The worrying thing is that I have a very high opinion of Eleonora Rosati. She has also participated in the Legal Affairs Committee hearing with me, Marie-Anne Ferry-Fall and the Commission during our #saveFoP campaign.
The boilerplate inclusion of the three-step-test could indeed be a stumbling block for many exceptions, not just FoP. However I however feel the results of the test should be different for architecture and for sculpture. After all the primary intention and intended uses (and sources of revenue) for the two are very different. Dimi 2016-04-06 17:56 GMT+02:00 James Heald <[email protected]>: > An interesting commentary has just gone up by Eleanora Rosati on the > well-known IPKat blog: > > > http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/swedish-supreme-court-uses-three-step.html > > > Her conclusion may be of some concern, that the Swedish decision may in > fact be correct, at least in terms of a narrow application of the 3-step > test. > > If that is correct, then this logic could apply not just to Sweden, or > even to the EU, but to all signatories of either TRIPS or Berne -- i.e. > pretty much everywhere. > > > Previously there has been concern that the boilerplate inclusion of 3-step > language in the Trans-Pacific Trade deal may be incompatible with current > U.S. caselaw on Fair Use. > > This application of the 3-step test in Sweden may just have upped the > stakes considerably. > > -- > > The Guardian website also has a longish English-language article on the > decision, from Agence France-Presse: > > > http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/05/wikimedias-free-photo-database-of-artworks-violates-copyright-court-rules > > > -- James. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Publicpolicy mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy >
_______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/publicpolicy
