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 18 de 677   |   Nombre de documents : 13533

Cote du document Membre notifiant Membre soulevant la question Question Réponse Date de distribution du document  
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
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)?
Based on Article 92(1) of the Japanese Copyright Law, performers have the exclusive right of transmission to the public by any means including wire or wireless transmission, simultaneous or on demand, analog or digital, of their live performance when such transmission is undertaken without their authorization. As to the communication to the public other than the transmission to the public, performers themselves can exercise "the possibility of preventing" it by contract.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/JPN/1 Japon Union européenne [Follow-up question] Could the Japanese representatives give an example of cases of communication to the public of live performances which are considered not to be acts of transmissions to the public or acts of broadcasting under Article 92(1) of Japanese Copyright Law?
One simple example of such a case is "live performance" in front of the public.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/JPN/1 Japon Union européenne 12. To what extent does the requirement in Article 100 of the Copyright Law to communicate "by means of a special instrument for enlarging images" limit the broadcasting organizations' right to prohibit communication to the public of their television broadcasts (Article 14.3 of the TRIPS Agreement)?
Article 100 of the Japanese Copyright Law grants to broadcasting organizations the exclusive right to communicate to the public their television programmes by means of the device to enlarge the image. As to the communication to the public through normal television with payment, there has been no such practical case in Japan, and so the Japanese Copyright Law provides for such exclusive right only in the case of communication with a special instrument for enlarging images.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/JPN/1 Japon Union européenne [Follow-up question] In light of the answer given to question No. 12, it is our understanding that Japanese Law does not grant broadcasting organizations the right to prohibit the communication to the public of television broadcasts when the communication is not "by means of a special instrument for enlarging images" (Article 100). How does Japanese Copyright Law comply with the obligation set up in Article 14.3 of the TRIPS Agreement?
Article 100 of the Japanese Copyright Law grants to broadcasting organizations the exclusive right to communicate to the public their television programmes by means of the device to enlarge the image. Paragraph 6 of Article 14 of the TRIPS Agreement stipulates that any Member may, in relation to the rights of broadcasting organizations conferred under paragraph 3 of the same Article, provide for limitations permitted by the Rome Convention. As Article 13(d) of the Rome Convention stipulates that the domestic law of the state where protection of the right is claimed may determine the conditions under which it may be exercised, the Japanese Copyright Law excludes the communication to the public of television broadcasts by means of a television for home use.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/JPN/1 Japon Union européenne 13. Do originals of phonograms fall within the scope of the rental right provided by Articles 95bis(1) (3) and 97bis(1) (3), in combination with Article 2(1)(vii), of the Copyright Law (Article 14.4 of the TRIPS Agreement)?
The Japanese Copyright Law provides for "the right of lending" with respect to commercial phonograms. If an original of a phonogram is used for commercial purposes, it will be regarded as "a commercial phonogram", and therefore, the original of a phonogram used for such purposes falls within the scope of "the right of lending".
24/10/1996
IP/Q/JPN/1 Japon Union européenne 14. From which point in time do the provisions of Article 14.1 14.3 of TRIPS apply to the rights of performers and producers of phonograms in phonograms under the Copyright Law?
The Government of Japan considers it desirable to provide a high level of protection for intellectual property rights and believes 50 year retroactive protection of the rights of performers and producers of phonograms (sound recordings) is appropriate. Therefore, a draft amendment to the Copyright Law is under preparation for submission to the Diet with a view to extending the period of retroactive protection for such rights to 50 years.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/NZL/1 Nouvelle-Zélande Union européenne 1. Does New Zealand apply its copyright law to broadcasting organizations having their headquarters in the territory of a contracting state of the Rome Convention (1961) where the broadcasting organization concerned is not incorporated in a contracting state (Article 2.2 of the TRIPS Agreement in conjunction with Article 6 Rome Convention)? If the answer is negative, please explain the reasons for this.
Yes, New Zealand does so. A broadcast qualifies for copyright if: -it is made from a prescribed foreign country (Section 20 of the Copyright Act 1994); and -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). It should be noted that: -an author is defined as the person who makes or relays a broadcast and can be a natural person or a body corporate (Section 5); -where a broadcast is made by more than one person then it is to be treated as a work of joint authorship (Section 6); and -a prescribed foreign country is one that is included in one of the schedules of the Copyright (Application to Other Countries) Order 1995 which came into force on 1 January 1996. In accordance with TRIPS Article 1.3, New Zealand has made a notification in terms of Article 6(2) of the Rome Convention.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/NZL/1 Nouvelle-Zélande Union européenne [Follow-up question] What happens if a company is not incorporated in New Zealand or another WTO Member but has its headquarters or principal place of business in New Zealand or another WTO Member?
Under New Zealand law we would not regard a company as having its headquarters or principal place of business in a country unless it was also incorporated in that country.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/NZL/1 Nouvelle-Zélande Union européenne 2. Does New Zealand intend to repeal § 76 of the Copyright Act 1994 (Article 8 of the TRIPS Agreement)?
The Government does not currently have any intention to repeal Section 76 of the Copyright Act 1994.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/NZL/1 Nouvelle-Zélande Union européenne [Follow-up question] On which provision of the Berne Convention does New Zealand base its exception from the protection of literary and artistic works relating to medicines (Article 76)?
The Berne Convention does not cover distribution rights. Accordingly, the Berne Convention is not applicable to Section 76.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/NZL/1 Nouvelle-Zélande 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 Nouvelle-Zélande 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 Nouvelle-Zélande 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 Nouvelle-Zélande 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 Nouvelle-Zélande 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 Nouvelle-Zélande 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

Page 18 de 677   |   Nombre de documents : 13533

 
Réinitialiser