©-LAW

Kat Awards! The Holidays have finally begun, and the end of 2017 is quickly approaching. In line with what has become sort of a ‘tradition’  [ here ,  here ,  here ,  here ] , also this year I have reviewed the past 12 copyright months and awarded a number of symbolic prizes to the most interesting or relevant developments occurred in 2017. Overall, 2017 has been a year in which courts have been once again at the centre of attention, answering tough questions and providing attempts of solutions to very concrete and new problems. In contrast – possibly with the  exception of Australia  – not much has happened on the legislative front. It is true that the EU legislature has adopted new pieces of legislation, including a  Portability Regulation  (applicable as of 1 April 2018) and  new instruments  to implement the  WIPO Marrakesh Treaty , but the most heated piece of legislation, ie the  proposal for a Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Marke t  [Katposts  here ] , re

After years spent discussing the IP implications of 3D printing  [which the the European Parliament - JURI Committee has also tackled in this recent  working paper ]  it seems that now the new 'hot' topic is Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its potential. Aside from issues of  citizenship , in the realm of IP one of the questions that have been asked with increasing frequency is whether and to what extent AI has the potential to replace humans, including in the creative fields. As AI machines become increasingly autonomous, can they be regarded as 'authors' in a copyright sense and, if so, can the works they create be eligible for copyright protection? If the answer was again in the affirmative, who would own the copyright in such works? Recent developments stand as a demonstration that answering these questions may not be something for an indefinite future. For instance, readers with an interest in music might have had the opportunity to listen to the recently r

Students often ask me how they can write a good essay (which would also make them eligible to receive a good mark).  This is a question that is not always easy to answer, also because when structuring and writing an essay there is arguably more room for different types of approaches than what is, instead, possibly the case of so called 'problem questions', ie real-life scenarios in which students are asked to provide legal counsel to a fictional client. I have tried however to come up with some sort of informal 'checklist'  [available  here ]  of issues that law students may want to consider when approaching and preparing to write an essay. Any feedback and comments on how to improve the ‘checklist’ are very welcome! This is part of my "student materials collection" which IPKat has covered in previous instances and can be found  here . So, student essays. Here we go: How can the checklist be applied in practice though? Here's

Earlier today this blog  reported  that, a few months after Advocate General (AG) Szpunar released his  Opinion  in  VCAST , C-265/16  [ here ] , the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has now released its  decision . As readers know, this was a reference from Italy (Turin Court of First Instance) that one would have thought  [as the questions were indeed about it!]  to concern the understanding and application of the private copying exception within Article 5(2)(b) of the  InfoSoc Directive  to cloud-based video-recording services. Well, although the AG Opinion is indeed about this, the CJEU judgment is not.  The Court, in fact, made the case about the right of communication/making available to the public within Article 3 of the InfoSoc Directive. Let’s start then and see why  VCAST  is not really – or at least is no longer - a case about the private copying exception. Background The facts of the case are rather simple: basically, the Italian lit