Journal articles on the topic 'Copyright Amendment (Moral Rights) Act'

In September 1986, Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts sponsored a bill, “The Visual Artists Rights Amendment of 1986” which was not unlike many others that had been introduced into the United States Congress in recent years. ft proposed toexpand the Copyright Act of 1976 by granting artists certain control over their works beyond that currently secured under Copyright, contract or tort protections, as well as the ability to share in the proceeds of future (secondary) sales of the work. Although the bill never saw the light of legislative action, the issues it addressed are very much in the forefront of current art and law concerns.

The presence of intellectual work as the result of human ability, need to be protected in order to get recognition, appreciated and respected. The amendment to the Copyright Act Number 19 of 2002 is deemed necessary by the Government to provide better protection to the Author and the Owner of the Neighboring Rights. Based on the explanation above it can be drawn the problem formulation ie (1) How Act Number 28 of 2014 related to Copyright (New Copyright Act) regulate Copyrights and Neighboring Rights? (2) How will the Act Number 28 of 2014 related to Copyright (New Copyright Act) protect the Author and the Owner of Neighboring Rights in Indonesia? While the objective of the study ie (1) To review the regulation related to Copyright and Neighboring Rights in the new Copyright Act, (2) To review the form and substance of copyright protection to the Author and the owner of the neighboring rights in Indonesia in accordance with the new Copyright Act. This study is a normative juridical which used literature as the main foundation. The legal materials used in this study are primary legal materials which include the Civil Code and related legislation. Secondary legal materials consist of literature books, journals, and articles are used to describe the primary legal materials. The study found that (1) Act Number 28 of 2014 on Copyright accommodates the interests of the Author and the Owner of the Related Rights by providing better protection in its Articles, and (2) Some crucial changes related to Economic Rights and the change of Criminal offense to Complaint offense gives more protection to the Author and Related Rights’ Owner.

When the protection of moral rights is brought up in the United States, commentators have always emphasized the differences between continental Europe and the United States.2 Cases that have been widely used as textbook illustrations include Soc. Le Chant de Monde v. Soc. Fox Europe3 and Turner Entertainment Co. v. Huston.4 While the Anglo-American copyright regime and the French author’s right (droit d’auteur) regime were quite similar in the eighteenth century, 5 the protection of moral rights did not attain formal international recognition until 1928.6 The gap between the U.S. and French systems has also grown considerably since the enactment of the 1909 U.S. Copyright Act.

Keywords: rights of the performer, moral rights, rights to use, communication tothe public, the right of the performer to demand payment of remuneration, the validityperiod of the rights to use The article examines the protection of performers' rights in Germany, introduced by the Act amending copyright regulations of 24 June 1985. The Copyright Act includes Part 2 «Neighboring Rights», section 3 of which deals with the protection of performers' rights, and the law itself is called the «German Copyright and Neighboring Rights Act». The German Law of 10 September 2003 on the regulation of copyright in the information society completely amends §§ 73−83 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, which governs the protection of performers' rights under the WPPT.The provisions of § 73 «Performer» are extended to the performance of works of folk art. Paragraphs 74−76 are devoted to the protection of moral rights, which were indicated fragmentarily by previous legislation. In the corrected form, moral rightstake precedence over rights of use, which confirms the special adherence of German law to them. Whereas under previous legislation so-called “consent rights” were granted to performers, the updated paragraphs grants the present rights of use:recording, reproduction and distribution, communication to the public, rights of use, the right of the performer to demand payment of remuneration, the sharing of several performances.In Germany, the rights of the organizer of performances are protected. If the performance of the performer is organized by a company, then the rights to use belong, in addition to the performer, also to the owner of the company. According to §83, the provisions of Section 6 «Copyright Restrictions» of Part I «Copyright» of the Copyright and Related Rights Act apply respectively to the restriction of the rights of the performer and the organizer of the performance.The protection of performers in Germany is in accordance with the provisions of the Rome Convention, the WPPT, the relevant EU directives. With further improvement of the protection of the rights of performers in Ukraine, it would be useful to use the experience of Germany regarding the protection of the rights of the organizer of a performance and determining the term for the protection of rights to performances recorded on a phonogram.

Abstract The National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) in Nigeria recently released an amendment to the 6th edition of the Broadcasting Code. Its aim is to increase local content, generate advertisement revenue and prevent anti-competitive practices in the Nigerian broadcast industry. To this end, it prevents exclusivity or monopolisation of content by broadcasting organisations, including Pay TV and Video on Demand (VOD) platforms. Drawing from European and South African experiences, this article begins by examining the provisions of the Broadcasting Code, particularly the amendment vis-à-vis the Nigerian Copyright Act and Nigeria’s international obligations under treaties such as the Rome Convention and the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). It then looks at the impact of the amended Code on the broadcast industry. The article seeks to determine whether the provisions of the amended Code can qualify as limitations and exceptions to exclusive rights allowed under the treaties and the Nigerian Copyright Act. It also examines whether, in attempting to foster competition in the Nigerian broadcast industry, the amended Code has taken away the exclusive rights granted by the Copyright Act to owners of Pay TV and VOD platforms and thereby runs contrary to Nigeria’s international obligations. Where appropriate, recommendations are made for consultation among relevant stakeholders for review of the amended Code to align it with the Copyright Act and Nigeria’s international obligations.

This article examines how moral rights are treated in Australian publishing contracts, and whether this approach is consistent with the expectations of authors, journalists and academics. Although, in theory, moral rights cannot be sold or assigned in Australia, the apparent wide scope for exceptions raises questions of whether there is any real protection afforded to creators under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), notably in circumstances that relate to pressure on creators to accept contractual terms in order to get published. Additionally, Australian case law reflects some uncertainty about the traditionally accepted non-economic nature of moral rights. The article examines recent case law in this field, found in Meskenas, Perez and Corby, and considers the literature associated with development of moral rights in Australia. It then presents the findings of a two-part study of moral rights in Australia; first through the results of interviews with 176 Australian authors, journalists and academics, followed by an analysis of 20 publishing contracts. It concludes that — in some, but not all, instances — a combination of the exceptions allowed under the Act and practical exigencies have diluted the unique character of authors’ moral rights and have created an environment of uncertainty.

Section 27(6) of the Copyright Act provides for penalties to be imposed on those convicted of infringing copyright. In terms of s 27(6), a person who infringes copyright is liable to be sentenced to a fine or to imprisonment or to both a fine and imprisonment. The Copyright Amendment Bill (which was passed by parliament in early 2019), introduces, amongst other things, minimum sentences for juristic persons convicted of infringing copyright. The purposes of this article are: to highlight high court decisions dealing with the prosecution of people who have infringed copyright; recommend ways in which copyright owners may invoke their right to institute a private prosecution as one of the means to protect their rights; highlight the limitations of the right to institute a private prosecution; and to highlight the challenges that are likely to be faced in the implementation of the minimum sentences introduced by the Copyright Amendment Bill.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is the most recent international agreement by which Canada and other countries have sought to strengthen the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. While it was originally feared that ACTA would impose obligations that are in tension with the principles of Canadian copyright law, the final outcome of the ACTA negotiations moderated or removed many of the most controversial provisions in the agreement and thus has alleviated many of the concerns about the impact of ACTA on Canadian copyright law. Canada has taken the first steps toward satisfying ACTA’s copyright obligations with Bill C-11, the Copyright Modernization Act, which addresses some of the agreement’s digital copyright measures. Some legislative change still remains before Canada will have fully met ACTA’s copyright obligations, in particular to enhance the powers of customs and border authorities to enforce intellectual property rights. This article discusses ACTA’s evolution, negotiations, final text, and the extent of its rightsholder orientation. It then details the differences between ACTA’s provisions and the current Canadian Copyright Act, as amended by the Copyright Modernization Act, identifies which obligations in ACTA require further amendment, and suggests how these obligations may best be implemented to reflect important values and principles underlying Canadian copyright law.

Traditionally, moral rights have not extended to the creators of sound recordings under either common law or civil law systems. The somewhat outdated rationale of this exclusion of sound recordings from the ambit of moral rights protection was generally that sound recordings were merely mechanical reproductions of already existing musical works, and hence the recordings lacked sufficient creativity to make them worthy of moral rights protection. In 1996, the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty sought to remedy this anomaly in copyright law by extending the moral rights of paternity and of integrity to performers whose performances are fixed in sound recordings.This paper argues that New Zealand should follow WIPO's lead and extend the moral rights provisions of the Copyright Act 1994 to sound recordings. The author argues that sound recordings are imbued with sufficient creativity to merit moral rights protection and that this protection should be granted not only to performers but to sound engineers and producers, who also contribute creatively to the recording. This paper examines how moral rights in relation to sound recordings might work in practice and what remedies should be available for breach of these rights. The author concludes that the extension of moral rights to sound recordings need not impact detrimentally on the music industry, as some commentators fear.

