Examen de la législation d'application de l'Accord sur les ADPIC ‒ Recherche

Réinitialiser
 
 

Aux termes de l'article 63:2 de l'Accord sur les ADPIC, les Membres doivent notifier les lois et réglementations qu'ils auront rendues exécutoires, et qui visent les questions faisant l'objet de l'Accord, au Conseil des ADPIC pour l'aider dans son examen du fonctionnement de l'Accord.

Cette page vous permet d'effectuer une recherche dans les questions et réponses des Membres au sujet des lois et réglementations notifiées. Vous pouvez consulter les résultats de la recherche à l'écran ou les télécharger afin de les imprimer au format Excel. Vous pouvez également télécharger des documents spécifiques.

* Vous n'êtes PAS obligé(e) de sélectionner tous les champs de recherche ci-dessous (uniquement les champs qui sont pertinents pour votre recherche).
* Veuillez noter que les critères de recherche sélectionnés sont cumulatifs et figureront tous dans les résultats de votre recherche.


Page 11 de 496   |   Nombre de documents : 9912

Cote du document Membre notifiant Membre soulevant la question Question Réponse Date de distribution du document  
IP/Q/NZL/1 Pays-Bas Union européenne 3. Does New Zealand grant protection to authors of cinematographic works where the makers of such works have their headquarters in the territory of a WTO Member but are not incorporated in a WTO Member country (Article 9.1 of the TRIPS Agreement in conjunction with Article 4 Berne Convention)?
Yes, New Zealand does so. A film qualifies for copyright if the author is either: a citizen or subject, a domiciled or resident individual, or a body incorporated under the law, of a prescribed foreign country. A work of joint authorship qualifies under this section if any of the authors meet these requirements (Section 18 of the Copyright Act 1994 refers). It should be noted that: -an author is defined as the person who makes the arrangements necessary for making a film and can be a natural person or a body corporate (Section 5); -provision is made for works of joint authorship (Section 6); and -the Copyright (Application to Other Countries) Order is relevant (see response to question 1).
24/10/1996
IP/Q/NZL/1 Pays-Bas Union européenne 4. With regard to the utilization (to the extent justified for the relevant purpose) of literary and artistic works by way of illustration in publications, broadcast or sound or visual recordings for teaching, does New Zealand require that the source and the name of the author be mentioned (Article 9.1 of the TRIPS Agreement in conjunction with Article 10(3) Berne Convention?
There is a general right for authors to be identified as the author of a work (Section 94) providing the right has been asserted (Section 96). There is only one exception to this right which is education related, namely things to do with examinations (Section 97). The right does, therefore, cover literary and artistic works by way of utilization in publications, broadcasting, and sound or visual recordings for teaching. New Zealand considers that education related exceptions are covered by Berne Article 9(3).
24/10/1996
IP/Q/NZL/1 Pays-Bas Union européenne 5. Who is deemed under New Zealand copyright law to represent the author of literary and artistic works in relation to the enforcement of protected rights where the works are anonymous or pseudonymous and leave doubts as to his identity (Article 9.1 of the TRIPS Agreement in conjunction with Article 15(3) Berne Convention)?
New Zealand complies with Berne Article 15(3) in relation to anonymous or pseudonymous works. Where the name of the publisher appears on copies of the work as first published, the publisher is presumed, until the contrary is proven, to represent the author and is entitled to protect and enforce the author's rights (Section 126 of the Copyright Act 1994). An unknown author is not subsequently to be regarded as unknown if the identity becomes known (Section 7).
24/10/1996
IP/Q/NZL/1 Pays-Bas Union européenne 6. Has New Zealand applied or does it intend to apply § 234(o)(i) and (iii) of the Copyright Act 1994 in relation to the authorization of the rental to the public of computer programs and/or films (Article 11 of the TRIPS Agreement)? Is there any evidence of widespread copying impairing the exclusive right of reproduction of authors of films (Article 11 of the TRIPS Agreement)?
New Zealand has not applied, and there are currently no proposals to apply, Section 234(o)(i) and (iii) in relation to the authorization of the rental to the public of computer programmes and/or films. While there is no apparent evidence of widespread copying impairing the exclusive right of reproduction of authors of films, there has been some evidence of this occurring. For this reason, New Zealand has provided authors with the right to authorize or prohibit the commercial rental to the public of originals or copies of their films (Section 9 of the Copyright Act refers).
24/10/1996
IP/Q/NZL/1 Pays-Bas Union européenne 7. To what extent and for which purposes does New Zealand copyright law permit the playing or showing in public of broadcasts or cable programmes (Article 14.1 of the TRIPS Agreement)?
The owner of copyright has the right to play or show in public broadcasts or cable programmes (Sections 16 and 32 of the Copyright Act 1994). There are, however, limitations to this exclusive right as follows: -Section 47:A broadcast or cable programme, shown at a prescribed educational establishment, is deemed not to be a showing in public. -Section 57:A sound recording or film in an archive maintained by Radio New Zealand Limited, Television New Zealand Limited or the New Zealand Film Archive respectively, may be shown to the public provided any charge to the public is no more than that necessary to recover charges. This does not apply, however, where there is a licensing scheme in operation and the archive is aware of that fact. -Section 87:A broadcast or cable programme may be played or shown in public to an audience who have not paid for admission or, having paid a fee for admission, the fee is not attributable to the playing or showing. The purpose of this provision is to allow clubs, societies and prisons to play broadcasts. -Section 178:Performers' rights: This provision is equivalent in effect to Section 47. -Section 188:Performers' rights: This provision is equivalent in effect to Section 87.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/NZL/1 Pays-Bas Union européenne To what extent does New Zealand copyright law restrict the rights of performers in relation to broadcasts included in a cable programme service (Article 14.1 of the TRIPS Agreement)?
