2016년 12월 21일 수요일

The principle of reciprocity in the protection period of the copyright

The principle of reciprocity in the protection period of the copyright

The principle of reciprocity > The principle of reciprocity in the protection period of the copyright

It is the longest and, in the principle of reciprocity in the protection period of the copyright, explains what I limit during the protection period of the copyright admitted in the own country to the member nation about the rule of the international copyright treaty to permit between the protection period of the copyright given to a foreign book under the treatment on the same footing as natives.

Table of contents

Treatment on the same footing as natives and principle of reciprocity

Principle of the treatment on the same footing as natives

The treaties about the protection of copyrights such as the Bern Convention (the Bern Convention) or the Universal Copyright Convention about the protection of the literal and artistic book establish all treatment on the same footing as natives about the protection of the foreign book as the member nation concerned (Bern Convention Article 5 Clause 1, Universal Copyright Convention Article 2 Clause 1 Clause .2). The treatment on the same footing as natives in the copyright protection means that I guarantee the protection that is equal to inside the country book about the protection of the copyright of the foreign book.

Principle of reciprocity as the exception

The adoption of the principle of reciprocity is permitted without a principle of the treatment on the same footing as natives being accomplished for the above-mentioned principle about the protection period of the copyright.

Both the Bern Convention and the Universal Copyright Convention determine only the minimum requirements that all member nations must meet for a copyright, but it is freedom of the member nation that give protection more than the minimum protection in the treaty by the law of the own country. It is remarkable, and it is permitted that I establish a period having a long it than it (Bern Convention Article 7 Clause 6) and, in the majority country, does it after the death of the author in a treaty in total with 50 years, but it has a long it more, and, as for this, there is the country protecting it posthumously until 100 years of the author after the death of the author after the death of the author in 70 for 50 years (Bern Convention Article 7 Clause 1) during the shortest protection period of the general copyright which the Bern Convention determines about the protection period of the copyright in particular. Therefore there can have possibilities to be yet it in the different country during a protection period whereas the protection period of the same book produces a result varying according to a country, and the protection period of the copyright has been already finished in a certain country.

In this case the principle of reciprocity to apply the short protection period is recognized when it is the own country of the book as an exception of the normal treatment on the same footing as natives, and the protection period of the federal law is shorter than the law of the own country (Bern Convention Article 7 Clause 8, Universal Copyright Convention Article 4 Clause 4 (a)). The country having a long protection period can apply a protection period having a shorter it to a foreign book having such a short protection period. For example, in 99, Honduras is in 75, but a Japanese book is not protected after the publication of after the death of the author individual or the corporation in these countries more than (as for the book of the movie after publication 70) for 50 years during the protection period in Cote d'Ivoire because it is established that I apply a protection period of the having a shorter it based on the principle of reciprocity in the Copyright Act of the two countries.

In addition, it is not a purpose that the governing law of the protection period of the copyright becomes the foreign method to apply a foreign protection period by the principle of reciprocity. The governing law about the protection of the copyright is the use ground method of the book to the last. The principle of reciprocity is a problem about the degree of the protection of the foreign country book in the bottom of law appointed as a governing law namely the use ground law.

Bern Convention

There is a rule to permit the adoption of the principle of reciprocity about the protection period of the copyright in Bern Convention Article 7 Clause 8. [1].

Article 7 [protection period]
(8) In either case, during the protection period, I stop at the place that the laws and ordinances of the ally where protection is demanded from determine. But there is not the thing more than protection periods set in the laws and ordinances of the country without particular fate in the own country of the book during the protection period.

The definition of the own country saying here comes close to Article 5 Clause 4.

Article 5 [principle of the protection]
(4) About the next book, I assume the next country an own country.
(a) An ally in either ally about the book published first. Even if I have, I do it with the country which the protection period when laws and ordinances take part about the book published at the same time in allies more than two recognizing a different protection period among these countries has a shortest.
(b) Ally about the book published at the same time in the country which does not belong to an alliance and either ally
(c) The ally where the author is the nation about the thing which was not published with the book which is not published or a book published first in the country which does not belong to an alliance at the same time in which ally either. But, about the next book, I assume the next country an own country.
(i) Ally about the book of the office which is main in either ally or the movie that a person having the whereabouts where it is the way it goes is a producer
(ii) The ally where it is with real estate and one to be located in the book of the building built in either ally or either ally, and connections are pictorial and about the book of the art of the carving and modeling

The adoption of the principle of reciprocity is not required in fact [2]. Every country can establish "particular fate" for the law of the own country. It is not necessary to include the exception of the clear provision in domestic Copyright Act to do so it [3]. For example, China (after the publication of after the death of the author individual or the corporation 50 years) and the United States of America (after the death of the author individual after the publication of 70 or the corporation 95), Mexican (100 years) Columbian (80) Guatemala, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Independent State of Samoa (for each 75 years) do not stipulate an exception.