The issue of notary authority in the creation of authentic deeds regarding copyright since the authority of DJKI to directly record copyright. However, in the framework of copyright protection, an authentic notary deed is required to give validity to the copyright. The research method used is normative juridical. The results showed that in the Notary Copyright Act is also authorized to make authentic deeds of the copyright field in order to protect copyright works that will then be recorded to DJKI. In the HCAct, notaries have the authority to make authentic deeds of transfer over copyright. Transfer of copyright can be done from the copyright owner to another designated party. However, this transfer does not necessarily get all exclusive rights from the copyright owner. The designated party in the transfer can only get economic rights only. The moral rights to the intellectual property remain owned by the copyright owner. Although in the Act the transfer of copyright is done clearly and in writing either with or without a notary deed, it should be equipped with an authentic deed from a notary. This is based, this transfer of copyright is closely related to the transfer of economic rights, so it takes a deed that has strong legal evidentiary power.

The Act of February 4, 1994 on Copyright and Related Rights, which regulates issues related to the protection of copyrights, belongs to the private law system (its provi- sions protect the private interest). However, the Act includes both administrative and criminal law provisions aimed at protecting the public interest. The literature rightly points out that the systemic division into public and private law is becoming increasingly less pronounced, due to the permeation of legal domains belonging to both systems. An example of such interpenetration are the provisions of copyright law. This statement is significant for the considerations made in this article due to the statutory method of penalising certain behaviour contained in the provisions of the Copyright and Related Rights Act. Criminal law provisions, systemically related to public law and protecting the public interest, contain references to the provisions of the Copyright and Related Rights Act regulating the scope of copyright protection, i.e. private law norms. In the context of the requirements that should be met by criminal law, such a reference raises doubts, which are particularly highlighted in Art. 115 para. 3 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act. This issue is impor- tant because the Constitutional Tribunal in its judgment of 17 February 2015, Ref. K 15/13 recognised this provision as constitutional. Therefore, he concluded that the principle of the specificity of a criminal act does not preclude the legislator from using terms that are imprecise or vague if their designations can be determined. At the same time, the Constitutional Tribunal has not presented any arguments indicating that in this case the determination of the designates of Art. 115 para. 3 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act does not cause any difficulties. The author of this article attempts to determine the extent of criminal liability in the event of a violation of author’s moral rights (Article 115 section 3 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act), at the same time indicating the difficulties that are associated with the unambiguous determination of behaviour which Art. 115 para. 3 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act penalises.

The principle of declarative at the applications have to give priority to the announcementearly so that the creation of and find refuge , related on permasalah that occurs especially thejournalist they still have not realized and understand the importance of copyright protectionon works journalistic photography , copyright protection arranged on act number 28 years2014 on copyright .In general to get the protection of the law on the rights of copyright is todo recording the creation of on works copyright , but the registration of the work of thecreation of not as evidence that of that work have received the protection of the law , it is justthat as the notions of the preliminary to the process of evidence copyright sengeketa whenyour words come true .Journalist did not yet fully understand his creatures that a workcenters on the rights of journalists and the importance of moral right moral soul because isthe creator of the journalis.Keywords: The declarative, legal protection, copyright, photography journalistic

The work of songs and music is one of several types of artistic works that is protected by the Act of Copyright. Copyright is regulated through Act No. 28 of 2014 About Copyright (Undang-Undang Hak Cipta or UUHC). Creators and Copyright holders have an exclusive right in the form of economic rights and moral rights. Economic rights can be acquired through the payment of royalty. According to the Act of Copyright, the National Collective Management Institution (Lembaga Manajemen Kolektif Nasional or LMKN) is the institution appointed to collect royalties from creators and/or holders of related rights. LMKN is a non-profit legal entity which has been given an authority by Copyright holders and/or holders of related rights to manage the economic rights in legally collecting and distributing royalties. In order to acquire their share in the royalty, each of the creators, Copyright holders, or the holders of related rights has to become a member of LMKN, and in return said LMKN got the authority to collect royalties from users of said artistic works. Royalty is a form of payment or rewards given to creators and/or Copyrights holders over the utilization of economic rights or related rights of a creation or a product. In Indonesia, there are a lot of LMKNs, in which the function is to collect royalties, including collecting exclusive rights of the holders of related rights. The resulting performance of Collective Management Institutions (Lembaga Manajemen Kolektif or LMK) has not reached its optimum capability for both creators and holders of related rights. The resulting advice of this paper is for the government to create a strict payment system and a method which can also be accessed digitally by the creators.

The work of songs and music is one of several types of artistic works that is protected by the Act of Copyright. Copyright is regulated through Act No. 28 of 2014 About Copyright (Undang-Undang Hak Cipta or UUHC). Creators and Copyright holders have an exclusive right in the form of economic rights and moral rights. Economic rights can be acquired through the payment of royalty. According to the Act of Copyright, the National Collective Management Institution (Lembaga Manajemen Kolektif Nasional or LMKN) is the institution appointed to collect royalties from creators and/or holders of related rights. LMKN is a non-profit legal entity which has been given an authority by Copyright holders and/or holders of related rights to manage the economic rights in legally collecting and distributing royalties. In order to acquire their share in the royalty, each of the creators, Copyright holders, or the holders of related rights has to become a member of LMKN, and in return said LMKN got the authority to collect royalties from users of said artistic works. Royalty is a form of payment or rewards given to creators and/or Copyrights holders over the utilization of economic rights or related rights of a creation or a product. In Indonesia, there are a lot of LMKNs, in which the function is to collect royalties, including collecting exclusive rights of the holders of related rights. The resulting performance of Collective Management Institutions (Lembaga Manajemen Kolektif or LMK) has not reached its optimum capability for both creators and holders of related rights. The resulting advice of this paper is for the government to create a strict payment system and a method which can also be accessed digitally by the creators.

The video game industry continues to grow into a behemoth, yet the players fueling its rise lack sufficient copyright protection. While the Copyright Act protects video games’ copyrightability as audiovisual works, it lacks clear protection for the gameplay created by gameplay content creators. These secondary creators increasingly build careers out of their gameplay yet lack clear copyright protection over the videos they create because the video game developer typically owns the video game’s exclusive rights over public performance and derivative works. The status quo relies on a “gentleman’s agreement” where video game copyright holders ignore their rights in the copyright and allow gameplay creators to build careers while the copyright holders reap the benefits from the publicity. However, the copyright holders maintain the power to end a gameplay creator’s career by simply enforcing their rights. Several proposals provide workable solutions but fall short of meaningful protection. Most proposals argue stretching the Copyright Act’s existing language to meet the video game industry’s needs while recognizing the Act lacks sufficient language for the industry’s distinctive nature. To overcome the ambiguity in interpreting dated law to a nascent industry, this Note proposes an amendment to the Copyright Act that provides a tailored approach to copyright protection for gameplay creators. This Note first proposes a declaration of non-infringement for a gameplay creator’s videos of their own gameplay from nonlinear video games. This Note secondly proposes the use of a sui generis right that recognizes the significant effort by gameplay creators in creating their gameplay videos and rewards the effort with narrow but sufficient copyright protection over their individual audiovisual creative works. Collectively, this approach alleviates the fear of copyright strikes against the gameplay creators while also allowing them to protect their works against potential infringers.

