Review of TRIPS Implementing Legislation - Search

Reset
 
 

Article 63.2 of the TRIPS Agreement requires Members to notify the laws and regulations made effective by that Member pertaining to the subject matter of the Agreement to the Council for TRIPS in order to assist the Council in its review of the operation of the Agreement.

This page allows you to search Members' questions and answers on notified laws and regulations. You can consult search results on screen, download and print them in Excel format. You can also download individual documents.

* You do NOT have to select all the search fields below (only fill the search fields that are relevant to your query).
* Please note that selected search criteria are cumulative and will all be reflected in your search results.


Page 669 of 677   |   Number of documents : 13533

Document symbol Notifying Member Member raising question Question Answer Date of document distribution  
IP/Q/FIN/1 Finland United States of America 1. Please explain whether and how Finnish law provides protection for works, phonograms and performances from other WTO Members, and whether and how it does so on the basis of national treatment, as required by TRIPS Article 3 (generally, with respect to all copyrights and neighbouring rights) and Article 9.1 (incorporating Berne Article 5(1)). In particular, please explain how national treatment is afforded with respect to the distribution of levies for private copying under Chapter 2a of the Finnish Copyright Act.
(a)Protection for protected subject matter from other WTO Members. As the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization and annexed Agreements included provisions which belong to the field of legislation, the Parliament of Finland has enacted a law on accepting such provisions in the Agreement and annexed Agreements. This acceptance included the TRIPS Agreement. The law pronounces that the provisions are in force for Finland. According to the constitutional norms the respective substantive laws have to be brought into accordance prior to the entering into force of such a law. A similar law was enacted by the Parliament when the Berne Convention (1971) was brought into force for Finland in 1986. (b)National Treatment An unequivocal national treatment is accorded to all WTO Members as far as copyright and neighbouring rights provided for in the TRIPS Agreement are concerned. (c)Distribution of levies under Chapter 2a of the Finnish Copyright Act There is no right to compensation for private copying in the Finnish Copyright Act. No one can make a claim to receive remuneration, as no rights are involved. The Act provides for an obligation to the manufacturers and importers of blank recording material to pay a levy. The obligation to pay the levy was adopted in accordance with the clause in the Constitution of Finland concerning the imposing payment obligations to the citizen. The proceeds of the levy are used to compensate private copying according to a decision made yearly by the Ministry of Education and Culture. The compensations are paid out to the beneficiaries by organizations representing a large number of them. Nothing precludes distribution to foreign beneficiaries. There is, however, no obligation to do so.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/FIN/1 Finland United States of America [Follow-up question] Please explain why the levy for blank recording material under Finnish law is not subject to the national treatment requirements of the TRIPS Agreement. In addition, please explain whether and how the funds collected are in fact distributed to any foreign beneficiaries from WTO Members.
(a) Why no national treatment? The Finnish levy system is a sui generis arrangement. There is no international regulation of such levies. The system is outside the intellectual property rights. The Finnish Government and Parliament explicitly rejected the idea of rights in this field. The reason was that when blank recording media are manufactured or imported there is no work, no author, no copying involved. Instead of a copyright based system a very specific system was established. On the level of the legislation there is an obligation to manufacturers and importers to pay the levy. This obligation was enacted in accordance with the clause in the Constitution concerning public taxes. The Ministry of Education issues annually a decision on the rate of the levy. No one can claim a share of the levy. (b) Distribution to foreign authors. A major part of the proceeds of the levy is used for collective cultural purposes. The Finnish Composers' International Copyright Bureau Teosto includes a part of the audio levy in its individual distributions, and allocates some amounts to seven foreign organizations on the basis of reciprocal private agreements between Teosto and these organizations.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/FIN/1 Finland United States of America 2. Does Finland apply the “rule of the shorter term” to phonograms and performances from other WTO Members? If so, please explain how you justify such action under TRIPS Article 4.
Finland does not apply any "rule of the shorter term" to phonograms and performances from other WTO Members concerning rights granted in the TRIPS Agreement.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/FIN/1 Finland United States of America 3. Please explain whether and how Finland protects against both the direct and indirect reproduction of phonograms as required by TRIPS Article 14.2, including by digital transmission in the context of interactive services.