In addition, official interpretation does not exist unlike a case of the Universal Copyright Convention to mention later whether you can aim at the protection period of the copyright for the principle of reciprocity as a book of zero about the case that a copyright does not produce in the own country of the book by the Bern Convention at a member nation.

Universal Copyright Convention

In the Universal Copyright Convention, the adoption of the principle of reciprocity in the protection period of the copyright is specified in Article 4 4(a) [4].

Article 4 [protection period]
Neither 4 (a) contracting parties do not assume an obligation to give you protection for a longer term than the period when the book is established about the kind of those books by the laws and ordinances of the contracting party published first about the book published by the laws and ordinances of the contracting party where the author is the nation about the book which is not published.

When the book concerned was not protected at all in a first issue of own country and book place of the author, the Japanese Government showed a doubt about handling of (when, in other words, a copyright does not occur) in the conclusion process of this treaty. In this case the protection period of the copyright considered the chairperson to be a book of zero to break off this concern, and the other countries made that they did not chase the protection duty of the book clear. Therefore, I am interpreted even if the other countries give a domestic similar book protection when I do not have a duty to protect such a foreign book [5].

The member nation is not obliged to carry out the adoption of the principle of reciprocity to have grounds in Article 4 (4)(a), and it is admitted that I guarantee the protection period like the book of the inside the country.

Copyright treaty between two countries

The article of the existing or new bilateral treaty may be superior to an international copyright treaty as far as the treaty meets the minimum requirements of the international copyright treaty. This is prescribed in Article 19 [7] Article 20 [6] of the Bern Convention and Article 18 of the Universal Copyright Convention.

The Bern Convention
Article 20 [special 取極]
The government of ally reserves a right to perform special 取極 at mutual intervals. But 取極 must be the thing which gives an author the right that this treaty is wider than a right to take part in or the thing which does not have a rule to conflict with the rule of this treaty. The rule of current 取極 meeting this condition is applied sequentially.
Universal Copyright Convention
Article 18 [relations with the Americas treaty]
It is not the multilateral thing which or invalidates bilateral treaty or 取極 about the copyright which this treaty has effect now exclusively only between the republic of the Americas more than two or will have effect in the future. When a rule of these current treaties or treaty that is made newly between the republic of the Americas more than two when a rule of 取極 and the rule of this treaty conflict with it or after this treaty produced effect or 取極 and the rule of this treaty conflict with it, a rule of treaty made most newly or 取極 gives priority to it between contracting parties. The right about the book acquired in the contracting party concerned based on effective treaty or 取極 before the day when this treaty produces effect about either contracting party is not affected.
Article 19 [relations with other treaties]
This treaty is not the multilateral thing which or invalidates bilateral treaty or 取極 about the copyright having effect between contracting parties more than two. When a rule of these treaties or 取極 and the rule of this treaty conflict with it, the rule of this treaty takes first priority. The right about the book acquired in the contracting party concerned based on effective treaty or 取極 before the day when this treaty produces effect about either contracting party is not affected. The rule of this article is not the thing which has any influence on the rule of Article 17 and the preceding article.