REEMISSION IN THE LIGHT OF CHANGES IN THE COPYRIGHT LAWSummaryAn author’s output, artistic performances, rights to phonograms and videograms, rights to radio and television broadcast, constitute an essential element of the media market. The audiences respond and in the result prospects for advantages depend on the attractiveness of the authors’ and their artistic input. It is obvious, that the broadcasters’ dream is that the program is both: attractive to the audience and cheap. Broadcasters’ economic domination results in the possibility to force lower remuneration paid to authors and artists. This domination, however, is only an illusion, because the worse economic conditions for artists and authors are, the lower quality of programs we can get. It is impossible to expect an author or artist to accept unprofitable conditions.The amendments to the Copyright Act with regard to radio-television rights were introduced in 1998 in order to adapt Polish copyright for EU requirements. At this opportunity, several other changes were introduced, which were not conditioned by those requirements, and sometimes were even contradictory to them!The promoter of the amendment to the Copyright Act introduced in 1998 and 1999 was Andrzej Zakrzewski - the Minister of Culture and National Heritage at that time. It was meant to be a continuation of the changes introduced in 1994. A great number of provisions adopted in 1994 did not provide for the protection standards required by the EU laws, which was due to the necessity to make the consequences of the adaptation „softer”. An example is the amendment to radio-television rights.The drafts of of the amendments prepared in 1998 introduced cancellation of the statutory license to a reemission and replacing it by agreements concluded with organizations of collective management. Issues related to broadcasts and reemission were placed in Article 21, which resulted in the repeal of Article 23 Section 4 of the Copyright Act of 1994.Contrary to the above draft, in a report presented to the Commission of Culture and Mass Media, the repeal of Article 24 Section 3 as well as the definition of a „reemission” were decided to be crossed out. In the course of debates on the amendments, Senate voted for replacing the phrase „reemission” with the term „parallel and integral dissemination” and repealing Art. 24 Section 3.The amendment of 9 June 2000 upheld Art. 24 Section 3, which was a technical mistake resulting from internal discrepancies within the act of law introducing the amendments. The amendment of 28 October 2002 removed this provision. The proposal to repeal Art. 24 Section 3 was accompanied with a proposal to add to Article 2 1 a new section no. 4 stating, that: „in case of any discrepancies resulting from the agreement, referred to in Section 3, Article 108 Section 5 shall apply”. The reason for such an amendment was to soften the consequences of removing the statutory license with regard to a reemission in 2000.Article 108 Section 3 of the Copyright Act of 1994 in its first version, with regard to the discrepancies resulting from Remuneration Schedules approved of by the Copyright Commission consisting of 7 members, provided for a jurisdiction of the Copyright Commission consisting of 3 members. The Copyright Commission consisting of 3 members, deciding on „discrepancies resulting from the agreement on reemission”, threatens the authors’ rights. It is necessary to indicate, that an author is vested with an exclusive right to dispose of his work. In a situation where there is a statutory license, an author is only vested with a right to remuneration. In any situation, however, an organization of the collective management acts for his benefit. Extending the scope of the Copyright Commission’s jurisdiction cannot lead to limiting the authors’ rights. An extended jurisdiction of the Copyright Commission in fact creates such a limitation. Instead of negotiating a license to a reemission, including an author’s remuneration, apart from the collective management body, a cable operator may obtain a license for a reemission issued by the Copyright Commission consisting of 3 members.After the aforementioned amendment came into force, the issue of a statutory license with regard to cable television became a subject of intensive media discussion. Just a few months after the amendment was introduced, the deputies proposed to go back to the statutory license with regard to a reemission. As a result, a new amendment was adopted, which reintroduced the statutory license. The aforementioned changes, however, were made being aware of their contradiction to the EU standards. Opponents of these changes raised arguments speaking for the necessity of further amendments. Some of them are as follows. A cable operator was to have just a few days to identify television programs’ broadcasters, start negotiations, and conclude appropriate agreements. This argument took no account of the fact, that a removal of the statutory license with regard to reemission was made in 2000.As a result, the introduced amendment repeals Article 21 Section 3 and 4 of the Copyright Act of 2002 and replaced it with a new Article 211 which shall come into force on the date when Poland joins the European Union. It means, that in place of temporarily removed provisions abolishing the statutory license, it has been brought into the light again, due to the European Union obligations.The changes adopted in 2002 were appealed, however, because of being contradictory to the Polish Constitution - too short vacatio legis. Constitutional Tribunal in its decision of 16 September 2003 did not agree with this view. It means, that Constitutional Tribunal did not share the argument which justified bringing the statutory license in 2003 into the light again.

The protection of moral rights embraces the now widespread personal sphere of copyright and originated much later than the economic exploitation of the work itself. Some of its components can be found in the English and German thought between the 17th and 18th centuries and, starting from the early 19th century, would have a substantial development through the contribution of both the French legal scholarship and case law. The legal foundations, in any case, date back to some codifications of the German area and to the earliest international treaties, making it a discipline that did not take into consideration the extent of the national territory. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relevance of the European models and their influence in Italy after the national Unification, in particular in the first decades of the 1900s. In fact, the international protection of moral rights takes root in Italy during the 1928 Rome Conference for the revision of the 1886 Berne Convention. The United States joined it only later, in 1989, with the Berne Convention Implementation Act (BCIA). Thirty years later, the Copyright Office published in April 2019 an extensive study about the American protection of moral rights. The document is studied in this paper in comparison with the European Directives and with the Copyright Directive definitively approved a few days before the Copyright Office document. While in the USA the interest in moral rights up to now rather limited seems to be increasing, in Europe the protection of moral rights risks being waned as it is handed down to individual countries with the explicit declaration that it is not the subject matter of the Directives. Moral rights, origins, codification, Europe, Italy, Berne Convention, international treaties, USA, EU Directives, Canada

Motivation: Employees’ works are crucial in practice. The validity and need for discussions on the rights of the employer to the employee’s work is justified by the increasing concern for the observance of copyright, and also for employee–employer relations. By entering into an employment relationship, both parties must be aware of their rights and obligations. Aim: This article presents the issue of copyright status of an employee’s work regulated in the Article 12 and 13 of the Act on copyright and related rights. The considerations focus on the legal relationship between the employer and the employee-author, and the issue of acquiring author’s economic rights to the work created by the employee within the employment relationship. The article is based on the analysis of legal regulations and judicial decisions. Results: Regulating rights to the work created by the employee is dependent on the will of the parties. It is only the absence of contractual terms in this respect that results in a reference to the statutory provisions, which define the rules of transferring copyright for the employee’s work to the employer. Article 12 of the Act on copyright and related rights specifies grounds for secondary acquisition of copyright by the employer. One should remember that this regulation concerns solely author’s economic rights because author’s moral rights, which due to their nature are non-transferable, remain with the author or employee.

This article discusses the likely Australian copyright implications of an increasingly popular form of digital music expression: the music mash-up, a majority of which are created from pre-existing audio/sound recordings and video without permission of the copyright owner. In examining this issue, the analysis of the courts in the recent Larrikin music copyright infringement cases are examined. Consideration of the implications of music mash-up creation to moral rights is also considered. In the hypothetical scenario that a music mash-up artist is accused of copyright infringement, consideration is given as to the likely outcome of the application of the fair dealing exceptions under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth). Finally, a suggestion is made as to the direction of future law reform in this area.

The issue of Intellectual Property Rights has not been discussed or even described by classical fiqh scholars in-depth and thoroughly. One aspect that has not been studied is the issue of the period of copyright protection. The assumption is that if copyright protection is not limited in time, it will lead to a monopoly of creation by a few people. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to clearly describe and compare the terms of copyright protection in the Copyright Act and Islamic Law using the Maqashid Syariah perspective. The method used is a qualitative study (library research) with a comparative approach. The results of the study indicate that the period of copyright protection according to Islamic law, for the type of moral rights is valid forever, while for the type of economic rights it applies trade (willingness of the heart) with the provision that the shorter (reasonably) is, the better as long as it does not harm the creator. In addition, the State can determine the period of copyright protection through its regulations according to the country's ability.

ABSTRAKHak terkait adalah hak yang berkaitan dengan hak cipta yang merupakan hak ekslusif bagi pelaku pertunjukan, producer fonogram, atau lembaga penyiaran. Berdasarkan pengertian hak terkait tersebut maka dapat dipahami bahwa yang merupakan pemilik hak terkait adalah pelaku pertunjukan, produser fonogram (lebih dikenal sebagai produser rekaman), dan lembaga penyiaran. Perlu adanya perlindungan untuk pelaku karena pelaku pertunjukan memiliki hak moral dan hak ekonomi yang terdapat pada pasal 23 UUHC. Yang memuat pada pelaku pertunjukan yang tidak dapat dihilang atau tidak dapat dihapus dengan alasan apapun. Namun pada prakteknya seringkali hak terkait ini dikesampingkan, karena lingkup perlindungan tidak hanya mencakup hak ekonomi dan hak moral. Permasalahan diatas menimbulkan isi hukum bentuk perlindungan terhadap hak terkait menurut undang-undang Hak Cipta dan perolehan Hak Terkait dalam Hak Cipta Isu hukum ini diteliti dengan menggunakan metode dengan tipe penelitian Normatif.Bentuk pelindungan Hukum terhadap Hak Terkait menurut Undang-Undang Hak Cipta terdiri dari 2 (dua) yaitu, perlindungn hukum preventif dan perlindungan hukum represif. Perolehan hak terkait dalam UUHC yaitu hak moral dan hak ekonomis. Hak moral pelaku pertunjukan merupakan hak yang melekat pada pelaku pertunjukan yang tidak dapat dihilangkan atau tidak dapat dihapus dengan alasan apapun walaupun hak terkait telah dialihkan. Hak Ekonomi Pelaku Pertunjukan adalah suatu hak yang diberikan oleh Undang-undang secara eksklusif kepada Pencipta untuk untuk memanfaatkan keuntungan suatu ciptaan yang biasanya berupa publikasi suatu salinan ciptaan atau fonogram supaya dapat tersedia untuk publik dalam jumlah tertentu. Kata Kunci : Perlindungan, Hak Terkait, Hak Moral, Hak Ekonomi AbstractRelated rights are rights relating to copyright which are exclusive rights for performers, producer phonograms, or broadcasters. Based on the understanding of related rights, it can be understood that those who are related rights holders are performers, phonogram producers (better known as record producers), and broadcasting institutions. There needs to be protection for the perpetrators because the performers have the moral rights and economic rights contained in article 23 of UUHC. Which includes the performers who cannot be lost or cannot be removed for any reason. But in practice often these related rights are ruled out, because the scope of protection does not only cover economic rights and moral rights. The above issues give rise to the contents of the law in the form of protection of related rights according to the Copyright law and the acquisition of Related Rights in Copyright This legal issue is examined using methods with normative research types.The form of legal protection against Related Rights according to the Copyright Act consists of 2 (two), namely, preventive legal protection and repressive legal protection. The acquisition of related rights in the UUHC is moral rights and economic rights. The moral rights of performers are the rights inherent in the performers who cannot be removed or cannot be removed for any reason even though the related rights have been transferred. The Economic Rights of Performers is a right granted by the Law exclusively to the Creator to utilize the benefits of a work which is usually in the form of the publication of a copy of a work or phonogram so that it can be available to the public in a certain amount. Keywords: Protection, Related Rights, Moral Rights, Economic Rights

