The Parody Exception in Copyright Law

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabine Jacques
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
The United States ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
Artistic Expression ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Ultimate Objective ◽  
The Right

Parodies have been created throughout times and cultures. A glimpse at the judicial latitude generally afforded to parodies, satires, caricatures, and pastiches demonstrates the social and cultural value of this particular form of artistic expression. With the advent of technologies and the evolution of copyright legislation, creative endeavours in the form of parody were rejuvenated but became unlawful. While copyright law grants exclusive rights to right-holders, these rights are not absolute. Legislation includes specific exceptions, which preclude right-holders from exercising their prerogatives in particular cases which foster creativity and cultural diversity within that society. The parody exception pertains to this ultimate objective by permitting users to reproduce copyright-protected materials for the purpose of parody. To understand the meaning and scope of the parody exception, this book examines and compares five jurisdictions which differ in their protection of parodies: France, Australia, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. It is concerned with finding an appropriate balance between the protection awarded to right-holders and the public interest. This is achieved by analysing the parody exception to the economic rights of right-holders, the preservation of moral rights, and the interaction of the parody exception with contract law. As parodies constitute an artistic expression protected under the right to freedom of expression, this book also considers the influence of freedom of expression on the interpretation of this specific copyright exception. Furthermore, this book aims at providing guidance on how to resolve disputes where fundamental rights are in conflict.

The Music Industry and the Future of the Parody Exception in Copyright Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 196-228
Author(s):  
Sabine Jacques
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Music Industry ◽  
Holistic Approach ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
Business Practices ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right

This chapter reflects on the future of the parody exception as an area of copyright law. Focusing on the UK music industry, it considers how business practices may contribute to the realization of the goals underpinning the parody exception, taking into account the moral rights of songwriters and performers and the role of collecting rights societies in administering and enforcing copyright with respect to the creation of musical parodies. The chapter also examines the ways in which the human rights framework may be used to shape the parody exception. Examples are given to illustrate how the right to freedom of expression has been curtailed in order to protect abuse of other fundamental rights, including personality rights. The chapter concludes by reiterating the book’s argument for a more holistic approach that allows the parody exception to strike a fair balance between the interests of right-holders, parodists, and society at large.

How Freedom of Expression Defines the Parody Exception

2019 ◽  
pp. 134-166
Author(s):  
Sabine Jacques
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Proportionality Test

This chapter examines the relevance of freedom of expression to the parody exception. It first considers the debate on the interaction between intellectual property rights and fundamental rights before discussing the ways in which freedom of expression may address the excessive expansion of exclusive rights as well as the outer limits of the parody exception. The chapter explains how human rights are embodied in the parody exception and how factors established in the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence may legitimately restrict freedom of expression. It also explores how national legislators and courts in France, Australia, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom strike a balance between freedom of expression values and copyright values. It shows that the outer limits of the parody exception in each jurisdiction are determined by the influence of freedom of expression on copyright, the margin of appreciation, and the proportionality test.

scholarly journals LEGAL PROTECTION OF LURIK ART CONSERVATION THROUGH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 2 IN KLATEN REGENCYLEGAL PROTECTION OF LURIK ART CONSERVATION THROUGH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 2 IN KLATEN REGENCY

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 354
Author(s):  
Riska Andi Fitriono ◽  
Sarwono .
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
Art Conservation ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