(a)Direct and indirect reproduction According to Article 46 of the Finnish Copyright Act, a phonogram may not be copied or distributed to the public until 50 years have elapsed from the year during which the recording took place. This right in the same way as the right of reproduction of authors has always been interpreted as covering both direct and indirect reproduction. The distance between the place where the original exists and the place where the copy is established has no significance. (b)Reproduction by digital transmission The general rule applies.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/FIN/1 Finland United States of America 4. Please explain whether and how Finland provides full retroactive protection to works, phonograms and performances from other WTO Members, as required by TRIPS Articles 9.1, 14.6 and 70.2, each of which incorporate by reference or rely upon Berne Article 18. Please give the date back to which such protection extends with respect to each category of subject matter.
We do not call giving full term of protection "retroactive". It is rather a question of whether all existing subject matter, within the limits of the term of protection, is protected. As regards works, the protection through TRIPS Article 9.1 is guaranteed by the law referred to in the reply to question 1(a) above. As far as performers and producers of phonograms are concerned, the obligations of Article 14.6, second sentence, were explicitly met in the context of the enactment of the Act prolonging terms of protection. The Act entered into force 1 January 1996.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/FIN/1 Finland United States of America 5. Please explain how the terms “few copies” and “private use” in Article 12 of the Copyright Act have been interpreted in Finland. How does this article, which seems to permit anyone to reproduce a “few copies” for private use, comply with Berne Article 9(2) and TRIPS Article 13, which require limitations and exceptions to exclusive rights to be limited to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder.
The provisions of Article 12 are in full conformity with Berne Article 9(2) and TRIPS Article 13. The concept of "few copies" was narrowed by the Amendment of 1980 to mean "even fewer", single, copies for private use. The meaning of "private use" was in Finland already before 1980 rather narrow. In 1980 it was narrowed further: only natural persons may have the advantage of making copies for private use. The firms, companies, associations and other legal entities were excluded from those who may benefit from this provision. The amendment launched collective management in the field of reprographic copying in the educational activities, public administration and business life. Furthermore, no other provisions concerning fair use or fair dealing open any possibilities to make copies without authorization.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/FIN/1 Finland United States of America 6. Please explain how the compulsory licence provisions in Articles 13, 14, 25f and 25h of the Copyright Act, which give anyone who has received authorization to reproduce works from an organization representing a large number of Finnish authors the right also to make copies of the works of an author who is not represented by the organization, comply with Berne Article 9(2) and TRIPS Article 13, which require limitations and exceptions to exclusive rights to be limited to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder.
The clauses mentioned in the question are not compulsory licences but extensions of agreed collective licences. They concern always mass uses which would be impossible to be licensed transaction by transaction. The condition for application of these clauses is always an agreement between an organization representing a large number of rightholders and the user. The terms agreed by the organization apply to the use of the rightholders not directly represented by the organization. Because the collective management organizations are professional and efficient negotiators, they try and normally succeed in agreeing on terms which are reasonable for the rightholders they represent directly on the basis of binding mandates. The terms are as reasonable for the outsider. The organization has negotiated also on behalf of the outsider. In certain respects the rightholders not represented by the organization are in a better position than those who were directly represented on the basis of the mandates. Article 26 of the Finnish Copyright Act contains general provisions on extended collective licence provisions. The outsider has to be accorded the same treatment which the organization accords to those who had given them mandates. Secondly, the outsider has always a right to claim individual remuneration, even in cases when the organization does not accord such a position to the rightholder on behalf of whom it acted on the basis of mandates or transfers of rights. This claim is valid three years from the relevant Act of use.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/FIN/1 Finland United States of America 7. Please indicate whether the terms “public display” and “public performance” as used in Articles 20 and 21 of the Copyright Act include broadcast, transmission, rebroadcast and retransmission.
(a) Public display vs. television Paragraph 2 of Article 25 of the Finnish Copyright Act demonstrates that the exhaustion of right of display in Article 20 does not extend to television broadcasts or rebroadcasting. (b) Public performance vs. broadcasting Paragraph 3 of Article 21 excludes television because the most of the programme contents in television is considered to be cinematographic works, not only films but also most of other contents. As concerns sound radio broadcasts, special school radio programmes included in the programme flow of the broadcaster of that time, were mentioned in the 1950's in the legislative history of paragraph 1 of Article 21. Everything used in the sound radio broadcasts, even in the school radio programmes has been systematically licensed and agreed. Paragraph 2 of Article 21 has never been interpreted to cover broadcasting. No rebroadcasting or retransmission practices fall under Article 21.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/FIN/1 Finland United States of America 8. Please indicate whether compilations of data or other material are protected by copyright, as required by TRIPS Article 10.2, or only as a sui generis right under Article 49 of the Copyright Act. Please explain how the ten to fifteen year term of protection provided for databases under Article 49 complies with TRIPS Article 12.