A creative work created by its creator based on his sense and intention which is supported by his creativity will become an intellectual work with a high economic value. Such creators are like book and song writers who have an ability and idea to produce a work that can be enjoyed by everyone. Based on the principle of justice, it is understood that to produce such work is not an easy task because it requires sacrifice. Therefore, the creator is entitled to economic benefits for his work. An intellectual work having a very high economic value is supposed to get adequate legal protection supported by a sense of justice as the reward of the creator’s intellectual products. In addition to physical copyrighted work products, there are also digital products on which the creator owns a copyright. There are examples of digital products which follow the development of technology such as song files, e-books, software, etc. One of the problems that exists in the community is that the digital product becomes easier to be pirated or illegally downloaded through the internet. How is copyright protection in digital products as the embodiment of the creator's creative works. Copyright protection against creators and copyright holders pursuant to Act No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright. Article 1 number 1 and Article 24 paragraph (1) and (2). The creator or copyright holder has rights to be protected by the government, namely economic rights and moral rights. The existence of economic rights and moral rights is then someone's creative work will have its own values, so it is not easy to use his property for commercial purposes by the parties who are not responsible.

Act Number 28 of 2014 on Copyright regulates changes in the period of protection of a work. One of them is about books, which were previously protected 50 years after the author's death was amended to 70 years after the author's death in Article 58 (1) of Act Number 28 of 2014 on Copyright. This change not only has implications for increasing the length of time to protect many of the late author's works but also creates new confusion regarding the status of authors who have died more than 50 years before the enactment of the law. This regulatory change has led to research on the protections that publishers have for books with expired protection period (public domain). The method used in this research is juridical-normative research, which examines several regulations, especially Act Number 28 of 2014 on Copyright. The results show that publishers can obtain copyright protection for public domain books as long as they do not violate moral rights and that there are common misconceptions regarding the length of time for book copyright protection due to regulation changes.

In the English common law tradition copyright is seen as being in the nature of a property right and thus alienable and transmissible from one person to the other. In contrast, the droit d’auteur system of Continental Europe sees copyright as being an author’s right, which attaches to the personality of the author. However, even in this system a distinction can be made between the monist system (as applies in Germany), which treats both moral rights and economic rights as being inseparable and thus equally inalienable, and the dualist system applicable in France, which distinguishes between moral and economic rights, with the former considered inalienable, while the latter is freely alienable. In this way French law embodies the transferability principle in respect of economic rights, in the same way as the Anglo-American system does. Many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have inherited copyright laws from their erstwhile colonial masters (whether England or France), resulting in the laws of these countries also embodying the transferability principle. It is argued, however, that the transferability principle has had the inadvertent effect of stifling copyright-based entrepreneurship, and thus economic development in these countries. Because of the conditions of impoverishment prevailing in these countries, authors find that they do not have the material resources to economically exploit their copyright works. They thus have no option but to assign their copyrights to others, mainly foreign entities, resulting in an endless cycle where they can never act entrepreneurially in respect of their copyrights. The paper seeks to explore this phenomenon and make proposals of possible solutions.

The object of copyright protection under the Berne Convention, namely: works of literature and art that encompasses all the results of the fields of literature, science and art in any manner or form any explication. Since the entry into force of the Berne Convention that was classified as Making Law Treaty and open to all countries that are not yet members to immediately become a member by way of ratifying and handed over the instrument of ratification to the Director General of WIPO. The participation of a country as a member of the Convention Barn, give rise to liability in the participating countries to implement national perundang¬undangan in the field of copyright. Especially in terms of law enforcement for the protection of copyrighted works. This relates to the arrangement in the Berne Convention on moral rights ( "droit moral"), author's rights to mengkluim as the creator of a work and the author's right to object to any act that intends to change, reduce or add to the authenticity of the creations that can be harm the honor and reputation of the creator.Keywords: Copyright, ratification, the Berne Convention

Introduction: The bad impact of free movie streaming services is the Author or Copyright Holder does not get royalties for the use of his or her creation as well as moral rights because the name of the Author on the film streaming services is not included as something attached to the Work.Purposes of the Research: The purpose of this study is to figure out whether or not the publication of cinematographic works in the form of cartoons on free movie streaming services is an unlawful act. This study also aims to investigate the efforts to prevent copyright infringement of cartoon films distributed by other parties in free movie streaming services.Methods of the Research: The research method used is normative legal research with a statute legal approach.Results of the Research: The result of this study includes 2 (two) things. This study found that the publication of cartoons in free movie streaming services is an act against the law because it violates Copyright Law which causes harm to the Author or Copyright Holder. Moreover, the results of this study also explain the various efforts to prevent copyright infringement on cartoon films distributed by other parties in free movie streaming services.

AbstractFor all of the rhetoric about the central place of authors in the copyright scheme, our copyright laws in fact give them little power and less money. Intermediaries own the copyrights, and are able to structure licenses so as to maximise their own revenue while shrinking their pay-outs to authors. Copyright scholars have tended to treat this point superficially, because – as lawyers – we take for granted that copyrights are property; property rights are freely alienable; and the grantee of a property right stands in the shoes of the original holder. I compare the 1710 Statute of Anne, which created statutory copyrights and consolidated them in the hands of publishers and printers, with the 1887 Dawes Act, which served a crucial function in the American divestment of Indian land. I draw from the stories of the two laws the same moral: Constituting something as a freely alienable property right will almost always lead to results mirroring or exacerbating disparities in wealth and bargaining power. The legal dogma surrounding property rights makes it easy for us not to notice.

In Law Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright it is regulated that the creator has the right to economic rights to his creation, where in Article 9 the creator has the right to prohibit other people from doubling the work in all its forms without permission for commercial use. This study aims to determine whether the act of publishing pieces of cinema scenes through the Instagram Stories application is categorized as copyright infringement on the film as well as knowing the form of Copyright legal protection for Widescreen Films published through social media without permission. This study uses empirical research. The location of the study was conducted at the Regional Office of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of South Sulawesi and Cinema XXI of Makassar City. The results of the study indicate that recording movies in theaters uploaded through Instagram Stories can be categorized as violating the moral rights of the creator in terms of attribution rights if the uploader negates the identity in the video displayed. However, in terms of economic rights, copyright infringement is not found, this is because the motives used by the recording actors do not fulfill the element of seeking commercial profit. Legal protection regarding recording in theaters uploaded through Instagram Stories is regulated in Law Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright in Article 9 paragraph (1) letter b and in paragraph (2). Legal actions given by the cinema to the audience who perform the recording action, in the form of reprimand until the confiscation of the cellphone belonging to the audience and the making of a statement letter. But until now there have been no cases that have reached the Regional Office of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of South Sulawesi.

The Deputies’ bill amending the Labor Code and the Entrepreneurs’ Law provides for the extension of the legal definition of an employee to entities performing their duties personally for remuneration, permanently for the same entity, for a period of not less than 6 months. The proposed modification of the aforementioned definition will cause some changes not only in the field of regulations regarding employee rights, but also in the protection of intangible assets, such as intellectual property. In particular, the certain modifications will be visible in the way of copyright protection and fair competition between entrepreneurs. Even the inalienable nature of moral rights will not protect this sphere of the author’s rights from some transformations in the field of protection. The aim of the article is therefore to trace the current legal status, mainly based on the analysis of selected normative acts regarding labor law as well as intellectual property law and to try to answer the question of which legal status – current or postulated after the entry into force of the thematic amendment – would be more favorable in terms of protection of intangible assets that are part of the enterprise.

The right to one’s image in an information society This article is focused on selected aspects of the right to one’s image. The authors would like to contribute to the ongoing discussion on the legal nature of the right to one’s image. In our opinion, it is not adequate to meet the requirements presented by an information society. Concepts derived from analog techniques are inadequate to meet the requirements of the digital field. The commercialisation of images also means that rights of a personal nature (moral rights) as set by the law are treated as economic ones, which is accepted partially by the legal doctrine and recognized in jurisprudence. The conducted research is supported by the critical analysis of binding legal regulations (Articles 81 and 83 of the Act on Copyright and Related Rights) and followed by de lege ferenda proposals.

