©-LAW

Earlier today this blog  reported  that, a few months after Advocate General (AG) Szpunar released his  Opinion  in  VCAST , C-265/16  [ here ] , the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has now released its  decision . As readers know, this was a reference from Italy (Turin Court of First Instance) that one would have thought  [as the questions were indeed about it!]  to concern the understanding and application of the private copying exception within Article 5(2)(b) of the  InfoSoc Directive  to cloud-based video-recording services. Well, although the AG Opinion is indeed about this, the CJEU judgment is not.  The Court, in fact, made the case about the right of communication/making available to the public within Article 3 of the InfoSoc Directive. Let’s start then and see why  VCAST  is not really – or at least is no longer - a case about the private copying exception. Background The facts of the case are rather simple: basically, the Italian lit

Further to the  Opinion  of Advocate General (AG) Szpunar  [ here ] , this morning the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its judgment in  VCAST , C-265/16 . This was a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Turin Court of First Instance (Italy), seeking guidance on the application of the private copying exception within Article 5(2)(b) of the  InfoSoc Directive  to cloud-based video recording services.  More specifically: d oes EU law prohibit a commercial undertaking from providing - without the authorisation of the relevant copyright owner - private individuals with cloud computing services for the remote video recording of private copies of works protected by copyright, by means of that commercial undertaking’s active involvement in the recording? The AG provided a sophisticated response to this question, substantially concluding that the exception - while being applicable also in instances involving  the intervention of a party other than the

Michelangelo's David Last weekend I  reported  on this blog the news of an interesting decision of the Florence  Court of First Instance (Tribunale di Firenze) that prohibited a travel agency,  Visit Today , from using the image of Michelangelo's David  for commercial purposes, including to sell unofficial tickets for guided tours inside the  Galleria dell'Accademia . At the time when the blog post was published the text of the interim decision was not yet available.  Now readers can access and download it  here , thanks to Katfriends  Fabio Ghiretti  (Mondini Rusconi) and  Francesco Rossi  (SIB Legal) . The decision (ordinanza) was rendered in the context of interim (emergency) proceedings that the Avvocatura dello Stato had brought against Visit Today pursuant to Article 669-octies of the  Italian Civil Procedure Code . As anticipated, the reasoning underlying the granting of the injunction against Visit Today is rooted within the provisions of the  Ita

Michelangelo's David in Florence Earlier this week the Florence Court of First Instance (Tribunale di Firenze) issued an important and interesting decision  [not yet available] , which has been widely reported by newspapers in Italy  [eg  here ,  here ,  here ,  here ]  and abroad  [eg  here ] .  The  Avvocatura dello Stato , this being the body responsible for advising and representing the Italian state (including in legal proceedings), sued a company,  Visit Today , before the Florence Court of First Instance, seeking to obtain a decision that would prohibit this from selling unofficial tickets for the  Galleria dell'Accademia  in Florence, also using brochures and materials depicting what is probably the most famous guest of this beautiful museum:  Michelangelo's David . The Florence court sided with Avvocatura dello Stato, and prohibited Visit Today from using the David's image for commercial purposes.  On what grounds? I have received several messages as

One of the artworks that Oslo municipality tried to have registered as a trade mark: The Angry Boy (Sinnataggen) A few months ago this blog  reported  on an interesting and important decision issued by the EFTA Court, this being the court with jurisdiction over EFTA states that are parties to the EEA Agreements (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway):  Case E-5/16 - Norwegian Board of Appeal for Industrial Property Rights – appeal from the municipality of Oslo . The decision followed a request for an advisory opinion from the Board of Appeal of t he  Norwegian Industrial Property Office  (NIPO), and required consideration of whether and to what extent signs representing artworks by  Gustav Vigeland  and in which copyright protection has lapsed could be registered as trade marks under the previous EU Trade Mark Directive,  ie    Directive 2008/95   [EFTA countries are not part of the EU but are subject to EU legislation, being part of the European Economic Area] . The first r

This question relates to moral rights. In particular the right at stake is attribution, ie the right - to use the language of  Article 6-bis  of the Berne Convention - of an author to claim authorship of his/her work. The protection of moral rights has been traditionally regarded as particularly strong in those jurisdictions that follow the traditional French-style  droit d'auteur  approach to copyright protection, including Italy.  This is indeed the country where this question may be raised. The latest news is in fact that the latest film by well-known film director and writer  Fausto Brizzi , due for release on 15 December and entitled  Poveri ma ricchissimi , may appear in cinemas without indication of his name as the director of the film.  In the wake of the Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, etc etc scandals,  it is rumoured  (so far no confirmation has been provided though) that Brizzi might have sexually assaulted a number of Italian actresses. According to  Co

Tom Brady Can a tweet containing an unlicensed photograph amount to a copyright infringement by the person who embeds such tweet on their own site? One would not be surprised if a question of this kind was asked in Europe  [it was actually asked but answered very ambiguously in  BestWater ,  here , whose conclusions appear now questionable in light of subsequent case law, notably  GS Media ,  here ] .  On this side of the Atlantic linking can fall within the scope of the right of communication to the public within Article 3(1) of the  InfoSoc Directive , although different considerations must be undertaken depending on the case at issue, including whether the link provider is aware of the unlicensed character of the content linked to and/or pursues a profit.  This very question is now being asked  alsoin the US, where a photographer working with Getty Images  [this had already raised issues of linking and copyright under US law, eg  here ] , Justin Goldman, has  sued  a