This article aimed to analyze legal protection of Lurik Art Conservation Through <br />Intellectual Property Rights in Klaten Regency. Klaten is the area that is most<br />concerned with the survival of lurik weaving. There is someone mentioned that the<br />Klaten Regency was the capital of lurik weaving. Because the weaving of Looms<br />are not machines or Alat Tenun Bukan Mesin (hereinafter abbreviated to ATBM) <br />is a mainstay of this city. There are countless villages that become centers of lurik <br />craftsmen. This research is empirical or non-doctrinal research, which is a study<br />that sees the law not only from the perspective of legislation, but also sees the law<br />in its implementation. The results of the study show that the first legal protection in<br />preserving the current lurik art in Klaten, namely the Klaten Regency Government,<br />then stipulates the Regent's Regulation Number 53 of 2010 Article 23 Paragraph (9)<br />on the Daily Batik and Traditional Weaving Lurik Service or ATBM Striated and<br />the Klaten Regent's Decree Number : 065/1014/06 December 30, 2010 on Wearing<br />Traditional Weaving, Motives, Colors and Free Models with Attributes. Furthermore,<br />based on the Decree of the Regent of Klaten Number 050/84 of 2016 on Klaten<br />Regency's Superior Products, batik striated is one of the superior products of Klaten<br />Regency. With the issuance of these rules as an effort to protect and preserve lurik<br />art in Klaten district and referring to Law Number 28 of 2014 on Copyright, it has<br />regulated the forms of protection of lurik art in Klaten through Article 40 paragraph<br />(1). The Second Protection of Intellectual Property Rights Against Lurik Art, namely<br />Protection of lurik artworks, besides being accommodated in Law Number 28 of 2014<br />on Copyright (Copyright Law) and Trademark Law and other intellectual property<br />right laws. Elucidation of Article 40 paragraph (1) letter j of the Copyright Law. The<br />work is protected because it has artistic value, both in relation to the picture, style,<br />and color composition. The Copyright Act also emphasizes that it is important to<br />protect Copyright because every creator, in this case, the creator of the lurik motif<br />has the right to moral rights and economic rights.

scholarly journals Hak Cipta Karya Seni Lukis Sebagai Jaminan Fidusia

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-36
Author(s):  
Ni Kadek Emy Kencana Wati ◽  
I Nyoman Putu Budiartha ◽  
I Ketut Sukadana
Keyword(s):  
Analytical Form ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Conceptual Approach ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Law System ◽  
Materials Used ◽  
The Right

The use of copyright for painting artworks in the Intellectual Property Law system in Indonesia provides many benefits for painters as copyright owners or copyright holders. A creator or copyright holder has Economic Rights on his work which includes the right to duplicate, display, and lease his work to third parties. Copyright Law No. 28/2014 states that copyright can be used as an object of Fiduciary security. This study aims to determine the characteristics of the copyright of painting works that can be used as fiduciary guarantees to get credit in banking and to analyze the execution of copyright guarantees of painting works if the debtor defaults The method used is normative legal research with a statutory approach and a conceptual approach, and the sources of legal materials used are primary and secondary legal materials with literature collection techniques which are analyzed in descriptive analytical form. Based on the results of the study, it can be concluded that the characteristics of copyright in painting are providing protection for works of art and providing economic rights for the creators or copyright holders and moral rights for the creators. The execution of copyright guarantees can be done by executorial method in accordance with article 29 of the Fiduciary Law.

scholarly journals Copyright law and the freedom of panorama: The right to commercialise photographs of protected works

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Alifia Qonita Sudharto
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
Berne Convention ◽  
Public Places ◽  
Literary Works ◽  
Prior Consent ◽  
Derivative Work ◽  
Copyright Laws ◽  
The Right

<p>Making an unauthorised copy of a copyright-protected work is a copyright infringement, as is making an adaptation or a derivative work without gaining prior consent from the author or authors of the copyright-protected work. It was once questioned at one of the Berne Convention amendment meetings whether to take photographs of copyright-protected literary works was to make copies of them. The meeting concluded that taking photographs of literary works meant making copies of them, and, therefore, photographs should not be taken without gaining the prior consent of the author or authors. However, there was no discussion about photographs of other type of works, such as buildings and sculptures. Taking photographs of architectural and sculptural works permanently situated in public places is protected under “freedom of panorama”, a provision of copyright laws that permits the taking of photographs of those works, which is applied differently in some countries. This paper discusses copyright protection for those photographs, though there are not many cases available in this issue as the terminology of “freedom of panorama” was only recently coined. The discussion is based on the Berne Convention, and copyright law in the United States, New Zealand, and Indonesia. Freedom of panorama may seem to limit the exclusive rights for architects and sculptors to authorise any acts to be done over their works. However, photographers also have the need to be sure that their photographs are protected, including photographs that are taken under the freedom of panorama. Therefore, this paper argues that the photographers who take photographs under the freedom of panorama should be able to exercise exclusive and moral rights over their photographs. Although the three countries mentioned provide protection for the “freedom of panorama”, it is protected differently and, therefore, there is a need to include the freedom of panorama in an international copyright treaty to avoid a possible conflict of laws.</p>

scholarly journals Copyright law and the freedom of panorama: The right to commercialise photographs of protected works