In Indonesia, Copyright is regulated in Law Number 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright. One of these Copyright protections is songs or music, including the Copyright of Aceh songs or music which has experienced such rapid development, even now it has penetrated into the internet world. Therefore, this article is intended to examine and analyze the extent of knowledge of Acehnese artists, because there are still many Acehnese artists' works – especially in Acehnese music and songs – which are adapted and used by others without the permission of the copyright owner. The use of music and songs is indeed justified if it is done by asking permission from the copyright owner. This research is a qualitative legal research with a normative approach and is supported by empirical data using primary and secondary data. The results of the study found that there are still copyright infringement practices in the production of songs or music in Aceh, including the use of songs or music in Aceh that are used without permission from the copyright holder, such as singing songs or music by other people without permission which is then uploaded. on social media and internet media such as YouTube which is commonly known as Cover. This act clearly violates the rule of law and has ignored the moral and economic rights of the copyright owner.

The development of the current paradigm demonstrate initiative of the citizens to share information in their possession to the public. Citizen who was only a reader, now turned into a citizen journalist, who sends the picture to the press on Instagram account on an event that attracts attention. In this research, there are two issues to be discussed namely 1) How is the protection of moral rights and economic rights over the photos produced by citizen journalist on Instagram? 2) How can the efforts of a citizen journalist to protect the copyrighted works uploaded on Instagram? This research is an empirical juridical study that examines the problem of copyright photography protection in Instagram. Moral rights protection of citizen journalist on Instagram photo is done with the mention of names of the photographer (citizen journalist) and copyright holder (press accounts on Instagram). Protection of economic rights of citizen journalism photo on Instagram as stipulated in the Act of the Republic of Indonesia Number 28 of 2014 on Copyright only applies to photographs with human objects. Efforts that can be done by a citizen journalist to protect copyrighted works uploaded on Instagram are preventive efforts, respresive efforts and pre-emtive efforts. Perkembangan paradigma di era informasi saat ini menunjukkan inisiatif dari warga untuk membagikan informasi yang dimilikinya kepada publik secara cepat dan up to date. Warga yang tadinya hanya seorang pembaca, kini cenderung menjadi citizen journalist yang cenderung berinisiatif dan aktif mengirimkan hasil fotonya kepada akun pers di Instagram mengenai suatu peristiwa yang menarik perhatian. Dalam penelitian ini terdapat dua permasalahan inti yaitu 1) Bagaimanakah perlindungan hak moral dan hak ekonomi atas foto yang dihasilkan oleh seorang citizen journalist di Instagram? 2) Bagaimanakah upaya-upaya yang dapat dilakukan seorang citizen journalist untuk melindungi karya cipta fotonya yang diunggah di Instagram? Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis empiris yang mengkaji mengenai masalah perlindungan karya cipta fotografi di Instagram. Perlindungan hak moral foto citizen journalist di Instagram dilakukan dengan penyebutan nama pencipta (citizen journalist) dan pemegang hak cipta (akun pers pada Instagram). Perlindungan hak ekonomi foto citizen journalist di Instagram sebagaimana yang diatur dalam Undang-undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 28 Tahun 2014 Tentang Hak Cipta hanya berlaku pada karya foto dengan objek manusia. Upaya-upaya yang dapat dilakukan seorang citizen journalist untuk melindungi karya cipta fotonya yang diunggah di Instagram adalah upaya preventif, upaya respresif serta upaya pre-emtif.

This article aimed to analyze legal protection of Lurik Art Conservation Through <br />Intellectual Property Rights in Klaten Regency. Klaten is the area that is most<br />concerned with the survival of lurik weaving. There is someone mentioned that the<br />Klaten Regency was the capital of lurik weaving. Because the weaving of Looms<br />are not machines or Alat Tenun Bukan Mesin (hereinafter abbreviated to ATBM) <br />is a mainstay of this city. There are countless villages that become centers of lurik <br />craftsmen. This research is empirical or non-doctrinal research, which is a study<br />that sees the law not only from the perspective of legislation, but also sees the law<br />in its implementation. The results of the study show that the first legal protection in<br />preserving the current lurik art in Klaten, namely the Klaten Regency Government,<br />then stipulates the Regent's Regulation Number 53 of 2010 Article 23 Paragraph (9)<br />on the Daily Batik and Traditional Weaving Lurik Service or ATBM Striated and<br />the Klaten Regent's Decree Number : 065/1014/06 December 30, 2010 on Wearing<br />Traditional Weaving, Motives, Colors and Free Models with Attributes. Furthermore,<br />based on the Decree of the Regent of Klaten Number 050/84 of 2016 on Klaten<br />Regency's Superior Products, batik striated is one of the superior products of Klaten<br />Regency. With the issuance of these rules as an effort to protect and preserve lurik<br />art in Klaten district and referring to Law Number 28 of 2014 on Copyright, it has<br />regulated the forms of protection of lurik art in Klaten through Article 40 paragraph<br />(1). The Second Protection of Intellectual Property Rights Against Lurik Art, namely<br />Protection of lurik artworks, besides being accommodated in Law Number 28 of 2014<br />on Copyright (Copyright Law) and Trademark Law and other intellectual property<br />right laws. Elucidation of Article 40 paragraph (1) letter j of the Copyright Law. The<br />work is protected because it has artistic value, both in relation to the picture, style,<br />and color composition. The Copyright Act also emphasizes that it is important to<br />protect Copyright because every creator, in this case, the creator of the lurik motif<br />has the right to moral rights and economic rights.

This research analysis meant to find out legal consideration used byConstitution judge, whether in accordance or not to legal principles, moral andsocial justice. Therefore,this article tend to place problems that linked to conflict of norm in term of The Audit Board (BPK) authorities over a good and compliance Taxpayerl,and progressive related The Constitutional Court decision of The Audit Board(BPK) authorities of a good and compliance taxpayer in the context of The 1945Constitution of The Republic of Indonesia at its proportion in order tostraightening the consistency of rule of law in Indonesia’s legal system, for theshake of completion of logical degree of optimal norm.Intrinsically, decision in the case of petition for Judicial Review of the Act Number 28 of 2007 on the Third Amendment to the Act Number 6 of 1983 on the General Taxation Provisions and Procedures against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, can be made guidance (stelling) to the happening ofopaqueness norm or obscurity norm (vague van normen) which flange at thehappening conflict of norm (geschiljd van normen) related existence of twoimportance of law between The Audit Board (BPK) and Taxpayers which both ofthe same owning of rights which under the aegis of Constitution.

ABSTRAKPenelitian ini bertujuan mengkaji dan menganalisa: (1) penggunaan audio populer dalam pembuatan video menggunakan aplikasi dubsmash melanggar hak cipta ditinjau dari UUHC. (2) peran dari Notaris dalam perlindungan hukum terhadap pencipta dalam hal adany penggunaan audio populer yang membuat video menggunakan aplikasi dubsmash tanpa izin (3) kendala dan solusi dalam perlindungan hukum terhadap pencipta.Hasil penelitian ini adalah: (1) Pelanggaran atas penggunaan audio populer dalam pembuatan video menggunakan aplikasi dubsmash ditinjau dari UUHC dapat dikategorikan sebagai perbuatan yang termasuk pelanggaran hak ekonomi dimana Pencipta atau pemegang hak ekonominya terenggut. (2) Peran dari Notaris dalam perlindungan hukum terhadap pencipta dalam hal adanya penggunaan audio populer yang pembuatan video menggunakan aplikasi Dubsmash tanpa izin ditinjau dari UUHC adalah sebagai konsultan yang terdaftar pada Direktorat Jendral. Perlindungan hukum hak cipta terhadap pencipta lagu yang diunduh melalui internet dapat dilakukan dengan cara yaitu secara hukum administrasi negara, hukum pidana dan hukum perdata. (3) Kendalanya adalah terikatannya pencipta aplikasi Dubsmash ketika mengupload dengan ketentuan dari Mobile Motion dan dalam hal penyidikan dilakukan oleh PPNS berdasarkan surat perintah penyidikan yang dikeluarkan oleh pejabat yang memiliki kompetensi terhadap hak cipta. Solusinya adalah dengan upaya preventif dan represif. Upaya preventif dilakukan dengan melakukan pencatatan hak cipta pencipta aplikasi Dubsmash atas karya ciptanya dan peran pihak pemerintah melalui Kementerian Informasi dan Teknologi untuk berperan lebih aktif dan upaya represif dilakukan dengan cara penegakan hukum berdasarkan Pasal 113 Ayat (3) UUHC.Saran dari penelitian ini adalah bagi para editor aplikasi dubsmash hendaknya harus lebih memperhatikan ketentuan hukum dalam bidang Hak Cipta di indonesia sebagaimana diatur dalam UUHC, bagi para masyarakat hendaknya mengindahkan UUHC sehingga hak pencipta dapat dilindungi.Kata kunci : Hak Cipta, Audio Populer, Dubsmash ABSTRACTThe purpose of this study is to examine and analyze: (1) the use of popular audio in video creation using copyright infringing dubsmash apps reviewed from UUHC. (2) the role of a Notary in the legal protection of the creator in terms of the use of popular audio which makes the video use unauthorized dubsmash applications (3) constraints and solutions in the legal protection of the creator.The results of this study are: (1) Violation of the use of popular audio in the making of video using dubsmash application viewed from UUHC can be categorized as an act which includes violation of economic rights where the Creator or his economic rights holder is taken away. (2) The role of the Notary in the legal protection of the creator in the case of the use of the popular audio-making video using the unlicensed Dubsmash app reviewed from UUHC is as a consultant registered with the Directorate General. Such provisions have privileges, as they comply with the principles of the establishment of good legislation. The protection of copyright law against songwriters downloaded through the internet may be done in a manner that is legally state administration, criminal law and civil law. (3) Constraints and solutions in the legal protection of the creator in the form of weakness of the application of compensation sanction to the offender in accordance with the value of the loss of exclusive rights in the form of moral rights and economic rights of the creator and the copyright holder. And the solution is through copyright registration through Notary to obtain legal certainty over the copyrights.Suggestion from this research is for editor of dubsmash application should have to pay more attention to legal provisions in the field of Copyright in Indonesia as regulated in UUHC, for the society should heed UUHC so that the rights of creator can be protected for the sake of nation development.Keywords: Copyright, Popular Audio, Dubsmash

