Showing posts with label adaptation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label adaptation. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Pearl Diving At Your Own Risk

Actual Pearls
Cultural Pearl
The Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main (OLG Frankfurt) has been keeping busy of late. It has not only had to deal with the umpteenth instalment of the bunny wars (for those interested in trade mark law and/or chocolate, see Birgit's IPKat post here), but with copyright issues as well. Almost a year ago, I reported on the 'Perlentaucher' ('pearl divers') decision by the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) (see my earlier post here), concerning abstracts of book reviews and whether such abstracts constitute free use of the original review (section 24 German Copyright Act) or an infringement. The BGH reversed and remanded the case to the OLG Frankfurt after giving some general guidance and reminding all concerned about that old copyright favourite, the idea/expression dichotomy.

In a rare press statement (here), the OLG Frankfurt announced that it partly allowed the claimants' appeal (a change of heart, see its 2007 judgment in the same case here). It held that some of the abstracts were indeed infringements in the form of 'unfree' adaptations of the original reviews because they more or less consisted of especially distinctive and expressive passages from the original reviews, only omitting a few sentences.

The court's press office was quick to state that no general conclusions can be drawn from the case, but that the extent to which a book review may be freely copied or adapted is a matter of fact and degree in each individual case. Since that is certainly correct but not very helpful, I shall take a look at the judgment once it becomes available and let you know if it contains any hidden pearls of wisdom...

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Creative Commons License Upheld in Belgian Court

In 2004, the Belgian band Lichôdmapwa released the song “Abatchouck” under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives license (CC BY-NC-ND). Several years later, one of the band members happened to hear about 20 seconds of the 3:20 song on an advertisement for a theater and festival company. Recently, Lichôdmapwa was awarded 4.500 Euros for the infringement of “Abatchouck”.

When Lichôdmapwa first heard their song on the radio, they contacted the theater company (roughly translated by Bablefish as “Festival of theater of spa”) to see if they could negotiate an outcome favorable to all. The negotiations failed and Lichôdmapwa sued the theater company for copyright infringement in September of 2009.

The Band’s Claims

Lichôdmapwa claimed that the theater company had violated all three of the terms of their chosen CC license. The theater had modified the original work to make it fit in the commercial, violating the No Derivatives provision. The theater violated the Non-Commercial clause by using the work in an advertisement. And the theater violated the attribution requirement by not including any mention of the song’s artist in the commercial.

The band asked for 10,380 Euros in damages, plus to have the theater pay for the publication of the court’s judgment in a magazine called “Dogmagazine.”

The Theater Company’s Defense

The theater company attempted to claim ignorance, arguing that it was unaware of the terms of the license. It appears the theater also argued that since Lichôdmapwa is not a member of the Belgian collecting society, SABAM, the band had no rights to collect payments for the music’s use.

The Court’s Decision

Judge Vandeput did not agree with the theater company’s defenses. She recognized the validity of Creative Commons licenses, citing Dutch, Spanish and American courts as others that have also held CC licenses to be valid. She also confirmed that the musicians’ decision to not join SABAM and instead release their music more openly should not prevent enforcement of the license.

As to the theater company’s claim of ignorance, Judge Vandeput found that this was no excuse for violating the license. As an organizer of festivals and a company involved in using licensing, the company should have known to look for and follow the terms of the license. In addition, the website from which the theater downloaded the music, http://www.dogmazic.net, clearly mentions the terms of the license. There was no reason for the theater company not to know about the license or its terms.

The Money

Even though the band is not part of SABAM, the court held that they still suffered damages. And although Judge Vandeput did not award Lichôdmapwa the 12 Euros per distribution and 1,800 Euros per license term violated that they requested or the magazine print request, she did award the band 1,500 Euros per license term violated. 4,500 Euros and possibly court costs, not bad.

For our multi-lingual readers: