The Experts below are selected from a list of 33342 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Premfors Alida - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Legality of Linking : An Assessment of the Copyright Protection of Hyperlinks According to the CJEU, Focusing on its Usage of the New Public Criterion
Uppsala universitet Juridiska institutionen, 2020Co-Authors: Premfors AlidaAbstract:Enligt infosoc-direktivets artikel 3 har upphovsmän en ensamrätt att överföra sina verk till allmänheten. EU-domstolen har i en rad mål nått slutsatsen att Publiceringen av länkar som leder till ett verk utgör en överföring av verket till allmänheten. När en länk leder till ett lagligen uppladdat verk, som tillgängliggjorts gratis, är den emellertid att betrakta som tillåten och kräver inte upphovsmannens samtycke. Detta beror på att länken under dessa omständigheter inte anses ha tillgängliggjort verket för en ny publik. Kravet på att en överföring, för att höra till ensamrätten, måste ske till en ny publik framgår inte av infosoc-direktivets lydelse. Rekvisitet har utvecklats i praxis, med åberopande av framförallt internationell rätt. Denna uppsats syftar till att undersöka hur länkar hanteras av EU-domstolen, samt om domstolens praxis till sin metod respektive till sina resultat är lämplig. Min slutsats är att ny publik-rekvisitet saknar stöd i såväl infosoc-direktivet som internationell rätt, och att det till och med i vissa delar framstår som svårförenligt med dessa rättskällor. Genom en praxisgenomgång når jag slutsatsen att ny publik-rekvisitet har tillämpats på ett anmärkningsvärt inkonsekvent sätt, och att detta antagligen kan förklaras med en ändamålshänsyn som inte uttalats i domskälen. Generellt framstår ny publik-rekvisitet som ett verktyg EU-domstolen använt då de velat nå slutsatsen att ett visst agerande antingen ska vara tillåtet eller ej, och stöd för detta saknats i rättskällorna. När det kommer till länkar har alltså ny publik-rekvisitet använts för att motivera att dessa ska vara tillåtna. Utifrån en avvägning mellan upphovsmannens intressen och intresset av informations- och yttrandefrihet anser jag att EU-domstolens inställning som huvudregel är befogad. Jag anser dock att det finns vissa omständigheter som i det specifika fallet skulle kunna motivera att en viss länkningsåtgärd bör betraktas som ett intrång. Särskilt ser jag att sådana situationer skulle kunna komma att uppstå då material inbäddas i vinstsyfte på ett sätt som konkurrerar med upphovsmannens tillgängliggörande av verket. Utifrån EU-domstolens hittills avlagda praxis framstår det som svårt att beakta dessa omständigheter inom ramen för ny publik-rekvisitets tillämpning. Sammantaget når jag slutsatsen att ny publik-rekvisitet inte utgör ett effektivt och lämpligt verktyg för att dra gränsen mellan tillåtna och otillåtna överföringar till allmänheten. Länkar hade kunnat hanteras på ett nyanserat sätt där majoriteten, men inte alla, tillåts även utan ny publik-rekvisitet. Om inte annat bör ny publik-rekvisitet omdefinieras så att det kan leda till lämpliga resultat även med en konsekvent tillämpning, och så det går att förena med övrig upphovsrättslig reglering.According to Article 3 in the InfoSoc Directive, the creator of a creative work owns the exclusive right to communicate his work to the Public. The CJEU has made it clear that the act of hyperlinking to a webpage where a work has been uploaded constitutes communication to the Public. However, when a link leads to a creative work that has been uploaded freely and legally, the act of linking does not constitute a copyright infringement. This is motivated by the notion that a link under those circumstances does not communicate the work to a new Public. The perception that a communication, to constitute an infringement, must be made to a new Public is not based on the writings in the InfoSoc Directive. The Criterion is developed by the CJEU, referring primarily to international law. This essay is an investigation of whether and under which circumstances linking constitutes a copyright infringement according to the CJEU. The approach chosen by the court is evaluated, considering both the suitability of its methods and its results. My conclusion is that the new Public Criterion lacks support in superior legal sources. To some degree, the Criterion even appears discordant with both union and international law. Looking at the CJEU rulings, I reach the conclusion that the new Public Criterion has been used and defined in a remarkably inconsistent manner, and that this is probably due to an application of the Criterion in accordance with a desired outcome. The new Public Criterion is, inter alia, used to support that the act of linking does not constitute an infringement. With consideration for both the interests of the rightsholder and the freedom of expression, I deem it suitable to let most links fall without the scope of the creator’s exclusive right. There are, however, circumstances under which I think it could be suitable to let a specific link fall within the rights of the creator. Such a situation could be at hand when imbedded links are used for profit by an actor in direct competition with the rightsholder. The rulings by the CJEU do not, as of yet, open up for such circumstances to be taken into consideration when applying the new Public Criterion. In conclusion, I believe that the new Public Criterion does not constitute an effective or suitable tool for drawing the line between lawful and unlawful communications to the Public. Links can be handled in a nuanced way where the majority, but not all, are allowed – without the new Public Criterion. If nothing else, the new Public Criterion should be redefined so that it can lead to suitable results with a consistent definition, and to make it reconcilable with international and union copyright law
Jongin Lee - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
priority re setting for future core strategic technologies in agricultural and environmental science
Korean Journal of Environmental Agriculture, 2008Co-Authors: Keuntae Cho, Jin Ho Joo, Bongchul Shin, Jeeyong Kim, Jongin LeeAbstract:The objective of this study was to set priority for future core technologies in agricultural and environmental science using analytic hierarchy process(AHP). Forty-six technologies were derived by specialist meetings. Evaluation criteria, for setting the priority were decided as 'technology', 'marketability', and 'Public'. Eighteen specialists in agricultural and environmental science answered to the questionnaire for AHP. As the results, 'technology' was decided as the most important evaluation Criterion. The 'Feasibility' in 'technology' Criterion, 'Market Growth' in 'marketability' Criterion, and 'Impact to other industry' in 'Public' Criterion were decided as sub-criteria in each Criterion. The most important technology was 'Risk assessment of toxic heavy metals and establishment of accreditation criteria for environmentally friendly agricultural products.
Keuntae Cho - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
priority re setting for future core strategic technologies in agricultural and environmental science
Korean Journal of Environmental Agriculture, 2008Co-Authors: Keuntae Cho, Jin Ho Joo, Bongchul Shin, Jeeyong Kim, Jongin LeeAbstract:The objective of this study was to set priority for future core technologies in agricultural and environmental science using analytic hierarchy process(AHP). Forty-six technologies were derived by specialist meetings. Evaluation criteria, for setting the priority were decided as 'technology', 'marketability', and 'Public'. Eighteen specialists in agricultural and environmental science answered to the questionnaire for AHP. As the results, 'technology' was decided as the most important evaluation Criterion. The 'Feasibility' in 'technology' Criterion, 'Market Growth' in 'marketability' Criterion, and 'Impact to other industry' in 'Public' Criterion were decided as sub-criteria in each Criterion. The most important technology was 'Risk assessment of toxic heavy metals and establishment of accreditation criteria for environmentally friendly agricultural products.
Jin Ho Joo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
priority re setting for future core strategic technologies in agricultural and environmental science
Korean Journal of Environmental Agriculture, 2008Co-Authors: Keuntae Cho, Jin Ho Joo, Bongchul Shin, Jeeyong Kim, Jongin LeeAbstract:The objective of this study was to set priority for future core technologies in agricultural and environmental science using analytic hierarchy process(AHP). Forty-six technologies were derived by specialist meetings. Evaluation criteria, for setting the priority were decided as 'technology', 'marketability', and 'Public'. Eighteen specialists in agricultural and environmental science answered to the questionnaire for AHP. As the results, 'technology' was decided as the most important evaluation Criterion. The 'Feasibility' in 'technology' Criterion, 'Market Growth' in 'marketability' Criterion, and 'Impact to other industry' in 'Public' Criterion were decided as sub-criteria in each Criterion. The most important technology was 'Risk assessment of toxic heavy metals and establishment of accreditation criteria for environmentally friendly agricultural products.
Bongchul Shin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
priority re setting for future core strategic technologies in agricultural and environmental science
Korean Journal of Environmental Agriculture, 2008Co-Authors: Keuntae Cho, Jin Ho Joo, Bongchul Shin, Jeeyong Kim, Jongin LeeAbstract:The objective of this study was to set priority for future core technologies in agricultural and environmental science using analytic hierarchy process(AHP). Forty-six technologies were derived by specialist meetings. Evaluation criteria, for setting the priority were decided as 'technology', 'marketability', and 'Public'. Eighteen specialists in agricultural and environmental science answered to the questionnaire for AHP. As the results, 'technology' was decided as the most important evaluation Criterion. The 'Feasibility' in 'technology' Criterion, 'Market Growth' in 'marketability' Criterion, and 'Impact to other industry' in 'Public' Criterion were decided as sub-criteria in each Criterion. The most important technology was 'Risk assessment of toxic heavy metals and establishment of accreditation criteria for environmentally friendly agricultural products.