Hundreds of Confederate monuments stand across the United States. In recent years, leading historians have come forward to clarify that these statues were erected not just as memorials but to express white supremacist intimidation in times of racially oppressive conduct. As public support for antiracist action grows, many communities are inclined to remove public symbols that cause emotional harm, create constant security risks and dishonor the values of equality and unity. Finding a lawful path to removal is not always clear and easy. The political power brokers who choose whether monuments will stay or go often do not walk daily in their shadows. In recent years, eight Southern state legislatures enacted monument preservation legislation designed to thwart local removal efforts. These laws have prompted bitter conflicts, sometimes leading angry citizens to topple massive stone or bronze monuments themselves. The challenges present fertile ground for innovative lawyering. Creative applications of state property, nuisance and contract laws have led to removals notwithstanding the prohibitions of state preservation laws. When state law blocks removal or contextualization, communities may look to federal law as a source for taking antiracist action. First Amendment doctrine governing expressive speech has not provided a fruitful solution. Despite the expressive nature of Confederate monuments, efforts to weaponize the First Amendment by both sides of the monument debate have failed, largely due to the government speech doctrine. Given the age and quality of most monuments, copyright law is also not likely to provide an effective federal claim. The Federal Civil Rights Act offers an untapped but promising foundation for resolving these controversies. Title VI and Title VII could be used to challenge monuments that contribute to a hostile work or educational environment. Federal civil rights claims would supersede state legislation enacted to prevent removal of racially hostile symbols. Even when state law does not present removal barriers, communities who seek to take meaningful anti-racist action could ground their initiatives in the Civil Rights Act’s core value of equality. For all who are confronting this issue, this Article seeks to provide a legal and strategic framework for acknowledging history while reclaiming the symbolic heart of our public spaces and a means to assure that the symbols we elevate affirm shared contemporary values.

Indonesia as a legal state provides protection to the entire community, one of which is by providing legal protection for books as one of the copyrights. Book copyrights experience the most violations such as piracy. Many pirated books are traded through online media. The rise of pirated book sales activities through online media is important to raise this phenomenon into a study. This research aims to discuss legal protection for creators and examine the legal consequences of selling pirated books through online media. In this study using a normative legal research system with a library approach and legislation regarding copyright is needed in this research. Primary Legal Materials are the main legal materials in research obtained from legislation. The secondary legal materials contained in this study are in the form of literature books. Tertiary Legal Materials, namely supporting legal materials such as general dictionaries, legal dictionaries and encyclopaedias. The data collection technique using the method of quoting, summarizing. The result of this research shows that the protection given to the author against book piracy is to protect the moral rights and economic rights of the author so that only the author can get economic benefits from the work, not other parties. The legal consequences of selling pirated books are fines and imprisonment. It is hoped that the government can act more decisively in eradicating book piracy and the public can appreciate a creation more so that cases of book piracy in Indonesia can decrease

Drawing on themes important in moral and political philosophy, much of the scholarship on the constitutional law of privacy in the United States distinguishes between privacy understood as a person's control over information and privacy understood as a person's ability to make autonomous decisions. For example, Katz v. United States (1967) established the framework for analyzing whether police activity constituted a “search” subject to the Fourth Amendment's requirement that the police either obtain a warrant before conducting a search or otherwise act reasonably. The defendant was a professional gambler who knew enough about police techniques to use a public telephone to make his business calls. Police agents attached a listening device to the outside of the phone booth, and sought to use the recordings against the defendant. The Supreme Court agreed with the defendant that the Fourth Amendment had been violated. Justice John Marshall Harlan's influential concurring opinion asserted that a person's privacy, in the sense of control over information, depended on two factors: “that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” Fourth Amendment cases like Katz involve informational control; they define the circumstances under which the government may acquire information from or about a person without first obtaining the person's agreement. In contrast, cases like Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which barred the state from making it a criminal offense to use contraceptives, and Roe v. Wade (1973), which restricted the state's power to prohibit or regulate abortions, used the language of privacy rights to protect a much broader interest in autonomous decision-making. Seeing these cases and related ones through lenseees provided by moral and political philosophy, scholars have attempted to describe what a morally sound constitutional law of privacy would be, and the broadest sense, dworkinian. That is, they seek to provide an account of privacy with two characteristics: it is broadly consistent with the relevant constitutional decisions, and it is the most morally attractive account possible that satisfies the requirement of consistency with the decisions.

The legality of judicial corporal punishment is an issue which has caused considerable disagreement amongst jurists, legislators and criminal justice personnel, for its use has serious moral, constitutional and penological implications. In Zimbabwe, two decisions handed down by the Supreme Court together with a later constitutional amendment Act have highlighted the divergence of views on this matter. It is thus the intention of this article to examine critically the issue from a constitutional and penological perspective.In 1987 in S v. Ncube a full bench of the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe unanimously held that the sentence of whipping for adults contravened section 15(1) of the Declaration of Rights which is contained in the Constitution of Zimbabwe in that it constituted a punishment which in its very nature was both inhuman and degrading. In his seminal judgment, Gubbay, J. A., had regard to four factors, namely: (i) the current trend of thinking amongst distinguished jurists and leading academics; (ii) the abolition of whipping in many countries of the world as being repugnant to the consciences of civilized men; (iii) the progressive move of the courts in countries in which whipping is not susceptible to constitutional attack to restrict its imposition to instances where a serious, cruel, brutal and humiliating crime has been perpetrated; (iv) the decreasing recourse to the penalty of whipping in Zimbabwe, especially over the previous ten years and the declining number of laws on the statute book in which it remained a permissible penalty.

The problem of similarity (similarity) of program code can be one solution to the plagiarism detection approach. Plagiarism raises a form of action and consequences of plagiarism itself if the source used is not open source. Plagiarism is an act of deception of the work of others without the knowledge of the original author, which violates a Copyright and Moral Rights. With the increasing amount of data and data complexity, deep learning provides solutions for predictive analytics, with increased processing capabilities and optimal processor utilization. Deep learning shows success and improves the classification model in this field. On the other hand, clone detection code with massive, varied and high-speed data volumes requires feature extraction. With the potential of deep learning to extract better features, deep learning techniques are suitable for code clone detection. For this reason, it is necessary to develop a clone detection code that can process data from a programming language by utilizing deep learning. Based on the results of experiments conducted on 100 PHP program code data files, experimented with several types of activation function and optimizer methods. The average value of the resulting accuracy is good. With a variety of activation functions that we use such as Relu, Linear, Sigmoid, Softmax, Tanh, Elu, Selu, Softplus, Softsign, hard, and sigmoid, as well as variations of the optimizer used are Adagrad, RMSProp, SGD, Adadelta, Adam, Adamax and Nadam , the best attribute selection is in the Selu function and the RMSProp optimizer. The number of epochs used is 1000, the number of neurons per layer is 500 and the best number of hidden layers is 10, the average accuracy is 0.900