Compilations of data or other materials are protected by copyright if they are works in the copyright sense. The normal requirements for eligibility, the criterion of originality, apply. The sui generis right under Article 49 is an additional specific right. It does not exclude copyright in any database. The criterion of eligibility is completely different from that of copyright. It is lower as the sweat of the brow principle. The right is accorded to any maker of catalogue if a large amount of information items are compiled within the product. This form of protection has no relation to the protection provided for databases under TRIPS Article 12.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/FIN/1 Finland United States of America 9. Please explain the difference in the type of use involved between the first and second sentence of Article 4 of the Copyright Act. In particular, please explain: the meaning of “using freely”; and whether the concept of “new and independent work” differs from a copyrightable adaptation generally.
9. Please explain the difference in the type of use involved between the first and second sentence of Article 4 of the Copyright Act. In particular, please explain: the meaning of “using freely”; and whether the concept of “new and independent work” differs from a copyrightable adaptation generally.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/FIN/1 Finland United States of America 10. Please explain how the operation of Articles 15, 18 and 21 of the Copyright Act comply with Berne Article 9(2) and TRIPS Article 13, which require limitations and exceptions to exclusive rights to be limited to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder.
(a)Article 15: Senior citizens' homes etc. The cases are special cases. The recording is done when the people sleep in order to watch the programme the next morning. (b)Article 18: Anthologies The case is special. The rightholder is entitled to a compensation. The exception may be invoked only five years after the publication of the work. The clause has been used in the publication of textbooks for educational purposes. The terms have always been agreed between the rightholders' associations and the publishers. The compulsory element has not been used in practice. The article prevents use of parts of works which were created for educational purposes in anthologies produced for educational purposes. This restriction is based on Berne 9(2). (c)Article 21: Certain public performances This is the most typical example of use of "minor reservations" in the Finnish Copyright Act. All the articles in (a) to (c) above are in full compliance with Berne 9(2) and TRIPS 13.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/FIN/1 Finland United States of America [Follow-up question] Please explain whether and how the literal texts of the exceptions in Articles 15 and 21 of the Finnish Copyright Law have been limited in application or operation.
(a) Article 15 The provision in Article 15 means only time shifting. The use of the audio and video recordings is limited only to listening or watching the programme the next day. After that the recordings are meant to be erased. (b) Article 21 Paragraph 1 Performing a published work in connection with education means performing it in ordinary educational events at school. If works are performed in the school building but not in connection with education, e.g. in the evening after the school day, this provision shall not apply. Performing a published work at divine services means performing it at divine services which are arranged regularly on Sundays or other holy days. This provision shall not apply in other activities in parishes. Paragraph 2 The criteria settled in this provision are quite detailed and restrictive. The events meant in this provision are unusual in practice because performing artists rarely perform for nothing. We are not aware, at this time, of practical instances where this provision has been applied. These provisions contain examples of minor reservations allowed under the Berne Convention. Finland considers that Articles 15 and 21 of its Copyright Law is in full compliance with Articles 9(2) of the Berne Convention and 13 of the TRIPS Agreement.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/FIN/1 Finland United States of America 11. Please explain the criminal and civil remedies available for copyright infringement and the extent to which they fully implement the obligations in TRIPS Articles 41, 45, 50 and 61. In the response, please specify, inter alia, whether these remedies may include the seizure, forfeiture and destruction of infringing articles and equipment used to make the infringing articles, as required by Articles 46 and 61, and the manner in which the grant of civil provisional relief is provided in accordance with TRIPS Article 50.
The remedies available for copyright infringement have been described in detail in the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement. The criminal and civil remedies available fulfil the mentioned obligations in TRIPS. Enforcement provisions of the TRIPS Agreement will be reviewed separately in the second half of 1997.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/DEU/1 Germany United States of America 1. Please explain whether and how German law provides protection for works, phonograms and performances from other WTO Members, and whether and how it does so on the basis of national treatment, as required by TRIPS Article 3 (generally, with respect to all copyrights and neighbouring rights) and Article 9.1 (incorporating Berne Article 5(1)). In particular, please explain how national treatment is afforded with respect to the distribution of levies for private copying under the relevant provisions of the German Copyright Law.
