Online conference announcement: 'The Making of EU Copyright'

 


2021 is a momentous year for EU copyright law: it is the 30th anniversary since the adoption of the first ever copyright directive (the Software Directive 1991/250) and the 20th since the passing of the seminal InfoSoc Directive 2001/29. By 7 June this year, individual Member States should have also completed their own national processes for the transposition of the Digital Single Market Directive 2019/790.

Besides legislative action, what copyright law is today at both the EU and national levels owes significantly to the case law developed over time by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In several and notable instances, the Court has added flesh to the structure of thin legislative provisions, addressed technological advancement, and contributed substantially to the establishment of a Single Market for copyright content and copyright-based services.

To celebrate the publication of Copyright in the Digital Single Market. Article-by-Article Commentary to the Provisions of Directive 2019/790 (Oxford University Press), the Institute for Intellectual Property and Market Law (IFIM) at Stockholm University is delighted to host an online conference devoted to discussing The Making of EU Copyright.

With a stellar cast of speakers, the discussion will develop into three main directions: the role and legacy of CJEU case law for EU and national copyright systems, the rationale and effects of EU harmonization, and the impact that the rules contained in the Digital Single Market Directive 2019/790 will be having on EU and national laws and practice.

*** 

Speakers (in alphabetical order)

Chair

  • Jan Rosén, Professor of Private Law, Stockholm University

***

Programme

- Welcome (Jonas Nordell, Professor of Private Law, Stockholm University, and Chair of the IFIM Board)

- Introduction (Jan Rosén)

- The role, action, and legacy of CJEU copyright case law
  • Advising the Court (Maciej Szpunar)
  • Reaching a decision (Marko Ilešič)
  • The perspective of a national judge (Richard Arnold)
  • Q&As

- Copyright harmonization: from policy to law and practice
  • Copyright policy at the European Commission (Marco Giorello)
  • Shaping the Digital Single Market Directive 2019/790 (Catherine Stihler)
  • The place and effects of the Digital Single Market Directive 2019/790 (Eleonora Rosati)
  • Q&As and conclusion

***

Attendance is free but registration is required. Registered participants will be emailed the joining instructions the day before the conference.

To register, please click here.

Join us!

[Originally published on The IPKat on 1 September 2021]

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