In March 2009, Swiss Parliament passed a new law establishing a Federal Patent Court. This new Court is expected to start operating in 2011, simultaneously with the coming into effect of the new unified Swiss Civil Procedure Law. The Federal Patent Court will serve as the court of first instance in patent matters (infringement and validity claims) for the whole territory of Switzerland thereby replacing to an essential extent the Cantonal courts which were so far competent in patent matters. Surprisingly, the Swiss legislator has not specifically addressed the Federal Patent Court’s jurisdiction in relation to arbitral tribunals sitting in Switzerland. However, the new law speaks of the Court’s “exclusive jurisdiction” in patent matters. The issue therefore arises as to whether, in the future, patent claims could still be decided by arbitral tribunals seated in Switzerland. Switzerland has always been considered as being one of the most liberal countries in the world with regard to the arbitrability of intellectual property claims. Already in 1975, the Swiss Office for Intellectual Property confirmed this approach in a published legal opinion referring to domestic arbitration. This opinion is still valid and can also be extended to international arbitration. What matters is whether an intellectual property claim can be subject to arbitration in accordance with Art. 177 para. 1 of the Private International Law Act (PIL) (i.e. any claim presenting a financial interest). This is usually the case, with some exceptions such as copyright matters relating to moral rights. Accordingly, in the author’s view, the terms “exclusive jurisdiction” used in the new law, only refer to the position of the Federal Patent Court within the (state) judicial system. Absent any specific statement in the new law or related materials, these terms do not refer to the new Court’s jurisdiction in relation and compared to arbitration. A different interpretation would in addition lead to the strange result that patent disputes would fall under a different jurisdiction than trademark and design disputes. Hence, the position remains in Switzerland that all aspects of intellectual property rights, including patents, continue to be arbitrable to the extent that the claims fall under the ambit of Article 177 PIL.

For as long as stories have been written, they have been rewritten. Authors rewrite texts for a variety of reasons. This article will focus on one particular type of rewriting – namely, the rewriting of culturally significant texts from the perspective of marginalized groups that are either missing from or oppressed in the original text. These rewrites serve important social purposes. However, it is likely that many of these rewrites infringe Canadian copyright laws and laws with respect to moral rights. This article argues that works that rewrite culturally significant texts from the perspective of marginalized groups ought not to infringe copyright and violate moral rights in Canada. To this end, it suggests five amendments to Canada’s Copyright Act that would help ensure that the attempts by marginalized groups to express themselves through the rewriting of culturally significant texts cannot be enjoined by copyright owners and authors. Some of these proposed amendments have been incorporated into Bill C-32 (An Act to Amend the Copyright Act), the Government of Canada’s latest attempt at copyright reform.

Along with all the other baggage the British brought with them to Port Jackson in 1788 were laws of ownership that were totally foreign to the original inhabitants. The particular law I'll consider here is that of copyright. The result of a few hundred years of evolution, moulded by the common law and acts of Parliament, copyright protects the intellectual property of writers and artists (Saunders). It has three requirements: originality, material form and identifiable author. However, superimposed on the creative practices of the original inhabitants of Australia, copyright has proved a dismal failure. Its inability to continue its evolution means that it does not serve Indigenous Australians, whose creative practices do not fit neatly within its confines. The notions of 'rights' or 'ownership' inherent in current copyright law do not reflect, and are therefore unable to protect, Indigenous intellectual property. The limits of protection are summed up by Janke et al: '[c]ommercial interests are protected … rather than interests pertaining to cultural integrity … [r]ights are valid for a limited period … whereas under Indigenous laws, they exist in perpetuity. Individual notions of ownership are recognised, rather than the Indigenous concept of communal ownership' (Janke 1997). Practical effects of these limitations are the loss of copyright of stories written down or electronically recorded by outsiders, and the absence of special consideration for, or protection of, secret or sacred material (Janke 1997). Mansell notes that Aboriginal intellectual property rights are poorly protected by current laws be they copyright, patent, plant breeders, design laws or trademarks where 'the creative customs and practices of Aborigines' are different to those of whites, who 'emphasise the individual and provide the mechanisms for the commercialisation of an individual's activity. The traditional base of Aboriginal art forms was not created with this in mind' (Mansell 196). Indigenous cultures have their own systems for the protection of intellectual property which are predicated not on the protection of commercial advantage but on the meaning and cultural integrity of the work of art (Janke 1996 15; 1998a 4). Some of these so-called works of art are, in fact, 'law bearers'; these 'Indigenous traditional cultural productions are … legal titles to clan land' (Morris 6). Ignoring this meaning of cultural productions is a little like your bank manager framing your mortgage document or rental agreement for its aesthetic qualities, and evicting you from your house. While copyright law does acknowledge legally-defined entities like corporations or government departments as copyright holders, it is too limited in its definitions to recognise the complex familial relationships and reciprocal responsibilities of Aboriginal society. Under Indigenous laws 'individuals are differentiated in their awareness of elements of the local culture and in the way they make use of those elements depending on such things as their sex, their moiety or skin group, and their initiatory status' (Johnson 10). Given the complex nature of Indigenous attitudes to rights in and ownership of intellectual property, those concerned with questions of fairness in the administration of copyright law must take a new perspective. While copyright law appears, in the main, to have been unable to deal with a system of law which pre-dates it by thousands of years, there have recently been some tentative steps towards a recognition of Indigenous concerns. Golvan, acknowledging that much work needs to be done 'to ensure that the legal system is meaningful to Aboriginal people', sees some aspects of the judgement in the Carpets Case1 which 'show a strong determination to seek to unite Western copyright principles with the need to deal with issues of indigenous cultural harm' (Golvan 10). And, in Foster v Mountford 1976 (discussed below), Justice Muirhead noted that 'revelation of the secrets [contained in the offending book] … may undermine the social and religious stability of [the] hard-pressed community' (quoted in McDonald 24). These examples show some willingness on the part of the courts to take into account matters which fall outside of common law. While there has as yet been very little litigation regarding copyright ownership of written works, there is no reason to assume that this situation will continue. The first case of infringement of Aboriginal copyright to surface in the media occurred in 1966, when David Malangi's painting 'The Hunter' was adapted without permission as part of the design for the new one-dollar note (Johnson 13). Ten years later, the Pitjantjatjara Council was involved in litigation with Dr Mountford, 'an anthropologist who had been given information by the Pitjantjatjara people … in 1940 … about tribal sites and objects, communal legends, secrets, paintings, engravings, drawings and totemic geography' (McDonald 23). Interestingly, this particular case relied not on copyright law but on a breach of confidence as 'the material … was not protected by copyright, being material in which copyright either did not subsist, or in which copyright had expired' (23). This is a good example of the lack of protection afforded by copyright law to intellectual property of religious and spiritual significance.2 At first glance, the implications of the 1992 Mabo land rights case for publishing in Australia today might seem remote. However, some of the implications of this historic case hold the potential for a new approach to intellectual property rights which may actually serve the interests of Indigenous artists and writers. The importance to intellectual property rights of the Mabo decision lies in the fact that 'the Court held that … local law remains in place except to the extent that it may be in conflict with British law, and until it is over-ruled by the colonisers' 3 (McDonald 26). This meant that not only the myth of terra nullius was repudiated, but with it any notion that Australia was 'either a wild and lawless place or a legal blank slate. Indigenous customary law … was thereby given both recognition and validity' (26). Gray goes further than this, and states in relation to native title and Aboriginal art: 'the two in fact are quite inseparable if not exactly the same' (Gray 12). This statement strongly emphasises Morris' concerns expressed above, regarding the diminution of authority of 'cultural productions' when they are perceived as merely artistic objects. Pearson, in discussing Mabo, talks of native title as the 'recognition space' 4 between common law and Aboriginal law (Pearson 154). He points out that Aboriginal law exists, is practised is in fact a 'social reality', and adds that 'it is fictitious to assume that Aboriginal law is extinguished where the common law is unable to recognise that law' 5 (155). Recently the Australian Society of Authors (Heiss) prepared two discussion papers and a checklist for non-Indigenous writers who want to write about Indigenous culture. One of the papers, 'Australian Copyright vs Indigenous Intellectual and Cultural Property Rights', reiterates the point that the Copyright Act 1968 'as it stands is unsuited to protecting Indigenous culture'. It briefly discusses the desirability of the sharing of copyright between the Indigenous storyteller or informant and their non-Indigenous collaborator an issue I will examine in greater depth in my thesis on cross-cultural editing. A problematic practice, shared copyright deals with 'ownership' in a way that satisfies white or western conceptions but may compromise the Indigenous sense of (Indigenous) communal title to the work. The importance of effective copyright law for Indigenous Australians goes beyond the earning of royalties or the commercial 'ownership' of creative work: it refers to the protection of their cultural heritage (Heiss). One solution suggested by Janke is an amendment to 'the Copyright Act to provide moral rights (rights of attribution, no false attribution and cultural integrity)' (in Heiss). Another possible, though longer term solution, may lie in the way common law itself develops. It has evolved over time, albeit slowly, to suit the needs of the particular environment economic, technological, cultural or other in which it has to operate. As Ginsberg remarks in the context of the introduction of moral rights law to two common law countries, the US and Australia, regarding the gradual adoption of moral rights: 'a Common Law approach to moral rights … slowly builds up to the general principle from gritty examples worked out fact-by-fact. This accretion method is familiar to both our countries' legal approaches' (Ginsberg 34). This same accretion method could be used to change copyright law so that it more adequately protects Indigenous intellectual property. Whatever solution is reached, at present the copyright laws are colour-blind when presented with the complex and alien nature of Indigenous cultural practice. In the interests of reconciliation, natural justice and the integrity of Indigenous culture, reform cannot come too soon. NOTES 1. Milpurrurru v Indofurn Pty Ltd, 1995; an Australian company copied and adapted various Indigenous works of art and had them woven into carpets in Vietnam, and imported into Australia. Permission to use the designs was never sought. An award of almost $200,000 was made to the 8 artists involved, and the offending carpets were withdrawn from sale. By 1996, Indofurn had been wound up and the director declared bankrupt: the artists have not received a cent. (Janke 1998b 9). 2. Fortunately for the Pitjantjatjara elders, the court held that Mountford's book did constitute a breach of confidence. 3. 'The Court held that the rights of Indigenous inhabitants of a colony are the same as the rights of a conquered nation: local law remains in place except to the extent that it may be in conflict with British law, and until it is over-ruled by the colonisers' (McDonald 26). 4. 'Native title is therefore the space between the two systems, where there is recognition. Native title is, for want of a better formulation the recognition space between the common law and the Aboriginal law which now afforded recognition in particular circumstances' (Pearson 154). 5. However, some cases subsequent to Mabo place limitations upon the recognition of Indigenous traditional law. Justice Mason in Coe v Commonwealth of Australia (1993, at 115) stated that 'Mabo … is at odds with the notion … that [Indigenous Australians] are entitled to any rights and interest other than those created or recognised by the law of the Commonwealth, the [relevant] State… and the common law' (McDonald 2627). References Coe v Commonwealth of Australia (1993) 68 ALJR 110 Ginsberg, J. (1992). Moral Rights in a Common Law System. Moral Rights in a Copyright System. P. Anderson and D. Saunders. Brisbane, Qld: Institute for Cultural Policy Studies, Griffith University. Golvan, C. (1996). 'Aboriginal Art and Copyright.' Culture and Policy 7(3): 512. Gray, S. (1996). 'Black Enough? Urban and non-traditional Aboriginal art and proposed legislative protection for Aboriginal art.' Culture and Policy 7(3): 29-44 Heiss, A. (2001). Australian Copyright vs Indigenous Intellectual and Cultural Property Rights, Australian Society of Authors. < http://www.asauthors.org/resources> Accessed 15.08.01. Janke, T. (1996). 'Protecting Australian indigenous arts and cultural expression.' Culture and Policy 7(3): 1327. Janke, T. (1998a). Editorial. Queensland Community Arts Network News 1: 45. Janke, T. (1998b). Federal Court awards record damages to Aboriginal artists. Queensland Community Arts Network News 1: 89. Janke, T., Frankel, M. & Company, Solicitors (1997). Proposals For The Recognition and Protection of Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property, AIATSIS for the Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property Project. <http://www.icip.lawnet.com.au/> Accessed 25.4.98. Johnson, V. (1996). Copyrites: Aboriginal art in the age of reproductive technologies. Sydney, NSW: NIAAA & Macquarie University. Mansell, M. (1997). Barricading our last frontier Aboriginal cultural and intellectual propery rights. Our land is Our Life: Land rights past, present and future. G. Yunupingu. St Lucia, Qld, UQP: 195209. Milpurrurru v Indofurn Pty Ltd (1995) 30 IPR 209. Morris, C. (1998). The Responsibility of Maintaining the Oldest Continuous Culture in the World. Queensland Community Arts Network News 1: 67. Pearson, N. (1997). The Concept of Native Title at Common Law. Our Land is Our Life: Land rights past, present and future. G. Yunupingu. St Lucia, Qld, UQP: 150162. Saunders, D. (1992). Early Modern Law of Copyright in England: Statutes, courts and book cultures. Authorship and Copyright. D. Saunders. London, Routledge: 3574. Links http://www.icip.lawnet.com.au/ http://www.asauthors.org/resources Citation reference for this article MLA Style McDonnell, Margaret. "The Colour of Copyright" M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 5.3 (2002). [your date of access] < http://www.media-culture.org.au/0207/copyright.php>. Chicago Style McDonnell, Margaret, "The Colour of Copyright" M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 5, no. 3 (2002), < http://www.media-culture.org.au/0207/copyright.php> ([your date of access]). APA Style McDonnell, Margaret. (2002) The Colour of Copyright. M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 5(3). < http://www.media-culture.org.au/0207/copyright.php> ([your date of access]).

