Tag Archive for 'legi internet'

Sfarsitul reclamelor comparative ?

Published
by
zmo
on June 22, 2008
in Random
. 0 Comments

Sunt sigur ca va amintiti reclamele la detergenti in care se compara doua produse, unul dintre ambalaje fiind marcat cu X si mesajul: detergentul nostru este mai bun decat detergentul X … Ei bine, firma de telefonie mobila O2 Holdings Limited & O2 (UK) Limited a intentat un proces la Curtea Europeana de Justitie celor de la Hutchison 3G UK Limited din cauza unei reclame de acest tip. H3G folosea intr-un spot publicitar o comparatie intre preturile lor si ale altor companii, insa concurenta era reprezentata prin niste bule care semanau cu logo-ul O2.

Out-law.com prezinta povestea in articolul Trade mark holders cannot stop honest comparative advertising, rules ECJ (OUT-LAW News, 12/06/2008):

Mobile phone firm O2 looks likely to fail to stop competing mobile firm 3 from using its name and trade-marked bubble motifs in its adverts. The competing company had used graphics similar to O2’s in ads comparing the two companies’ prices.

O2 had lost its original case and appealed, and the Court of Appeal had asked the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to rule on whether 3’s use of the motifs was illegal under trade mark law.

The ECJ, Europe’s highest court, ruled today that 3 was entitled to use the symbols as long as it did not confuse the public into thinking that the ad was from O2 itself.

Telefonica-owned O2 holds registered trade marks for its name and for images of bubbles in relation to telecoms services, and claimed that the use of its name and of bubbles similar to its own in the 3 price comparison ad violated its trade marks.

The ECJ said that violation would only occur if the use was in the course of trade; was without the trade mark owner’s consent; was in relation to the same kinds of goods or services as that for which the trade mark is registered; and confuses consumers as to the origin of the goods or services.

The ECJ said that since the fourth condition was not met, O2 could not oppose the use of the bubbles or its name.

Aici puteti citi articolul complet

Referinte:

  1. OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL MENGOZZI delivered on 31 January 2008
  2. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 12 June 2008

SUA: Proiect de lege privind protectie in materia daunelor in cazul folosirii de opere cu autor necunoscut

Published
by
zmo
on May 26, 2008
in Random
. 0 Comments

These are “orphan works,” copyrighted materials that lack any obvious way to find the rightsholder. But just going ahead and using the material can be risky; if a rightsholder shows up after your museum exhibition, documentary, or parents’ wedding photographer is in the wild, he or she can seek massive statutory damages.
Orphan works legislation attempts to remedy this problem by allowing people to use material after a “good faith” search for the owner; it also creates electronic databases to make searching for owners easier. Should a rightsholder emerge, that person would be owed money but not massive damages.   Full article here

Fair Use in universitatile din SUA - faza digitala

Published
by
zmo
on April 17, 2008
in Random
. 1 Comment

Parca si la noi e o discutie cu stick-ul si manualele in format electronic de pe el. Dincolo de faptul ca, spre deosebire de americani, cred ca la noi mai sunt destui cu monitoare CRT, apar probleme legate de (C)-ul manualelor. In New York Times a aparut un articol legat de compilatiile date spre studiu studentilor, adica diverse colaje din carti, ziare, documentare, etc. Deci nu este vorba de manuale/ opere intregi ci doar de extrase din acestea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/technology/16school.html?_r=1&ref=technology&oref=slogin

Publishers Sue Georgia State on Digital Reading Matter

Three prominent academic publishers are suing Georgia State University, contending that the school is violating copyright laws by providing course reading material to students in digital format without seeking permission from the publishers or paying licensing fees.
[...]
Mr. Rich said that in a letter his firm received last summer, Georgia State officials “indicated their view that all of their practices are covered under the fair use doctrine.”
[...]
And in 1992, Princeton University Press and others sued MichiganDocument Services, a photocopying service, which was producing course packs for University of Michigan students without permission from the copyright holders. The business was eventually found to be in copyright infringement.

“Georgia State’s activity seems identical with Michigan Document Services’ activity,” said Susan P. Crawford, a visiting professor at Yale Law School.

But she pointed out that unlike Kinko’s and Michigan Document Services, Georgia State was not making money from the electronic course packs.

Yet, she added: “It’s difficult to argue that this is a truly noncommercial use. Georgia State may be a nonprofit institution, but its students pay a lot of money for course materials, and would presumably pay money for the materials being provided to them by the university.”

Frank Smith, editorial director for academic books at Cambridge University Press, said that for electronic use in a course, Cambridge typically charges 17 cents a page for each student, and generally grants permission for use of as much as 20 percent of a book.

“Publishers have created a market for course materials that is very similar to the market for luxury goods,” Professor Crawford said. “There is only one version available, and at a very high price.”