Pub Date : 2017-02-01DOI: 10.1093/ACREFORE/9780190228613.013.274
Matthew Rimmer
Copyright exceptions and limitations in the United States have experienced dynamic evolution in light of new technological developments. There has been significant legal debate in the courts and in the United States Congress about the scope of the defense of fair use. The copyright litigation over Google Books has been a landmark development in the modern history of copyright law. The victory by Google, Inc., over the Authors Guild in the decade-long copyright dispute is an important milestone for copyright law. The ruling of Leval J emphasizes that the defense of fair use in the United States plays a critical role in promoting transformative creativity, freedom of speech, and innovation. The Supreme Court of the United States was decisive in its rejection of the Authors Guild’s efforts to challenge the decision of Leval J. There has been significant debate in the United States Copyright Office and United States Congress over the development of “the Next Great Copyright Act.” Hearings have taken place within the United States Congressional system about the history, nature, and future of the defense of fair use under United States copyright law. There remains much debate about the internationalization of the defense of fair use, and the need for the trading partners of the United States to enjoy similar flexibilities with respect to copyright exceptions. There has been concern about the impact of mega-regional trade agreements—such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership—upon copyright exceptions, such as the defense of fair use.
{"title":"The Foxfire of Fair Use: The Google Books Litigation and the Future of Copyright Laws","authors":"Matthew Rimmer","doi":"10.1093/ACREFORE/9780190228613.013.274","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ACREFORE/9780190228613.013.274","url":null,"abstract":"Copyright exceptions and limitations in the United States have experienced dynamic evolution in light of new technological developments. There has been significant legal debate in the courts and in the United States Congress about the scope of the defense of fair use. The copyright litigation over Google Books has been a landmark development in the modern history of copyright law. The victory by Google, Inc., over the Authors Guild in the decade-long copyright dispute is an important milestone for copyright law. The ruling of Leval J emphasizes that the defense of fair use in the United States plays a critical role in promoting transformative creativity, freedom of speech, and innovation. The Supreme Court of the United States was decisive in its rejection of the Authors Guild’s efforts to challenge the decision of Leval J. There has been significant debate in the United States Copyright Office and United States Congress over the development of “the Next Great Copyright Act.” Hearings have taken place within the United States Congressional system about the history, nature, and future of the defense of fair use under United States copyright law. There remains much debate about the internationalization of the defense of fair use, and the need for the trading partners of the United States to enjoy similar flexibilities with respect to copyright exceptions. There has been concern about the impact of mega-regional trade agreements—such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership—upon copyright exceptions, such as the defense of fair use.","PeriodicalId":368986,"journal":{"name":"Queensland University of Technology (QUT) - Law & Justice Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131632657","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
3D printing is a field of technology, which enabled the manufacturing of physical objects from three-dimensional digital models.The discipline of copyright law has been challenged and disrupted by the emergence of 3D printing and additive manufacturing. 3D Printing poses questions about the subject matter protected under copyright law. Copyright law provides for exclusive economic and moral rights in respect of cultural works – such as literary works, artistic works, musical works, dramatic works, as well as other subject matter like radio and television broadcasts, sound recordings, and published editions. Copyright law demands a threshold requirement of originality. There have been sometimes issues about the interaction between copyright law and designs law in respect of works of artistic craftsmanship. In addition, 3D printing has raised larger questions about copyright infringement. There has been significant debate over the scope of copyright exceptions – such as the defence of fair dealing, and exceptions for cultural institutions. Moreover, there has been debate over the operation of digital copyright measures in respect of 3D printing. The takedown and notice system has affected services and sites, which enable the sharing of 3D printing designs. Technological protection measures – digital locks – have also raised challenges for 3D printing. The long duration of copyright protection in Australia and the United States has also raised issues in respect of 3D printing.There has been great public policy interest into how copyright law will address and accommodate the disruptive technologies of 3D Printing. As a public policy expert at Public Knowledge, and as a lawyer working for Shapeways, Michael Weinberg has written a number of public policy papers on intellectual property and 3D Printing. Associate Professor Dinusha Mendis and her colleagues have undertaken legal and empirical research on intellectual property and 3D printing. In 2015, Professor Mark Lemley from Stanford Law School wrote about intellectual property and 3D printing in the context of work on the economics of abundance. As a practising lawyer, John Hornick has examined the topic of intellectual property and 3D printing. Comparative legal scholar Dr Angela Daly has written on the socio-legal aspects of 3D printing in 2016. The World Intellectual Property Organization in 2015 highlighted 3D printing.3D printing has provided new opportunities for cultural institutions to redefine their activities and purposes, and engage with a variety of new constituencies. 3D printing has also highlighted deficiencies in copyright law in respect of cultural institutions. Culturally and technologically specific exceptions for libraries, archives, and cultural institutions have proven to be ill-adapted for an age of 3D printing and makerspaces. The Australian Law Reform Commission has highlighted the need to modernise Australia’s copyright laws for the digital age. Likewise, the Productivity Co