Principle of reciprocity adoption situation of each country

Country, area The right or wrong of the principle of reciprocity adoption The reference text
  The United States of America X (as for the public domain book, a copyright is not restored in an own country in "a right time double-omen's day") United States Code 17th Article 104 17 U.S.C. § 104(c),United States Code 17th 編第 104A article 17 U.S.C. § 104A。 The details mention it later
  Argentina ○ Article 15 Ley 11.723 del 28 de septiembre de 1933, as modified by Ley 24.870 del 11 de septiembre de 1997
  The U.K. ? (but the principle of reciprocity rule exists about the right or wrong of the principle of reciprocity application in the bilateral treaty with the United States various opinions ant)
  Italy ○(the nation of a book and the EU member state which assume an EU member state an own country does not apply it to the book which is an author) Article 7 (1) order 2006/116/EC
  India ○ Article 40 (iii) Copyright Act, 1957
  Australia ○
  Canada ○(I do not apply to the United States, the Mexican book which is an NAFTA member nation) Article 9 (1)(2) Copyright Act (R.S., 1985, c. C-42)
  Guatemala X
  Colombia X Article 11 Ley 23 de 1982
  Cote d'Ivoire ○ Article 4 Loi no. 96-564 du 25 juillet 1996
  The Independent State of Samoa X
  Singapore ○ Article 4 Copyright (International Protection) Regulations
  Switzerland X
  Spain ○(the nation of a book and the EU member state which assume an EU member state an own country does not apply it to the book which is an author) Article 7 (1) order 2006/116/EC
  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines X Article 6 (b) Copyright Act, 2003
  Taiwan (the Republic of China) ○ The 106th 条但書著作權法
  The People's Republic of China X The 华 people's republic writing 权 method in item Article 2 2-4
  Germany ?
  Japan ○(even a thing published in a foreign country does not apply to the book of the Japanese citizen first) The Article 58 text
  Brazil ○
  France ○(the nation of a book and the EU member state which assume an EU member state an own country does not apply it to the book which is an author) 12 Code de la propriétéintellectuelle of Article 123, Article 7 (1) order 2006/116/EC
  Hong Kong ○ Article 198 3(b), Article 229 8(b), 第 229-A article (6)(b) Copyright Ordinance (Cap. 528)
  Honduras ○ article 44 of Decreto 4 99 E: Ley del derecho de autor y de los derechos conexos
  Macao ○ Article 51 Decree-Law 43/99/M of August 16, 1999
  Mexico X Article 29 Ley Federal del Derecho de Autor (1996), unchanged in Ley Federal del Derecho de Autor (2003)

Situation of the United States of America

When the United States of America joined the Bern Convention, the American United States Congress wrote clearly, "the Bern Convention does not have the automatic execution power in the United States" in Bern Convention observance of a contract method Chapter 2 (BCIA, Pub. L. 100-568) of 1988 [8]. Only American Copyright Act was applied in the United States, and the Bern Convention observance of a contract method (BCIA) made clear that the Copyright Act revised by BCIA carried out requirements of the Bern Convention (§ 18(1) of the Bern Convention was not carried out, but this deviation was revised by Uruguay Round agreement method (URAA) of 1994).

As for the statement of BCIA100-568 which is general law, even 17 USC 104 of the American Copyright Act giving the protection that is the same as a domestic book to a foreign book is repeated.

In this way, it is necessary for every requirement of the Bern Convention to be specified in American Copyright Act to have effect in the United States [9]. However, the 17th of the United States Code does not include any article about the principle of reciprocity. The description about the principle of reciprocity is only a thing added to 17 USC 104A by URAA of 1994. As for the copyright of many foreign books, those books establish that they recover automatically there unless it has been already enforcement sunlight of URAA in public domain in the own country on (in most countries January 1, 1996). Because there was not the general rule about the principle of reciprocity in American Copyright Act, I judged Federal court about the protection of the foreign book many times if there was not the application of the principle of reciprocity.

Precedent

One of the suit that the problem about the principle of reciprocity was handled husband bath Bradley Corporation vs. スパークル toys company case (780 F.2d 189 (2d Cir 1985)) である. Husband bath Bradley Corporation (husband bath company) sold a Japanese toy (action-figure) under the exclusive license in the United States and insisted on the copyright about those toys. スパークル toys company (スパークル company) sold the imitation of those toy dolls. In suit, スパークル company made an objection against the claim of the copyright of husband bath company [10]. By a case before this Bern Convention, in the court, as for the toy which assumed these Japan an own country, copyright protection was not done at all in Japan, but handed down a decision that there was a qualification to insist on a copyright about the figure skating on husband bath Corporation without copyright indication to a toy. The judgment in this suit was criticized in 2000 by Lawyer specialist in American intellectual property rights William F pato Lee. He expressed the opinion that a judge achieved for a conclusion that it was necessary for the United States to accept a copyright to these toys by mistake. Pato Lee admits that the United States surely has to accept a copyright without copyright indication to a foreign book in the own country under the Bern Convention by Article 5 (2) [5].

I could think that the husband bath vs. スパークル case was a special case about the application possibility of the principle of reciprocity article in the Universal Copyright Convention, but there was an opportunity to think about this problem under the Bern Convention by the Capitol record company vs. ナクソス company case (4 N.Y.3d 540, 2nd Cir. 2005). By this case, Capitol record company (Capitol company) insisted on the copyright about the old British record (a copyright expires in the U.K. in the late 1980s) of 1930. Like Capitol company, the ナクソス company which competed again, and sold the recreation of those records stated an objection for the claim of this copyright. Because the record before 1972 was protected not the federal law in the United States by a state law, the record is a special example. The federal law (because and these records are not protected with a copyright anymore in the U.K. URAA in 1996, even the United States is surely public domain under URAA) was not applied, and, in the court, a copyright handed down a decision that it was admitted on a record under the common law of New York because there was not the thing which prohibited that New York accepted a copyright in these records in both the Bern Convention (in a record which I rise and am not applicable) and Roma Treaty [11].

Bilateral treaty

It was legislated on March 3, 1891, and, according to the international Copyright Act that took effect on July 1, the same year, the United States concluded the copyright treaty between large number of two countries with a foreign country. A treaty with Belgium, France, Spain and the U.K. took effect in 1891. A treaty took effect each successively between Costa Rica and the Netherlands in Chile and Mexico and 1899 in Denmark and Portugal, 1896 in Germany and Italy, 1893 in 1892. これらの条約は1976年の米国著作権法の後でも「大統領の署名によって終了、中断、または改訂」されない限り有効なままである[12]。 1892年のドイツとの条約はドイツの訴訟で2003年に適用された[13]。

欧州連合の状況

欧州連合 (EU) では、欧州連合域内における著作権保護期間の調和に関する指令93/98/EECによって著作権の保護期間を加盟国間で一致させた。この1995年7月1日に発効した拘束力のある指令は、欧州連合全体で著作権の保護期間を著作者の死後70年まで延長させた。指令はその第7条に、EU以外の国の著作物には相互主義を適用するという必須の規則も含んでいる。一方でEU内では相互主義は適用されず、そして—ベルヌ条約や万国著作権条約と同様に—既存の国際協定 (二国間条約など) がこの相互主義条項に優越することがありうる[14]。

ドイツは著作権法 (ドイツ語: Urheberrechtsgesetz) の§120で相互主義の不適用を欧州経済領域の全加盟国に拡大している[15]。米国の著作物に対しても相互主義は適用されない。 2003年10月7日にフランクフルト・アム・マインのヘッセン州高等裁判所 (ドイツ語: Oberlandesgericht) が判決を下した事件で、裁判所は米国でパブリックドメインに置かれた米国の著作物が、ドイツではまだ著作権で保護されるという判決を下した。裁判所は、1892年1月15日に発効し、まだ有効なドイツと米国の二国間条約があるので相互主義は適用できないと考えた。その条約は相互主義条項を含んでおらず、どちらの国の著作物も相手国では相手国の法律によって保護されると定めているだけである[13]。

Precedent

93/98/EC指令の第7条でEU国間の相互主義適用が明示的に禁止される以前にも、EU内での相互主義は認められていなかった。原条約が1958年に発効したローマ条約は第7条第1項で、連合圏内では国籍に基づくいかなる差別的取扱いも禁止されると定めていた (条約がマーストリヒト条約によって修正された2002年から、これは第12条第1項になった)。相互主義の適用は国内の著作者に他のEU国の著作者よりも長い著作物の保護期間を与える結果になるので、このような差別的取扱いに当たる。

この問題は欧州司法裁判所 (ECJ) によって1993年 (つまり、93/98/EC指令が発効する2年前) に和解の裁定が下され、フィル・コリンズ裁定と呼ばれるようになった。その事件で、フィル・コリンズはコンサートのレコードを取り扱っていたドイツのレコード販売業者を提訴した。当時のドイツ連邦法は、ドイツの実演家に完全な隣接権、とりわけ実演が行われた場所にかかわらず同意なきレコードの頒布を禁止する権利を与えていた。同時に、ドイツ法は外国の実演家には同じ権利をドイツ国内での実演に限って与えていた。ECJは1993年10月20日にこれはEC条約第7条の差別的取り扱いの禁止条項に違反するという裁定を下した。ECJは差別的取り扱いの禁止条項を確かに著作権に適用可能であることも明確にした[16]。