Restrictions on the rights of performers in relation to broadcasts included in a cable programme service are provided for in Section 189 of the Copyright Act 1994. This section provides for the reception and immediate retransmission of a broadcast, made in New Zealand, in a cable service programme. The rights of performers are not infringed if, and to the extent that, the broadcast is made for reception in the area in which the cable programme service is provided. If the broadcast itself infringes any right which a performer may have, then the retransmission shall also be taken into account when assessing damages.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/NZL/1 Pays-Bas Union européenne 8. Has New Zealand applied or does it intend to apply § 234(o)(ii) of the Copyright Act 1994 in relation to the authorization of the rental to the public of sound recordings (Article 14.4 of the TRIPS Agreement)?
New Zealand has not applied, and there are currently no proposals to apply, Section 234(o)(ii) in relation to the authorization of the rental to the public of sound recordings.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/JPN/1 Japon Union européenne 1. What is the definition of "country of origin" as used in the Copyright Law of Japan (Article 9.1 of the TRIPS Agreement in conjunction with Article 5(4) Berne Convention)?
The provisions of the Japanese Copyright Law (Articles 6 to 9bis) fully comply with the principle of national treatment required by the Berne Convention, although it does not use the term "country of origin" used in Article 5 of the Berne Convention.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/JPN/1 Japon Union européenne 2. To what extent are quantitative limitations imposed, be it in law or through the courts, on the use of literary or artistic works for teaching purposes pursuant to Articles 33 to 35 of the Copyright Law (Article 9.1 of the TRIPS Agreement in conjunction with Article 10(2) Berne Convention)?
Article 33 of the Japanese Copyright Law allows the reproduction of works in school textbooks, and Article 34 allows broadcasting or wire diffusion of works for school education and reproduction of works in textbooks for such programmes. However, these acts can be done under the strict condition: "only to the extent deemed necessary for the purpose of school education". Also, the user shall announce the use to the author in order to provide the author with a chance to exercise his/her moral rights, and shall pay compensation to the copyright owner. Article 35 allows the person who is in charge of teaching in educational institutions to reproduce a work to the extent deemed objectively necessary for the purpose of use in the course of teaching, provided that such reproduction does not unreasonably prejudice the interests of the copyright owner in the light of the nature of the work as well as the number of copies, etc. These Articles (Articles 33 to 35) have been carefully established and applied under strict interpretation so as to comply with Articles 9(2) and 10(2) of the Berne Convention and Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/JPN/1 Japon Union européenne [Follow-up question] What mechanisms are in place to inform and pay compensation to authors of works of WTO origin when such works are reproduced, broadcast or diffused by wire as permitted in Articles 33 and 34 of the Japanese Copyright Law? If no such compensation mechanism exists, how many copies are concerned?
According to Articles 33 and 34, it is the user himself who shall inform the author of the use based on these articles, and the user shall pay the compensation directly to the copyright owner. This system covers the works of WTO origin. Even in the ordinary use of existing works under the authorization of the copyright owner, it is the user himself who should find and contact the author and copyright owner and pay the fee if necessary. In addition, the number of companies making use of Articles 33 and 34 is limited, and these companies are in close contact with the Ministry of Education, which ensures the proper functioning of the system.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/JPN/1 Japon Union européenne 3. Does Japan require that the source and the name of the author be mentioned, in accordance with Article 9.1 of the TRIPS Agreement in conjunction with Article 10(3) Berne Convention, whenever use is made of a work in accordance with Article 35 of the Copyright Law?
When a teacher uses a work for teaching without the authorization of the copyright owner based on Article 35, he or she shall, according to Article 48(1)(3), clearly indicate the source "provided that standard practice so requires". The objective of Article 48(1)(3) is to clarify that the teacher is not required to indicate the source when it is practically impossible and this provision is clearly consistent with the provision of Article 10(3) of the Berne Convention.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/JPN/1 Japon Union européenne 4. Does Article 41 of the Copyright Law permit the free use of works in relation to current events by whatever means of communication to the public, including forms which are not explicitly listed in Article 9.1 of the TRIPS Agreement in conjunction with Article 10bis(2) Berne Convention?
Article 41 of the Japanese Copyright Law is to limit the copyright of a work in the use for the purpose of reporting current events done by such organizations as newspaper companies and broadcasting organizations. In such cases, the work can be used by means of photography, cinematography and broadcasting as well as such "other means" as newspaper articles and wire diffusion. However, they are allowed only "to the extent justified by the informatory purpose", and, therefore, this provision is not to allow such uses unlimitedly.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/JPN/1 Japon Union européenne [Follow-up question] Does Japanese law (Article 41) allow the free reproduction of a literary work in a newspaper, magazine or similar publication for the purpose of "reporting current events"?
Article 41 of the Japanese Copyright Law does not allow unlimitedly the reproduction of a literary work in a newspaper, magazine and others for the purpose of "reporting current events". The use allowed under Article 41 is only "to the extent justified by the informatory purpose". This article was stipulated anticipating such cases as the broadcasting of a sporting event with the music used in that sporting event, and the reproduction of a stolen picture on a newspaper. Although Article 41 does not stipulate any differentiated range of use in terms of the category of works, in the case of literary works, it is extremely hard to imagine a case, in which it is allowed by this article to reproduce a whole literary work in a newspaper, magazine, etc "to the extent justified by the informatory purpose".
24/10/1996
IP/Q/JPN/1 Japon Union européenne 5. Does Article 41 of the Copyright Law allow the reproduction or exploitation of a work not actually seen or heard in the course of the event that is being reported (Article 9.1 of the TRIPS Agreement in conjunction with Article 10bis(2) Berne Convention)?
Article 41 of the Japanese Copyright Law allows reproduction and exploitation of a work seen or heard in the course of an event and of "a work implicated in the event" for the purpose of reporting current events done by such organizations as newspaper companies and broadcasting organizations. "A work implicated in the event" means a work which constitutes the event as the subject matter. For example, when a theft of a picture happens, that picture is the work "implicated in the event". Therefore, Article 41 does not allow the reproduction of works which merely relate to the event.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/JPN/1 Japon Union européenne 6. Is it the position of the Government of Japan that Article 14 of the Supplementary Provisions of Law No. 48 of 6 May 1970 should be maintained in its current form? If not, what amendments does the Government envisage (Article 9.1 of the TRIPS Agreement in conjunction with Article 11(1) Berne Convention?
As to Article 14 of the Supplementary Provisions of Law No. 48 of 6 May 1970 (the Japanese Copyright Law), the Copyright Council of the Agency for Cultural Affairs of the Japanese Government already supported the abolition of the said Article. Taking this into consideration, the government of Japan is now examining the result of this Council.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/JPN/1 Japon Union européenne 7. To what extent is a person or body corporate whose name appears on a cinematographic work presumed to be the maker of the said work under Japanese law (Article 9.1 of the TRIPS Agreement in conjunction with Article 15(2) Berne Convention)?
Although Article 14 of the Japanese Copyright Law refers only on the presumption of authors, a person or body corporate whose name appears on a cinematographic work is presumed to be the maker of that work in practice, and there has been no practical or judicial problem on this point.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/JPN/1 Japon Union européenne 8. Does the definition of computer programmes as contained in Article 2(1)(xbis) of the Copyright Law include programs in source code as well as programmes in object code (Article 10.1 of the TRIPS Agreement)?
Computer programs defined in Article 2(1)(xbis) of the Japanese Copyright Law includes programs in source code as well as in object code.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/JPN/1 Japon Union européenne 9. Do originals of computer programs and cinematographic works fall within the scope of the rental right provided by Article 26bis and Article 26 respectively of the Copyright Law (Article 11 of the TRIPS Agreement)?
Both the right of distribution (including the right of lending) provided for in Article 26 of the Japanese Copyright Law and the right of lending provided for in Article 26bis prescribe that the acts of distribution or lending covered are those done by "copies" of the work. However, as the concept of "copies" in the Japanese Copyright Law includes all fixations of a work, the original of the work is also included in the concept of "copies".
24/10/1996
IP/Q/JPN/1 Japon Union européenne 10. Does Article 91(1) of the Copyright Law, in conjunction with Article 112(1) of the same Law, allow performers to prevent both the fixation of their unfixed performance and the reproduction of such fixation when undertaken without their authorization (Article 14.1 of the TRIPS Agreement)?
Performers' right to make sound or visual recordings stipulated in Article 91 of the Japanese Copyright Law is an exclusive right with respect to sound and visual recordings and obviously includes the possibility of preventing the reproduction of unauthorized fixation of performances, which is required by Article 14.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, and Article 91 fulfils the obligation of the TRIPS Agreement.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/JPN/1 Japon Union européenne 11. Does Article 92(1) of the Copyright Law, in combination with Article 112(1) of this Law, give performers the possibility to prevent any communication to the public of their live performance when undertaken without their authorization, including where such communication does not require any active participation by the person communicating the performance, such as where works are made available for access on line (Article 14.1 of the TRIPS Agreement)?
Performers' right to make sound or visual recordings stipulated in Article 91 of the Japanese Copyright Law is an exclusive right with respect to sound and visual recordings and obviously includes the possibility of preventing the reproduction of unauthorized fixation of performances, which is required by Article 14.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, and Article 91 fulfils the obligation of the TRIPS Agreement.
24/10/1996

Page 11 de 496   |   Nombre de documents : 9912

 
Réinitialiser