Not only Russian copyright, broadcast and digital law
No policy intervention. This option would rely on MS or self-regulation by industries at national level to impose transparency obligations on the contractual counterparties, or on industry specific agreements (resulting from collective bargaining for example) and other market developments to improve transparency.
Comments closed
The Office has no authority to register claims to copyright in material that falls outside the scope of federal statutory protection. Individual movements or dance steps by themselves are not copyrightable, such as the basic waltz step, the hustle step, the grapevine, or the second position in classical ballet. Likewise, the U.S. Copyright Office cannot register short dance routines consisting of only a few movements or steps with minor linear or spatial variations, even if the routine is novel or distinctive.
Comments closed
Key Points
The blocking of web-resources doesn’t work effectively in the fight with online piracy in Russia. Actually restriction of access in Russia is possible under the court order in relation to certain address, mostly it is domain name. It is also possible to block mirror web-site, i.e. the site almost identical with blocked one, but with different domain name. But it is also is not as effective as right holders desire. Therefore the measures are going to be rigorous.
Comments closedAuthors and performers face a lack of transparency in their contractual relationships as to the exploitation of their works and their performances and as to what remuneration is owed for the exploitation.
Comments closed
The U.S. Copyright Office may register a claim to copyright in a choreographic work, provided that (i) the work is a dance; (ii) the dance constitutes copyrightable subject matter under Section 102(a)(4) of the Copyright Act; (iii) the dance contains a sufficient amount of choreographic authorship; and (iv) the dance was created by a human author for human performers.
Comments closed
Russian book publishers have not concluded the anti-piracy memorandum with Russian search engine – the so called Russian Google – Yandex. The audio-visual right holders have this memo, book publishers have not received cherished word “agree” from search engine, perhaps therefore they so aggressively defend their rights in online environment and especially make complaints in court towards to Yandex. May be they hint to conclude anti-piracy memo on books?
Comments closed
There has been published another research on illegal IPTV consuming. Streaming is most popular way of access and consuming of content. It could be said about audio visual content as well as music. The purpose of research “was to enhance the level of understanding about the ways illegal IPTV is carried out, how the business models around this phenomenon work” and how to handle the problem with illegal IPTV. There is no sense to overwrite the whole study, but the there is some interesting thing attracting attention, like copyright infringing business models.
Comments closed
How to fight piracy in internet? The question is rhetorical. Many countries develop and implement in their national law systems different mechanisms aiming to reduce illegal distruction of illicit articles or content. But Russian experts have much better idea – white listing of web-resources. It is some kind of idea to make internet like closed club with entrance fee. If you want you web-site online – licence it not for content, but for declaration that it is legal.
Comments closedThis option would have a positive impact on all publishers, in particular book and scientific publishers but also on press publishers regarding their ability to receive compensation for uses under exceptions (notably the reprography exception). For other publishers, in particular book and scientific publishers, Option 3 is highly significant, as their publications are often used under an exception such as private copying.
Comments closed