ECJは、この差別的取り扱いの禁止条項は国家の法律間の違いに関するものではなく、あらゆるEU国の市民と、他のEU国からの外国人を同等に取り扱うことを保証するためのものであることを明確にした[17][18]。

その後2002年に、ECJはプッチーニ事件 (またはラ・ボエーム事件) で差別的取り扱いの禁止条項はEUが出現する以前に死亡したEU加盟国の国民にも適用されるという裁定を下し、相互主義条項は差別的取り扱いの禁止条項に違反することも繰り返し明言した[19]。この事件はドイツヘッセン州ヴィースバーデンの州立劇場が1993/94と1994/95のシーズンに上演したプッチーニのオペラであるラ・ボエームに関するものだった。当時のドイツ法の下では相互主義条項が外国の著作物に適用されたので、このオペラは56年間のイタリアの著作権保護期間が満了する1980年の終わりからドイツではパブリックドメインであった (プッチーニが死去したのは1924年11月29日)。同時にドイツ国内の著作物は著作者の死後70年の著作権保護期間を享受していた。ミュージカルの発行者はプッチーニの著作物はドイツで権利を保有していると主張し、差別的取り扱いの禁止条項に基づき、ドイツでは外国の著作物にも70年の保護期間が規定されていると主張してヘッセン州を提訴した[20]。ドイツ連邦最高裁判所は差別的取り扱いの禁止条項がEU出現前に死亡した著作者の著作物にも適用されるのか疑問を抱いてECJに裁定を仰ぎ、ECJは原告の主張を完全に確認した。ECJは相互主義条項は著作者の国籍ではなく著作物の本国に基づくので、客観的基準であり国籍に基づく差別的取り扱いではないというヘッセン州の解釈を明確に否定し[19]、裁定を下した[21]。

日本の状況

相互主義の採用

日本の著作権法は、著作権の保護期間の一般的な定めに対する特例の一つとして、相互主義を採用している。

まず、ベルヌ条約の加盟国、WTOの加盟国を本国とする著作物の著作権の保護期間について、その本国における保護期間のほうが短い場合は、その短い方の保護期間が適用される（著作権法58条）。ただし、日本国民の著作物については、相互主義の適用はない（著作権法58条の括弧書き）。日本国民の著作物が日本国外で最初に発行された場合は、当該著作物の本国は当該発行国であり、日本ではない。この場合であっても、日本の著作物の保護期間については著作権法51条から57条までの規定により保護期間を与えるという趣旨である。

また、万国著作権条約を批准しているがベルヌ条約を批准していない国との関係では、上記の規定は適用されず、万国著作権条約の実施に伴う著作権法の特例に関する法律3条1項に定める相互主義の適用がある。なお、同法には万国著作権条約の加盟国において著作権が発生しない場合に関しても、日本国内では著作権による保護を受けない旨の規定がある（3条2項）。

アメリカ合衆国との関係

アメリカ合衆国を本国とする著作物についても相互主義の適用はある。しかし、米国民の著作物が米国で1956年4月28日（万国著作権条約が日本に効力を生ずる日）より前に発行された場合については、問題がある。

1905年11月10日に調印され、1906年5月11日に日本で公布された日米間著作権保護ニ関スル条約（日米著作権条約）では、両国民の著作物の保護について内国民待遇の原則が採用されていたが、著作権の保護期間につき相互主義は採用されていなかった。その後、1952年4月28日に発効した日本国との平和条約7条(a)により日米著作権条約は廃棄されたものの、平和条約12条(b)(1)(ii)と外務省告示により、1956年4月27日まで引き続き米国人の著作物について日本国内で内国民待遇が与えられるとともに、日米著作権条約も同日まで有効とみなされた。そして、万国著作権条約が日本に効力が生じる1956年4月28日に、同条約を実施するため、万国著作権条約の実施に伴う著作権法の特例に関する法律（以下「特例法」という）が施行されたが、特例法の施行時において著作権の保護期間が満了していない米国民の著作物には、引き続き同一の保護が与えられ（特例法11条、附則2項）、特例法に定められた相互主義の規定（特例法3条）の適用は受けないこととなった。

その後、アメリカ合衆国は、1989年にベルヌ条約に加盟した。ベルヌ条約と万国著作権条約の双方に加盟している国との間では、ベルヌ条約が優先して適用されるため（万国著作権条約17条、特例法10条）、アメリカ合衆国の加盟により米国民の著作物の保護期間について、著作権法58条に定める相互主義の適用があるのかが問題となりうるのである。

