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 673 de 677   |   Nombre de documents : 13533

Cote du document Membre notifiant Membre soulevant la question Question Réponse Date de distribution du document  
IP/Q/CAN/1 Canada Union européenne [Follow-up question] Will this term apply even in the case where a work is published 40 years after its making?
Yes, the term of 75 years from making would apply. In examining whether Canada's legislation on this point is consistent with TRIPS, Article 12, it was taken in account that TRIPS, Article 12, applies with respect to categories of works. However, Berne Article 7(3) and Section 6 of the Canadian Copyright Act apply with respect to the much more limited case of circumstances of authorship. In any event, the economic impact here is not likely to be very significant because we are discussing the very narrow case of anonymous or pseudonymous works left unpublished for more than a quarter of a century.
24/10/1996
IP/Q/CAN/1 Canada Union européenne 12. Article 60 provides an exception to the application of the special border measures in the TRIPS Agreement when small amounts of goods are brought into Canada non-commercially in a traveller's personal luggage. Section 45(3) of the Copyright Act contains exceptions to the border enforcement measures. On what basis are the exceptions set out in Section 45(3) of the Copyright Act justified?
The TRIPS border enforcement measures apply with respect to pirated copyright and counterfeit trademark goods. The relevant section of the Copyright Act only applies in narrowly defined circumstances and with respect to the importation of copies which were legitimately made in the country of manufacture, notwithstanding any rights under the Canadian Copyright Act.
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
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

Page 673 de 677   |   Nombre de documents : 13533

 
Réinitialiser