I. First sentence National treatment in favour of WTO Members operates as follows: (a)Authors (excluding phonogram producers and performing artists who both are, as such, neighbouring rightholders under German law). 1.Section 120 Copyright Act provides protection for works of authors of German nationality irrespective of the place of publication and irrespective of whether publication has at all occurred. 2.Section 121, paragraph 1 provides protection for works first or simultaneously published in Germany, irrespective of the nationality of the author. 3.Section 121, paragraph 4 provides protection for works of foreign authors to the extent provided by international agreements to which Germany is a Contracting Party. Such agreements are the Berne Convention as well as the TRIPS Agreement. The national treatment obligation under Articles 3 and 9, paragraph 1 TRIPS is thus materially incorporated in the Copyright Act. Consequently, the extent of the protection of foreign authors under this section depends exclusively on the interpretation of these treaty provisions, because the protection of German authors under German law - see section 120 above - is not limited by any further criterion of eligibility. The exceptions from national treatment provided for in the Berne Convention and accepted under Article 3 TRIPS are also materially incorporated in German copyright law by section 121, paragraph 4. (b)Phonogram producers 1.Section 126, paragraph 1 provides that German nationals and companies with German headquarters benefit from the protection of phonogram producers irrespective of the place of publication of their phonograms and irrespective of whether publication has at all occurred. 2.Section 126, paragraph 2 provides that protection is granted for phonograms first or simultaneously published in Germany irrespective of the nationality of the producer or, if the producer is a company, of the location of its headquarters. 3.Section 126, paragraph 3 provides that foreign citizens and companies having their headquarters outside Germany benefit from the protection afforded to phonogram producers to the extent provided in international agreements to which Germany is a contracting party. TRIPS is such an agreement. The national treatment obligations under Article 3 TRIPS, including the exceptions provided for in the Rome Convention, are thus materially incorporated in the German Copyright Act. Consequently, the extent of the protection of foreign producers depends exclusively on the interpretation of Article 3 TRIPS because the protection of German producers under section 126, paragraph 1 is not subject to any further criteria of eligibility. As far as the Rome Convention is concerned, Germany has notified to WTO that it does not apply the criterion of fixation. As German copyright law does not acknowledge phonogram producers as authors, Article 9, paragraph 1 TRIPS cannot be invoked in favour of them. (c)Performing artists 1.Section 125, paragraph 1 grants protection to German performing artists irrespective of the place of the performance and irrespective of the place of publication or the fixation of their performance. 2.Performing artists are granted certain specific exclusive rights either unconditionally or under certain conditions, according to section 125, paragraphs 2 4 and 6. 3.Section 125, paragraph 5 provides in addition, that foreign performing artists are granted protection to the extent provided for in international agreements to which Germany is a contracting party. TRIPS is such an agreement. The national treatment obligation under Article 3 TRIPS is thus materially incorporated in the German Copyright Act. Consequently, the extent of the protection of foreign performing artists depends exclusively on the interpretation of Article 3 TRIPS because the protection of German performing artists under section 125, paragraph 1 (above) is not subject to any further criteria of eligibility. II.Second sentence - national treatment with respect to the distribution of levies for private copying The statutory remuneration right for private copying under section 54 of the Copyright Act is granted, on the basis of national treatment, only to authors from WTO Members. Performing artists and phonogram producers from WTO Members do not benefit, as such, from the German private copying levy scheme. Consequently, the following explanations deal only with the remuneration right of authors. It has long been recognized in German legal practice that Berne Union Authors enjoy the statutory remuneration right for private copying under section 54 of the Copyright Act. Consequently, the German government considers that, as from 1996, this legal practice will extend to authors from WTO Members. As to the operation of the remuneration right the following explanations may be useful. The remuneration right is subject to compulsory collective administration, see section 54 h, paragraph 1. This means that the levy is collected jointly by the collecting societies representing the various groups of rightholders. It means further that authors must be represented by a collecting society in order to be able to claim participation in the distribution of the money received which the collecting society operates according to the distribution scheme that it has autonomously established and whose guidelines form part of its statute (section 7 of the Copyright Administration Act). Section 6 of the Copyright Administration Act obliges collecting societies to represent rightholders of German or other EU nationality who so claim. According to the predominant legal opinion of the German copyright community, this legal obligation operates also in favour of those other foreign rightholders who benefit from national treatment in respect of rights that are subject to compulsory collective administration. On the distribution of the total income from the levy for private copying, various agreements have been in force among the participating collecting societies. Agreements have also been concluded with certain foreign rightholders' organizations on their share in the distribution. The legality of the distribution practice operated by the collecting societies is subject to supervision by the German Patent Office as the state supervisory authority.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/DEU/1 Germany United States of America 2. Does Germany apply the "rule of the shorter term" to phonograms and performances from other WTO Members? If so, please explain how you justify such action under TRIPS Article 4.