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Alifia Qonita Sudharto
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
Berne Convention ◽  
Public Places ◽  
Literary Works ◽  
Prior Consent ◽  
Derivative Work ◽  
Copyright Laws ◽  
The Right

<p>Making an unauthorised copy of a copyright-protected work is a copyright infringement, as is making an adaptation or a derivative work without gaining prior consent from the author or authors of the copyright-protected work. It was once questioned at one of the Berne Convention amendment meetings whether to take photographs of copyright-protected literary works was to make copies of them. The meeting concluded that taking photographs of literary works meant making copies of them, and, therefore, photographs should not be taken without gaining the prior consent of the author or authors. However, there was no discussion about photographs of other type of works, such as buildings and sculptures. Taking photographs of architectural and sculptural works permanently situated in public places is protected under “freedom of panorama”, a provision of copyright laws that permits the taking of photographs of those works, which is applied differently in some countries. This paper discusses copyright protection for those photographs, though there are not many cases available in this issue as the terminology of “freedom of panorama” was only recently coined. The discussion is based on the Berne Convention, and copyright law in the United States, New Zealand, and Indonesia. Freedom of panorama may seem to limit the exclusive rights for architects and sculptors to authorise any acts to be done over their works. However, photographers also have the need to be sure that their photographs are protected, including photographs that are taken under the freedom of panorama. Therefore, this paper argues that the photographers who take photographs under the freedom of panorama should be able to exercise exclusive and moral rights over their photographs. Although the three countries mentioned provide protection for the “freedom of panorama”, it is protected differently and, therefore, there is a need to include the freedom of panorama in an international copyright treaty to avoid a possible conflict of laws.</p>

scholarly journals Parodiju veidošana kā autora tiesību ierobežojums

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (19) ◽  
pp. 130-138
Author(s):  
Ingrīda Veikša
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
Narrow Line ◽  
Essential Component ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Artistic Work ◽  
The Right

Autora veidotu literatūras vai mākslas darbu atsevišķos gadījumos drīkst izmantot bez autora atļaujas, pamatojoties uz likumā noteiktajiem autortiesību ierobežojumiem. Šo ierobežojumu mērķis ir nodibināt līdzsvaru starp autora un sabiedrības tiesībām. Viens no tiesību ierobežošanas veidiem ir parodiju un karikatūru veidošana, kas ir būtiska vārda brīvības sastāvdaļa. Tajā pašā laikā autoram ir tiesības uz pretdarbību sava darba izkropļošanai, jo starp parodiju un izkropļošanu ir ļoti šaura robeža. Tas, kas šķiet smieklīgs joks vienam cilvēkam, citam var šķist aizskārums un aizvainojums. Ja autors uzskata, ka viņa darbs ir izkropļots, ka tas aizskar autora godu vai cieņu, tad šāda rīcība veido autora personisko tiesību aizskārumu un uzskatāma par pārkāpumu. Lai maksimāli izvairītos no neatbilstošu parodiju vai karikatūru radīšanas, Latvijas Republikas Autortiesību likumā būtu ieteicams veikt grozījumus, kas noteiktu kritērijus līdzsvaram starp autora tiesībām uz viņa darba cieņpilnu izmantošanu un sabiedrības tiesībām uz vārda brīvību un cenzūras nepieļaujamību. In certain cases, a literary or artistic work created by the author may be used without the author’s permission, based on the copyright restrictions specified by law. The purpose of these restrictions is to strike a balance between the right of an author and rights of society. One of the restrictions is the right on creation of parodies and caricatures, which is an essential component of freedom of expression. At the same time, the author has the right to take actions against the distortion of his work, because there is a very narrow line between parody and distortion. What seems like a funny joke to one person may seem offensive and resentful to another. If the author considers that his work is distorted, if it infringes the author’s honour or dignity, then such action constitutes an infringement of the author’s moral rights and is considered a violation. In order to avoid the creation of inappropriate parodies or caricatures, it would be advisable to make amendments to the Copyright Law that would ensure a balance between the author’s right to dignified use of his work and the society’s right of freedom of expression and inadmissibility of censorship.