{"title":"3D Printing Jurassic Park: Copyright Law, Cultural Institutions, and Makerspaces","authors":"Matthew Rimmer","doi":"10.31235/osf.io/vcpxj","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/vcpxj","url":null,"abstract":"3D printing is a field of technology, which enabled the manufacturing of physical objects from three-dimensional digital models.The discipline of copyright law has been challenged and disrupted by the emergence of 3D printing and additive manufacturing. 3D Printing poses questions about the subject matter protected under copyright law. Copyright law provides for exclusive economic and moral rights in respect of cultural works – such as literary works, artistic works, musical works, dramatic works, as well as other subject matter like radio and television broadcasts, sound recordings, and published editions. Copyright law demands a threshold requirement of originality. There have been sometimes issues about the interaction between copyright law and designs law in respect of works of artistic craftsmanship. In addition, 3D printing has raised larger questions about copyright infringement. There has been significant debate over the scope of copyright exceptions – such as the defence of fair dealing, and exceptions for cultural institutions. Moreover, there has been debate over the operation of digital copyright measures in respect of 3D printing. The takedown and notice system has affected services and sites, which enable the sharing of 3D printing designs. Technological protection measures – digital locks – have also raised challenges for 3D printing. The long duration of copyright protection in Australia and the United States has also raised issues in respect of 3D printing.There has been great public policy interest into how copyright law will address and accommodate the disruptive technologies of 3D Printing. As a public policy expert at Public Knowledge, and as a lawyer working for Shapeways, Michael Weinberg has written a number of public policy papers on intellectual property and 3D Printing. Associate Professor Dinusha Mendis and her colleagues have undertaken legal and empirical research on intellectual property and 3D printing. In 2015, Professor Mark Lemley from Stanford Law School wrote about intellectual property and 3D printing in the context of work on the economics of abundance. As a practising lawyer, John Hornick has examined the topic of intellectual property and 3D printing. Comparative legal scholar Dr Angela Daly has written on the socio-legal aspects of 3D printing in 2016. The World Intellectual Property Organization in 2015 highlighted 3D printing.3D printing has provided new opportunities for cultural institutions to redefine their activities and purposes, and engage with a variety of new constituencies. 3D printing has also highlighted deficiencies in copyright law in respect of cultural institutions. Culturally and technologically specific exceptions for libraries, archives, and cultural institutions have proven to be ill-adapted for an age of 3D printing and makerspaces. The Australian Law Reform Commission has highlighted the need to modernise Australia’s copyright laws for the digital age. Likewise, the Productivity Co","PeriodicalId":368986,"journal":{"name":"Queensland University of Technology (QUT) - Law & Justice Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"693 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116115081","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The International Conference on End of Life: Law, Ethics, Policy and Practice was held at Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia in August 2014. It was co-hosted by the Australian Centre for Health Law Research, the Dalhousie Health Law Institute (Canada) and the Tsinghua Health Law Research Center (China). The conference attracted almost 350 delegates from 26 countries and included representation from over a dozen different disciplines with an interest in end of life care.
{"title":"Guest Editorial: End of Life Law, Ethics, Policy and Practice","authors":"L. Willmott, B. White, A. Mcgee, F. McDonald","doi":"10.5204/QUTLR.V16I1.670","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5204/QUTLR.V16I1.670","url":null,"abstract":"The International Conference on End of Life: Law, Ethics, Policy and Practice was held at Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia in August 2014. It was co-hosted by the Australian Centre for Health Law Research, the Dalhousie Health Law Institute (Canada) and the Tsinghua Health Law Research Center (China). The conference attracted almost 350 delegates from 26 countries and included representation from over a dozen different disciplines with an interest in end of life care.","PeriodicalId":368986,"journal":{"name":"Queensland University of Technology (QUT) - Law & Justice Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"149 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133388760","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
L. Willmott, B. White, Eliana Close, C. Gallois, M. Parker, N. Graves, S. Winch, L. Callaway, Nicole Shepherd
Despite the potential harm to patients (and others) and the financial cost of providing futile treatment at the end of life, this practice occurs. This article reports on empirical research undertaken in Queensland that explores doctors’ perceptions about the law that governs futile treatment at the end of life, and the role it plays in medical practice. The findings reveal that doctors have poor knowledge of their legal obligations and powers when making decisions about withholding or withdrawing futile treatment at the end of life; their attitudes towards the law were largely negative; and the law affected their clinical practice and had or would cause them to provide futile treatment.
{"title":"Futility and the Law: Knowledge, Practice and Attitudes of Doctors in End of Life Care","authors":"L. Willmott, B. White, Eliana Close, C. Gallois, M. Parker, N. Graves, S. Winch, L. Callaway, Nicole Shepherd","doi":"10.5204/QUTLR.V16I1.622","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5204/QUTLR.V16I1.622","url":null,"abstract":"Despite the potential harm to patients (and others) and the financial cost of providing futile treatment at the end of life, this practice occurs. This article reports on empirical research undertaken in Queensland that explores doctors’ perceptions about the law that governs futile treatment at the end of life, and the role it plays in medical practice. The findings reveal that doctors have poor knowledge of their legal obligations and powers when making decisions about withholding or withdrawing futile treatment at the end of life; their attitudes towards the law were largely negative; and the law affected their clinical practice and had or would cause them to provide futile treatment.","PeriodicalId":368986,"journal":{"name":"Queensland University of Technology (QUT) - Law & Justice Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127468890","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：