This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Parts 1 to 3 of this post (originally published in “Auteurs & Media”) summarising case law of the German Bundesgerichtshof from 2015 to 2019 are available here , here and here. Right of remuneration (Sections 32 et seqq. The infringement at trial was a photo of a sportscar illegally used on the internet for advertising purposes.
Parts 1 and 2 of this post (originally published in “Auteurs & Media”) summarising case law of the German Bundesgerichtshof from 2015 to 2019 are available here and here , and part 4 will be published on the blog shortly. Relatedrights. The BGH decided that the use was covered by Section 59 UrhG.
In order to bring readers up to date on earlier developments, over the next few days we will be republishing in four parts an article (originally published in “Auteurs & Media”) summarising case law from 2015 to 2019 organised by topic. This first part covers the definition of a work, authorship and moral rights. 4, (2) UrhG. [1].
In May , a High Court in South Africa delivered judgment in Bliss Brands (Pty) Ltd v Advertising Regulatory Board NPC & Others , on the issue of the extent of the powers of the Advertising Regulatory Board (‘ARB’) in matters relating to trade mark and copyright laws.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content