Error in the Italian translation of Article 17 of the DSM Directive ... but is Italian the only instance?


The various language versions of this new piece of EU legislation are available here.

The IPKat has learned from friends Valentina Borgese, Carmine Di Benedetto, Daniele Cerulla and Daniele Fabris (all PhD students at the University of Pavia) that not all language versions of the directive say the same thing. 

In particular, they have spotted a notable omission in the Italian version of Article 17 of the Directive.

The English version of Article 17(7) states:
The cooperation between online content-sharing service providers and rightholders shall not result in the prevention of the availability of works or other subject matter uploaded by users, which do not infringe copyright and related rights, including where such works or other subject matter are covered by an exception or limitation [...] [emphasis added]
Well, in the Italian version the 'not' bit is missing, as the proviso reads as follows:
La cooperazione tra i prestatori di servizi di condivisione di contenuti online e i titolari dei diritti deve impedire la disponibilità delle opere o di altri materiali caricati dagli utenti, che non violino il diritto d'autore o i diritti connessi, anche nei casi in cui tali opere o altri materiali siano oggetto di un'eccezione o limitazione.
Substantially, the Italian version mandates the prevention of the availability of lawful subject matter ... 😨

It is clearly an error, which hopefully will be remedied soon. 

But is Italian the only instance of errors in the translation of the DSM Directive? Let The IPKat know!

[Originally published on The IPKat on 19 May 2019]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Filmspeler, the right of communication to the public, and unlawful streams: a landmark decision

Image
Yesterday this blog  reported  that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued yet another long-awaited judgment, this being the  decision in  Filmspeler , C-527/15 . At the time of writing, the text of the ruling was not yet available. Now that it is and having had a chance to read it, it seems to me that – despite its highly specific factual background (sale of multimedia players enabling free access to audiovisual works protected by copyright without the consent of the rightholders) - Filmspeler is a MAJOR copyright decision. The reason is essentially two-fold: ·         First, because the Court relaxed the notion of what amounts to an ‘indispensable intervention  [the judgment does not even contain a reference to the intervention being ‘indispensable’]  for the sake of the right of communication to the public within Article 3(1) of the  InfoSoc Directive . This means – as I also s...
Read more

Italian court finds Google and YouTube liable for failing to remove unlicensed content (but confirms eligibility for safe harbour protection)

Image
Topazio, one of the soap operas produced by Delta TV Is YouTube an active host and, if so, ineligible for the safe harbour protection within Article 14 of the  E-commerce Directive ? As readers with an interest in intermediary liability know, this is not a novel question: indeed, it has been already raised a number of times before national courts. A few weeks ago, in a  decision available on Marchi & Brevetti  (sentenza 7 April 2017 No 1928, RG 38113/2013,  Delta TV v Google and YouTube  – judge rapporteur: Guglielmo Rende), the Tribunale di Torino (Turin Court of First Instance) revisited this issue, and provided an interesting response. Readers might recall that this decision follows other interim rulings commented on this blog  here  and  here . Background Back in 2013 Delta TV, which produces and owns the copyright to a number of South-American soap operas (including audiovisual works for the Italian, Monaco, Swis...
Read more

Brands and online ecommerce platforms: a tainted relationship?

Image
What has happened to online ecommerce platforms? Over the past few months news reports have multiplied – or, perhaps, their underlying issues have acquired greater visibility – that brand owners have been increasingly voicing criticisms against, sued, or discontinued sales on ecommerce sites. In particular, after the  criticisms  made against Alibaba, it seems that Amazon is now making the headlines. Let’s have a quick look at what has happened over the past few months. Court actions First, there have been legal proceedings being brought by trade mark owners, claiming a direct responsibility of Amazon in the sale of counterfeits or invoking a right to prevent sales on such platform. An example of the former is the  lawsuit  filed by Daimler against Amazon in late 2017 in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle. The well-known  German car manufacturer argues that Amazon is directly responsible for the “ offer fo...
Read more