Legality of the Parody Exception in Light of International Treaties and Domestic Copyright Laws

2019 ◽  
pp. 38-69
Author(s):  
Sabine Jacques
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Step Test ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Copyright Laws ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Reproduction

This chapter examines the legality of the parody exception in light of international treaties and domestic copyright laws. More specifically, it considers whether the parody exception may only be introduced into national copyright law if it satisfies the three-step test enshrined in international treaties. The chapter first traces the history and evolution of copyright law before explaining whether copyright law requires a specific parody exception and why a specific parody exception rectifies the balance between right-holders, users, and subsequent authors. It then discusses the three-step test, first incorporated into the Berne Convention to protect the ‘right of reproduction’, and its adoption in European Union texts and national legislations. It also outlines the differing interpretations of the three-step test and concludes with an analysis of whether the current parody exceptions in each of the five jurisdictions (France, Australia, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom) comply with this test.

Strike Ballots, Democracy, and Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Breen Creighton ◽  
Catrina Denvir ◽  
Richard Johnstone ◽  
Shae McCrystal ◽  
Alice Orchiston
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Labour Organisation ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Strike Activity ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Worked Example ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Democratic Rights ◽  
The Right

The purpose of the research upon which this book is based was empirically to investigate whether the ballot requirements in the Fair Work Act do indeed impose a significant obstacle to the taking of industrial action, and whether those provisions are indeed impelled by a legitimate ‘democratic imperative’. The book starts from the proposition that virtually all national legal systems, and international law, recognise the right to strike as a fundamental human right. It acknowledges, however, that in no case is this recognition without qualification. Amongst the most common qualifications is a requirement that to be lawful strike action must first be approved by a ballot of workers concerned. Often, these requirements are said to be necessary to protect the democratic rights of the workers concerned: this is the so-called ‘democratic imperative’. In order to evaluate the true purpose and effect of ballot requirements the book draws upon the detailed empirical study of the operation of the Australian legislative provisions noted above; a comparative analysis of law and practice in a broad range of countries, with special reference to Canada, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States; and the jurisprudence of the supervisory bodies of the International Labour Organisation. It finds that in many instances ballot requirements – especially those relating to quorum – are more concerned with curtailing strike activity than with constructively responding to the democratic imperative. Frequently, they also proceed from a distorted perception of what ‘democracy’ could and should entail in an industrial context. Paradoxically, the study also finds that in some contexts ballot requirements can provide additional bargaining leverage for unions. Overall, however, the study confirms our hypothesis that the principal purpose of ballot requirements – especially in Australia and the United Kingdom – is to curtail strike activity rather than to vindicate the democratic imperative, other than on the basis of a highly attenuated reading of that term. We believe that the end-result constitutes an important study of the practical operation of a complex set of legal rules, and one which exposes the dichotomy between the ostensible and real objectives underpinning the adoption of those rules. It also furnishes a worked example of multi-methods empirical, comparative and doctrinal legal research in law, which we hope will inspire similar approaches to other areas of labour law.

scholarly journals Copyright and Copyright Protection

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 36
Author(s):  
Safet Emruli ◽  
Agim Nuhiu ◽  
Besa Kadriu
Keyword(s):  
Copyright Protection ◽  
Key Agreement ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Financial Reward ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Bern Convention ◽  
Artistic Works ◽  
The Right

One of the legal intellectual property disciplines are copyrights which concerns artistic and literary works. Copyright is: bundle of exclusive legal rights that has to do with protection of literary and artistic works. It is granted to authors and artists to protect expressive works against unauthorized reproduction or distribution by third parties. Copyright protect “works”, expression of thoughts and ideas. Literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works must be original, it means not to be a copy. Copyright covers two other types of right: economic rights, the right of the owner to benefit financial reward from use of his work by others and moral rights which always have to do with original holder no matter if economic rights are transferred or not. Economic rights can be transferred. Bern Convention for the Protection of the Literary and Artistic Works is international key agreement and the oldest multilateral agreement in the field of copyright. Copyright subsists automatically on the creation of a work, no application needed, nor do any formalities apply. Nature of copyright is territorial and the minimum term of protection is life of the author plus 50 years after his/her death. In European Union and in certain number of countries, terms of protections of are extended to life of the author plus 70 years after his/her death.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document