As we may not have correctly understood what is precisely meant by the rule of the shorter term in respect of phonograms and performances, the following explanation endeavours to exhaustively cover the duration of protection under German law for phonogram producers and performing artists from WTO Members. As has been stated above (answer to question 1, I. b) and c)), section 125, paragraph 5 and section 122, paragraph 3 grant to foreign performing artists and phonogram producers protection to the extent provided in international agreements. In this manner, the provision of TRIPS Article 14, paragraph 5, first sentence, is materially implemented in German law. The 50 year term of protection defined therein is applicable to rightholders from WTO Members. By the joint operation of the afore-mentioned provisions, section 125, paragraph 7 and section 126, paragraph 2, second sentence, are overruled. Otherwise the latter provisions would indeed provide for shorter terms on the basis of a comparison of terms of protection.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/DEU/1 Germany United States of America 3. Please explain whether and how Germany protects against both the direct and indirect reproduction of phonograms as required by TRIPS Article 14.2, including by digital transmission in the context of subscription or interactive services.
The question refers to the exclusive reproduction right of phonogram producers under TRIPS Article 14, paragraph 2. This right is enshrined in section 85, paragraph 1 of the Copyright Act. The wording of this section does not specify whether the reproduction may be direct or indirect. Consequently, both ways of reproduction are covered by the exclusive right. In particular, reproduction on the basis of the broadcast of phonograms is covered by this right. This long standing German interpretive practice has been further secured by the necessity to interpret the German copyright law in line with Directive 92/100/EEC, whose Article 7, paragraph 1 obliges Member States to provide for phonogram producers the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit the direct or indirect reproduction of their phonograms. The provisions of the Copyright Act on the reproduction right do not specifically address digital transmission in the context of subscription or interactive services. Significant case law has not yet developed in this area. The extent to which acts of digital transmission or preparatory acts are covered by the reproduction right depends on a judgment on the technical circumstances of these acts. The Federal Government is currently engaged in the examination of the need for legislative clarifications of the notion of reproduction in the digital environment as well as for a new or widened exclusive right of phonogram producers covering acts of digital dissemination.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/DEU/1 Germany United States of America [Follow-up question] Does the reproduction right for phonograms in the German Copyright Act, in its current form, clearly cover the digital delivery of permanent copies of phonograms?
Assuming that the person operating the digital delivery engages in having the phonogram reproduced in a permanent manner at the receiving end of the digital transmission, that act of reproduction is considered to be covered by the reproduction right of the phonogram producer under section 85.1.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/DEU/1 Germany United States of America 4. Please explain whether and how Germany provides full retroactive protection to works, phonograms and performances from other WTO Members, as required by TRIPS Articles 9.1, 14.6 and 70.2, each of which incorporate by reference or rely upon Berne Article 18. Please give the date back to which such protection extends with respect to each category of subject matter.
