Reciba mensualmente información sobre las novedades de nuestros servicios.
Consumers of content in principle have the right to use works which are in the public domain without permission and with no copyright restrictions. In practice however determining if a work has passed into the public domain can often prove difficult. This is especially true when attempting to determine the public domain status of content in multiple jurisdictions.
Following some fear [here and here] that UK Government could have decided not to introduce exceptions for private copying, broader quotation and parody into UK copyright after all, last month this blog reported that the "missing" exceptions were back with new [well, not so new as they were basically unchanged] draft Statutory Instruments (SIs) [here and here].
Following approval in the House of Commons earlier this month, yesterday at around 6:15 pm [as the illustrious and learned Katfriend who told this Kat specified] the House of Lords also approved the draft SIs [you can read an early statement from the Open Rights Group here].
This means that, following the bunch of other exceptions [research, education, libraries and archives; disability; and public administration] that entered into force on 1 June last, also these new exceptions are now scheduled for entry into force. This will be on 1 October 2014.
New rules on music copyright approved by Parliament on Tuesday aim to make it easier for online providers to get licences to stream music in more than one EU country. The law, already informally agreed with Council, should stimulate the development of EU-wide online music services for consumers and ensure that artists' rights are better protected and that they receive adequate royalties promptly
Mr Justice Arnold said it was his "provisional view" that a computer programming language could not be considered a 'work' in which copyright could subsist.
The judge was giving his opinion on the issue in a case involving rival software developers, SAS Institute (SAS) and World Programming Limited (WPL), in which he cleared WPL in most respects of having infringed SAS' copyright when it obtained a licence to use SAS' software in order to test out that programme, read instructions SAS had published in accompanying user manuals, and then create its own rival software programme.