The Second Circuit appellate court in the USA has ruled that architectural works cannot always be neatly categorized as compilations of unoriginal material, criticising the 2008 decision by the Eleventh Circuit in Intervest Construction, Inc. v. Canterbury Estate Homes, Inc - saying that decision was "overly simplistic", explaining that not all architectural works consist solely of unoriginal elements. "Some architectural designs, like that of a single-room log cabin, will consist solely of standard features arranged in standard ways; others, like the Guggenheim, will include standard features, but also present something entirely new. Architecture, in this regard, is like every art form." The real issue, the Second Circuit explained, is to determine what elements of an architectural work are original and therefore protectable, versus what elements are standard and thus not protectable. Zalewski v. Cicero Builder Developer, Inc 2014 WL 2521388, at *5 (2d Cir. June 5, 2014). More on Mondaq here.
Just days after they went on sale in the UK, Google Glass has been banned from two cinema chains who have screens across the country. Vue cinema chain and the Cinema Exhibitors' Association have both said the gadget cannot be worn during screenings, following cinema chains in the US, who have also banned the use of Glass over fears of copyright infringement being committed by customers using Glass’ forward-facing video camera to record newly released films. Image: Google.
Dr. Monica Horten, a writer, policy analyst and visiting fellow at the LSE, looks at "copyright liability for cloud computing services hovering on the EU horizon" and asks what we can learn from the case of ABC Inc v Aereo in the United States Supreme Court - over on the LSE Media Policy Project blog in a piece headed "Copyright Liabilities Loom for Cloud Providers in Wake of Aereo Judgement".
Hackers in Argentina (or well, I suppose they could be anywhere so I am guessing) have taken direct action after The Pirate Bay was blocked in Argentina - the first Latin American country to remove the site on the grounds of copyright infringement. Hackers managed to replace the website of Argentinean music industry trade body CAPIF (who led the legal action to instigate the block) with a proxy to access The Pirate Bay which remained in place for some ten hours.
|Not Katy Perry - but Roald Dahl's "Witches"|
In the wake of the leak of the European Commission’s White Paper on copyright policy come two articles looking at what should be done to modernise Europe's copyright regime: The first says "Achieving a modern copyright regime that is apt for a digitally connected continent requires a strategic vision" ...... and suggests that a strategic vision should include a proper balance in the copyright framework. Creativity must be incentivised and rewarded without, however, undermining legitimate interests of users and the broader development of a thriving digital economy in Europe". This article is by Jakob Kucharczyk, Director in the Brussels office of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, and is on Disco - the Disruptive Competition Project - and is well worth a read. And TechDirt have this take "EU Publishers Present Their 'Vision' For Copyright: A Permission-Based Internet Where Licensing Is Required For Everything" which can be found here.
And in the UK doubt has been raised about the UK government's power to introduce a new private copying exception to copyright without an associated mechanism for compensating rights holders. In a rather rare move* The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (JCSI) said it was unclear whether the introduction of a new private copying right without a mechanism for ensuring rights holders receive "fair compensation" could be permitted under European law saying "if they [the exception] are approved and made, there will be a doubt whether they are intra vires and in particular the Committee's attention had been drawn in particular to the CJEU's judgment in case C-467/08 Padawan in which the Court held that 'fair compensation', within the meaning of Article 5(2)(b) of the Copyright Directive (2001/29/EC), is an autonomous concept of European Union law which must be interpreted uniformly in all the Member States that have introduced a private copying exception; that Member States which decide to introduce the private copying exception into their national law are required to provide for the payment of 'fair compensation' to righstholders. The always readable Out-law.com has a good take on this here http://www.out-
*I am reliably informed that the fact that the JCSI has reported on the SI is very unusual. I understand that this is only the 7th time an affirmative SI has been reported by the JCSI during this Parliament (ie since May 2010). And it is the 3rd time of the 7 that the report is for doubtful vires. So, third time in four years. Quite a historic event generally and this could be seen as very historic in copyright law history!