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA, was enacted by Congress in October of 1998.1 Section 1201(a)(1) of the Act, known as the "anti-circumvention" provision, states that "[n]o person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a [digital] work protected under this title.".2 Sections 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b) combine to form the "anti-trafficking" provisions, which provide that no one shall distribute technology that can accomplish this circumvention.3 Congress constructed a two-year delay in implementation of these provisions, thus, on October 28, 2000, circumvention of effective technological controls became punishable by both civil and criminal actions.4 Unfortunately, the presence of these provisions, along with courts refusal to recognize traditional copyright privileges and defenses in this area of "paracopyright,"5 chills programmers' speech.

Abstract The National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) in Nigeria recently released an amendment to the 6th edition of the Broadcasting Code. Its aim is to increase local content, generate advertisement revenue and prevent anti-competitive practices in the Nigerian broadcast industry. To this end, it prevents exclusivity or monopolisation of content by broadcasting organisations, including Pay TV and Video on Demand (VOD) platforms. Drawing from European and South African experiences, this article begins by examining the provisions of the Broadcasting Code, particularly the amendment vis-à-vis the Nigerian Copyright Act and Nigeria’s international obligations under treaties such as the Rome Convention and the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). It then looks at the impact of the amended Code on the broadcast industry. The article seeks to determine whether the provisions of the amended Code can qualify as limitations and exceptions to exclusive rights allowed under the treaties and the Nigerian Copyright Act. It also examines whether, in attempting to foster competition in the Nigerian broadcast industry, the amended Code has taken away the exclusive rights granted by the Copyright Act to owners of Pay TV and VOD platforms and thereby runs contrary to Nigeria’s international obligations. Where appropriate, recommendations are made for consultation among relevant stakeholders for review of the amended Code to align it with the Copyright Act and Nigeria’s international obligations.

South Africa is in the process of reforming its copyright law, attempting to update and align it with constitutional rights and existing and prospective international treaty obligations. With the adoption of the Copyright Amendment Bill [B13B-2017] by both Houses of Parliament in March 2019, the apartheid-era Copyright Act of 1978 had almost successfully been amended, when the President of the Republic withheld his assent to the Bill referring it back to Parliament citing reservations about its constitutionality. Following calls for public comment by the parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry on the President's reservations, a coalition of copyright and constitutional law experts, convinced of the constitutionality of the Bill, submitted two legal opinions to the Committee. The two opinions presented in this contribution underline the importance of copyright reform, as envisaged in the Bill, to bringing South African copyright law into the digital age and realising several constitutional rights including the rights to education, cultural participation, language, freedom of expression, and access to knowledge of everyone, without discrimination.

<p align="center"><strong><em>A</em></strong><strong><em>bstract</em></strong></p><p><em>Development of</em><em> copyrighted works as part of the intellectual property rights that stem from results of human creation gave birth to a right of the creator of the so-called copyright. Copyright inherent in the creator differs from other intellectual property rights, because the inherent consists of two types of rights, moral rights and economic rights. The problems of copyright protection in Indonesia is caused by several things including: Islamic view of Copyrights, the public's view of the Copyright, Still Lack Popularizing Copyright Act, the Purchaser is not in the questioning, and legal awareness.</em><em></em></p><p><em><strong>Keywords</strong>: Copyright, intellectual property right</em></p>

<p>The aims of this research is to explain the batik wood artists level of understanding of Copyright as part of Intellectual Property as stipulated in Act Number 19 Year 2002. The research was conducted with descriptive qualitative approach and the data were collected using questionnaires from 65 batik wood artists that were selected randomly from 673 artists in Gunung Kidul. The data is also completed with interviews from main informants, and observation results and content analysis results. The data validation was done use source triangulation techniques to obtain data that reflecting facts. Data analyzed with interactive model in cycle with stages data collection, data reduction, data presentation and data verification. The results show that the low implementation of copyright registration is not only due to the lack of artists in understanding the Copyright, but rather from the influence of socio – cultural aspects of society that are collective. Thus, emphasizing the moral aspect of the formal aspects such as Copyright that are part of the western culture. The Copyright Act No. 19 Number 2002 is the revision of previously Copyright Act which has not provided a proportional space for Moral Rights compared to Copyright which tends to the economic aspects. </p>