Copyright – Page 4 – IP Law Watch

Copyright Directive: Italy’s Transposition is Not So Creative and Original

Jan 12 2022

Italian transposition of the Copyright Directive (as defined below) introduces some interesting additions within the free uses regulation, but it might not represent the relevant breakthrough for the press industry that its minor players, as well as the EU legislator, wished for.

BACKGROUND

On 26 March 2019, the European Parliament approved EU Directive 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019, on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (the Copyright Directive), which member states were expected to transpose by June 2021 at the latest. Whilst some member states complied with the deadline, Italy only issued its transposition through Legislative Decree 177/2021 on 12 December 2021 (the Legislative Decree) and amended the existing Law No. 633/1941 on copyright and related rights (the Italian Copyright Law).

Changes to the Singapore Copyright Act Come Into Force

Nov 22 2021

On 21 November 2021, the amended Singapore Copyright Act came into force (Amended Act). Major updates were made to the existing Copyright Act in order to enhance protection of copyright in view of the various technological developments. We set out some of the key changes to take note of.

The Dangers of Informal Licensing Agreements – An Update on the Hardingham v RP Data Case

Nov 05 2021

In February 2020, we wrote about the Federal Court’s decision in Hardingham v RP Data Pty Ltd, in which Justice Thawley held that RP Data (the operator of a real estate commercial information database) did not infringe copyright owned by Real Estate Marketing (REMA) and its sole director, Mr Hardingham, in images and floorplans created for real estate listings. Justice Thawley found that REMA/Mr Hardingham had effectively authorised the use of their copyright materials by RP Data, via a chain of implied licences and sub-licences from REMA/Mr Hardingham to real estate agencies, to the operator of realestate.com.au and ultimately to RP Data. This was despite the fact that there was no clear or written agreement between REMA/Mr Hardingham and the real estate agencies to whom the copyright images and floorplans were supplied.

Should Copyright Exceptions Apply to AI Mined Data? And Other Questions Raised Under the UKIPO Consultation on Artificial Intelligence and Copyright and Patents

Nov 02 2021

On Friday 29 October, the UK’s Intellectual Property Office (the “UKIPO”) launched a consultation entitled “Artificial Intelligence and IP: copyright and patents” (see here), which closes 11:45pm on 7 January 2022 (London time). The consultation forms part of the UK government’s ‘National Artificial Intelligence (AI) Strategy’ (the “Strategy”), which followed the government’s 2017 Industrial Strategy publication.

The aim of the consultation is to determine the right incentives for Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) development and innovation, while continuing to promote human creativity and innovation.

Designs Law Changes Now Enacted in Australia

Oct 06 2021

Following on from our article of 15 February 2021, which can be read here, the Designs Amendment (Advisory Council on Intellectual Property Response) Bill 2020 received Royal Assent on 10 September 2021.

Board of Directors of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Authority Issues IP Legislation Update

Aug 23 2021

The Board of Directors of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Authority recently issued the DIFC Intellectual Property Regulations (IP Regulations). The IP Regulations took effect on 5 July 2021 and were issued pursuant to the DIFC Intellectual Property Law, DIFC Law No. of 2019 (IP Law).

Jul 26 2021

Many companies and activists toe the line of trade mark and copyright infringement in the name of parody, satire and criticism. In Australia, the fair dealing copyright exception for the purpose of parody or satire had rarely been judicially considered. There have now been two recent cases considering the defence.

Unicolours v. H&M: Copyright Registration Validity

Jun 22 2021

On June 1, 2021, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the ongoing case of Unicolors v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., No. 20-915. With a nearly $1 million copyright verdict on the line, pattern manufacturer Unicolors, Inc.’s (“Unicolors”) fate is now at the Supreme Court to decide whether courts should refer copyright registration validity challenges to the Copyright Office where there is a known misrepresentation in the registration, but no evidence of intent to defraud.

A copyright registration certificate is not valid if obtained by offering false information and that information, if known, would have resulted in the registration being denied. Under 17 U.S.C. §411(b)(2), where knowingly inaccurate information is included in an application for copyright registration, “the court shall request the Register of Copyrights to advise the court whether the inaccurate information if known, would have caused the Register of Copyrights to refuse the registration.”

May 19 2021

A clear cut case of copyright infringement involving Twisted Sister’s hit song “We’re Not Gonna Take It” (WNGTI) has demonstrated the Court’s willingness to award significant financial penalties where intellectual property rights have been “flagrantly” infringed.

In Universal Music Publishing Pty Ltd v Palmer (No 2) [2021] FCA 434, Justice Katzmann of the Federal Court ordered Australian businessman and United Australia Party (UAP) founder Clive Palmer to pay AU$1.5 million in damages after finding that he had infringed copyright in WNGTI. Katzmann J notably awarded AU$1 million in additional damages, two-thirds of the total award, under section 115(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Act).

The action was brought against Mr Palmer by joint applicants Universal Music Publishing Pty Ltd and Songs of Universal (collectively, Universal), which are the exclusive Australian licensee and copyright assignee respectively.

Just One More Thing For Swatch and Apple to Fight About

Apr 15 2021

Since the launch of the Apple Watch in 2015, Swatch, a well-known Swiss watch manufacturer, has been involved in a number of trade mark disputes against Apple regarding their overlapping product markets.

These disputes have concerned the marks ‘I-WATCH’ and ‘I-SWATCH’, ‘TICK DIFFERENT’ and ‘THINK DIFFERENT’ and, more recently, the mark ‘ONE MORE THING’.

Category:Copyright