I.Principle of retroactive protection (a)Works The way that authors from WTO Members are protected has been explained in answer to question 1, part I, a). The obligation to provide full retroactive protection of their works (TRIPS Article 9, paragraph 1) in conjunction with Berne Convention Article 18, paragraph 1, is directly applicable in German law. It may be of interest here that Article 18, paragraph 1 of the Berne Convention has been operated in the sense of full retroactive protection in Germany for a long time in favour of new Berne Union members, including the United States of America. On the basis of the "life plus 70 years" rule in the German Copyright Act, Article 7, paragraph 8 of the Berne Convention and on the basis that the substantive obligations of the TRIPS Agreement became effective on 1 January 1996, retroactive protection extends to works of authors who did not die before 1926, unless the country of origin provides for a shorter term in which case that term is not exceeded. As a minimum, the life plus 50 years rule of Article 7, paragraph 1 of the Berne Convention applies. (However, the comparison of the terms of protection allowed under Article 7, paragraph 8 of the Berne Convention is excluded in relation to the United States of America by virtue of a bilateral Agreement of 1892.) (b)Phonograms and performances The extension of the protection of the Copyright Act to phonogram producers and performing artists from WTO Members has been explained in the answer to question 1, part I. b) and c). The obligation to provide full retroactive protection for theses rightholders (TRIPS Article 14, paragraph 6, second sentence, in conjunction with Berne Convention Article 18, paragraph 1) is directly applicable in German law as well. On the basis of TRIPS Article 14, paragraph 5, first sentence, and on the basis that the substantive obligations of TRIPS became effective on 1 January 1996, the retroactive protection extends to fixations that were made or performances that took place not earlier than in 1945. II.Transitional rules No specific transitional rules have been adopted as to the copyright provisions of TRIPS. However, the transitional rules recently adopted in the course of the implementation of various EEC directives apply mutatis mutandis, in the following way: (a)Where protection is established retroactively acts of exploitation that were commenced prior to 1 January 1996, may be continued within the initially intended scope. However, rightholders shall be entitled to equitable remuneration for this continued exploitation (see section 137f, subsection 3). (b)The exclusive rental right of authors of computer programmes shall not extend to those copies of programmes that were acquired by the rental operator for the purpose of rental before 1 January 1996 (see section 137d). (c)The exclusive rental right of authors, phonogram producers and performing artists shall not extend to those copies of phonograms which were acquired or made available to the rental operator for the purpose of rental before 1 January 1996 (see section 137e, sub-section 3).
24/10/1996
IP/Q/DEU/1 Germany United States of America 5. Please explain the criminal and civil remedies available for copyright infringement and the extent to which they fully implement the obligations in TRIPS Articles 41, 45, 50 and 61. In the response, please specify, inter alia, whether these remedies may include the seizure, forfeiture and destruction of infringing articles and equipment used to make the infringing articles, as required by Articles 46 and 61, and the manner in which the grant of civil provisional relief is provided in accordance with TRIPS Article 50.
A review of the enforcement provisions of TRIPS will be subject to a review procedure by the Council on TRIPS at a later stage, after the review of the substantive provisions on copyright, trademarks, patents, etc., see WTO documents IP/C/W/7/Rev.1 of 16 November 1995 and IP/C/5 of 30 November 1995. Therefore, the answer to question 5 will be given at that later council meeting.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/IRL/1 Ireland United States of America 1. Please explain whether and how Irish law provides protection for works, phonograms and performances from other WTO Members and whether and how it does so on the basis of national treatment, as required by TRIPS Article 3 (generally, with respect to all copyrights and neighbouring rights) and Article 9.1 (incorporating Berne Article 5 (1)). In particular, please explain how national treatment is afforded with respect to the distribution of levies for private copying under the relevant provisions of Irish law.
Ireland provides protection for works and phonograms in the Copyright Acts 1963 1987 and provides protection for performances in the Performers Protection Act 1968. Section 43 of the Copyright Act 1963 confers power on the Irish Government to extend the benefit of the Irish Copyright Acts to other countries. Section 12 of the Performers Protection Act 1968 provides similar powers in respect of performances. Irish law provides protection, inter alia, for works and phonograms from other WTO Members on the basis of national treatment in the Copyright (Foreign Countries) Order 1996 S.I. No. 36 of 1996 and provides protection for performances on the basis of national treatment in the Performers' Protection (Foreign Countries) (Amendment) Order 1996 S.I. No. 39 of 1996. These Orders extend protection under the Copyright Acts 1963 87 and under the Performers Protection Act 1968 to countries which have ratified or acceded to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization Done at Marrakesh on 15th day of April 1994. There are, however, some of Articles 1 21 of the Berne Convention which Ireland has not so far acceded to. The Paris Act of 1971 introduced amendments to the Convention on (1) translations of official works, (2) protection of architectural works, (3) moral rights of authors, (4) anonymous and pseudonymous works, (5) ownership of rights in film and (6) the recognition of bodies established to protect the rights of unknown authors of unpublished works. The Copyright Acts 1963 1987 do not contain provisions that cover these aspects of the Paris Act. The Irish Government, however, is currently deeply involved in a review of its copyright legislation and is actively preparing a new Copyright Bill which will cover all of Ireland's international obligations. Irish law does not provide for levies for private copying. However, this is another of the areas which we are carefully examining in preparing our new comprehensive piece of copyright legislation.
24/10/1996

Page 669 of 677   |   Number of documents : 13533

 
Reset