Talk:Module 4: Rights, Exceptions, and Limitations: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
+ Is the discussion of Austrailian copyright in databases properly included in the discussion of neighboring rights? The write up makes it sound like it's a true "copyright," rather than a neighboring right. | + Is the discussion of Austrailian copyright in databases properly included in the discussion of neighboring rights? The write up makes it sound like it's a true "copyright," rather than a neighboring right. | ||
+eIFL takes issue with this sentence -- See, for example, [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:EN:HTML/ Article 5, Section 3 of the EU Copyright Directive], which provides 15 specific exceptions that member countries can enact, as well as one exception member countries are required to enact. -- eIFL asserts that there are actually 21 exceptions enumerated. Their count seems to include the exceptions in Article 5, Section 2. The exceptions in Section 2 only apply to rights under Article 2, while Section 3 applies to rights under Articles 2 and 3. Is it misleading to discuss the exceptions in Section 3, but not those in Section 2? They do have a point that the exception for libraries, which is included in Section 2, would seem to be particularly relevant for this course. | |||
Revision as of 02:28, 5 August 2009
CHRIS NOTES
- I barely touched http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/copyrightforlibrarians/Module_4:_Rights%2C_Exceptions%2C_and_Limitations#Library_Exceptions because the comments in the critique are so pervasive and prevalent (i.e. "this entire section needs to be redone") that it seemed foolish of me to do anything more than just fix typos and links. (i.e. I did not do any readability work).
- in the reading questions
- " If Angela wants to reuse entire works, but she want also to translate excerpts of works and comment on them, will such a usage be considered as non-substantial?"
- wtf does this mean?
KAI Comments:
+ Is the discussion of Austrailian copyright in databases properly included in the discussion of neighboring rights? The write up makes it sound like it's a true "copyright," rather than a neighboring right.
+eIFL takes issue with this sentence -- See, for example, Article 5, Section 3 of the EU Copyright Directive, which provides 15 specific exceptions that member countries can enact, as well as one exception member countries are required to enact. -- eIFL asserts that there are actually 21 exceptions enumerated. Their count seems to include the exceptions in Article 5, Section 2. The exceptions in Section 2 only apply to rights under Article 2, while Section 3 applies to rights under Articles 2 and 3. Is it misleading to discuss the exceptions in Section 3, but not those in Section 2? They do have a point that the exception for libraries, which is included in Section 2, would seem to be particularly relevant for this course.