIPS and the WIPO Copyright Treaty) works produced in the US would no longer attract reciprocal protection outside the US unless bilateral treaties were created. Given the amount of time the USTR spends ensuring that international treaties come up to the level of protection demanded by Hollywood etc, I can't see that working too well.
You guys need to stop seeing this particular issue from the American point of view of copyright as an economic bargain between the artist and the public interest. The majority of European countries (less the UK and Ireland) put the honour of the artist at the heart of their concept of author's rights, hence their emphasis on moral rights, which US law chooses to barely acknowedge. It's an apples and pears situation.
And in any case, despite the references in Glyn's piece to copyright, public domain etc, this is all about who can control access and nothing at all to do with either copyright or moral rights as legal or ethical concepts.
While I entirely agree that the copyright term today is too long, your reasoning here fails to take into account the fact that in continental Europe (ie excluding the UK and Ireland) the rationale behind copyright (or droit d'auteur) is based on the honour of the author or artist, not the economic bargin which underpins the US concept. That's why moral rights are big in Europe. For instance, in France they are perpetual, on the basis that no-one should infringe the honour of the author, even after death.
That is the mindset which motivates Edvard Eriksen estate, which afterall makes no financial gain from the statue in Copenhagen.
If you and Mike actually read the judgment, that is exactly the question the court had to answer: does Australian patent law prohibit AI being registered as an inventor. Answer: No.
In other words the legislators way back in 1990 (when the Aus Patents Act was passed) failed to look into the future and specifically prevent something they had not imagined. Pretty dumb huh?
The reason that the UK could not continue to operate the EU's institutional variant of orphan works licensing was because the EU Directive required all orphan works in this category to be registered with the EU Intellectual Property Office in Alicante. As this is an EU agency, naturally once the UK had left, this could no longer apply.
However I think it is highly llikely that, when the parliamentary time becomes available, the UK government will effectively re-introduce the same system for institutions, to be administered by the UK IPO, alongside the other orphan work licensing regime which is available to members of the public, and which continues to operate successfully. The article failed to make it clear that even under the EU system institutions still had to maintain an escrow fund in order to pay fees to a copyright owner who came along to claim their work. Incidentally, the fees which Glyn mentioned as being payable are comparable to the fees charged by the US Copyright Office in order to gain copyright registration.
While "all of 1201 is outdated and not useful" may seem sensible when trying to solve the right to repair issue, but even if Congress did end up repealing that section they would have to re-insert something that looked a lot like Section 1201 (a)(1)(A) in order to comply with Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty which the USA ratified in 1999.
That article says: "Article 11. Obligations concerning Technological Measures. Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law."
"However, as it now becomes clear, one reason he's avoided using copyright is because to register the work, he'd likely have to reveal his real name."
Not how it works in the UK, we don't have any official copyright registration system. Indeed the UK law (like the US Copyright Act 1976 - see 17 U.S. Code § 302(c)) expressly acknowledges that an artist or author may use a pseudonym. If Banksy wished to register his work for copyright in the USA he can do so through an agent (such as Pest Control Office Ltd) and doesn't need to supply his real name. (see the Copyright Office Compendium section 110.05)
Courtesy of Wikipedia:
"The test was cited by iPhone maker Apple's lawyers in the 2006 lawsuit Apple Corps v Apple Computer, between record label Apple Corps, started by the Beatles in 1968, and Apple Computer Inc. According to a 1991 agreement, Apple Inc. retained the right to use Apple on "goods or services...used to reproduce, run, play or otherwise deliver...creative works whose principal content is music", but not on content distributed on physical media. Apple Inc.'s lawyers argued that it was not a recording label simply because it distributed music, so it did not violate the agreement. They argued that "[e]ven a moron in a hurry could not be mistaken about" the difference between iTunes and the Apple record label. Furthermore, Apple Corps' logo was a green Granny Smith apple, whereas Apple's logo was a "cartoonish apple with a neat bite out of its side"."
"So, this probably doesn't matter, because if Wright actually wants to enforce the copyright, then he'd have to go to court and prove that he was the legitimate holder of the copyright (and the registration by itself won't cut it)".
That kind of overlooks 17 U.S. Code § 410(c) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/410 which says that prima facie, registration shall be taken as evidence of the facts stated in the registration, ie valid ownership, and leaves it the court to decide where the onus lies for either proving or disproving that assertion. I suspect a defendant would have an uphill battle trying to prove that Craig Wright wasn't the author, if that was the way the court exercised its discretion.
In answer to a couple of earlier comments, the copyright works at issue here were various logos and overlays which FAPL inserted into the video stream. These obviously existed before the transmission so they meet the fixation requirement. Scondly they were the works which the FAPL claimed were infringed by the streams from the pirate server not the footbal games themselves.