tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post3047102760311100673..comments2024-03-26T10:41:35.852+00:00Comments on The 1709 Blog: Still thinking of Deckmyn, parodies and EU copyright? You are not alone!Marie-Andree Weisshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17125973798789498436noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-2097021012455707962014-11-18T17:51:32.522+00:002014-11-18T17:51:32.522+00:00Thanks for you comment, Anonymous! In the article ...Thanks for you comment, Anonymous! In the article I suggest that "legitimate interest" might be read from both a public law (non-discrimination) and private law perspective (three-step test, trade mark, moral rights). I think that in some cases the "legitimate interest" would be considered a moral right. If so, then the CJEU might have defined the scope of such legitimate interest. Eleonora Rosatihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05629420303968805446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-13023944758496023862014-11-18T17:08:43.495+00:002014-11-18T17:08:43.495+00:00I'm not convinced that the Deckmyn judgment ha...I'm not convinced that the Deckmyn judgment has implications for moral rights. The court seems to be addressing throughout the rights holders (i.e. copyright owners), and it is their "legitimate interests" that the court is saying should be protected/balanced against the parodyist's freedom of expression rights. This is based upon the requirement in the Berne three-step-test that exceptions such as the parody exception should not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the copyright owner. Even if those legitimate interests are fundamentally economic rather than moral/personal, they can still be prejudiced by reputational damage through association with (for example) discriminatory parodies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com