この点に関し、東京高等裁判所は、キューピー著作権事件の控訴審判決（東京高裁平成11年(ネ)第6345号、平成13年5月30日判決）において、アメリカ合衆国のベルヌ条約が加盟した後も、引き続き特例法11条が適用され、著作権の保護期間に関する相互主義が遡及的に適用されることはないと判断した。したがって、米国民の著作物が米国で1956年4月28日より前に発行された場合は、米国内で著作権の保護期間が満了しパブリックドメインの状態になっても、その時点で日本国内においてもパブリックドメインになるとは限らないことになる。

脚注

[ヘルプ]
  1. ^ ベルヌ条約: Article 7(8). 2007年5月20日閲覧.文学的及び美術的著作物の保護に関するベルヌ条約パリ改正条約（抄）、社団法人著作権情報センター。
  2. ^ Schricker, G.: Urheberrecht: Kommentar, 2nd ed, p. 1021. C. H. Beck, ミュンヘン 1999年. ISBN 3-406-37004-7.
  3. ^ WIPO, Records of the Intellectual property Conference of Stockholm, 1967年6月11日 - 7月14日, p. 109. ジュネーブ 1971年.
  4. ^ 万国著作権条約: Article IV(4)(a), 1971年のパリ改正. 1952年のジュネーブ条文と同じ. 2007年5月20日閲覧.万国著作権条約パリ改正条約、社団法人著作権情報センター。
  5. ^ a b Patry, W.: Choice of Law and International Copyright, 48 Am. J. Comp. L. 383, American Journal of Comparative Law, 2000年. ハズブロ事件とUCCについては, III.B.1節と脚注73を参照. 2007年5月20日アーカイブ閲覧.
  6. ^ ベルヌ条約: Article 20. 2007年5月20日閲覧.
  7. ^ 万国著作権条約: Articles XVIII and XIX, 1971年のパリ改正. 1952年のジュネーブ条文と同じ. 2007年5月20日閲覧.
  8. ^ アメリカ合衆国議会: Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-568. 2007年5月20日閲覧.
  9. ^ アメリカ合衆国下院: The House Statement on the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, 連邦議会議事録 (Daily Ed.), 1988年10月12日, pp. H10095f. 2007年5月25日閲覧.
  10. ^ Judge Friendly: Hasbro Bradley, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc., 780 F.2d 189, 第2巡回裁判所, 1985年. 2007年5月20日閲覧.
  11. ^ Judge Graffeo: Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of America, Inc., 4 N.Y.3d 540, 第2巡回区連邦控訴裁判所, 2005年. 2007年5月20日閲覧.
  12. ^ Patry, W.: Copyright Law and Practice: Chapter 1 – Introduction. 脚注156も参照. 2007年5月20日閲覧.
  13. ^ a b OLG Frankfurt am Main: Judgment from October 7, 2003, 11 U 22/00. 2007年5月20日閲覧.
  14. ^ 欧州連合: Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights, 第7条. 2007年5月20日閲覧.
  15. ^ ドイツ: Urheberrechtsgesetz, §120. 2007年5月20日閲覧.
  16. ^ 欧州司法裁判所: Phil Collins v Imtrat Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Patricia Im- und Export Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH and Leif Emanuel Kraul v EMI Electrola GmbH, joined cases C-92/92 and C-326/92; 1993年10月20日の裁定. 2007年5月26日閲覧.
  17. ^ ECJ: Phil Collins decision, summary, paragraph 2.
  18. ^ ECJ: Phil Collins decision, paragraph 30.
  19. ^ a b ECJ: Land Hessen v G. Ricordi & Co. Bühnen- und Musikverlag GmbH, case C-360/00, 2002年6月6日の裁定. 2007年5月26日閲覧.
  20. ^ ドイツ連邦最高裁判所: Decision I ZR 133/97: La Bohème, 2000年3月30日の判決. 2007年5月26日閲覧.
  21. ^ ECJ: Land Hessen ..., summary, paragraph 3.

関連項目

外部リンク

「https://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=著作権の保護期間における相互主義&oldid=55062703」から取得

This article is taken from the Japanese Wikipedia The principle of reciprocity in the protection period of the copyright

This article is distributed by cc-by-sa or GFDL license in accordance with the provisions of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia and Tranpedia does not guarantee the accuracy of this document. See our disclaimer for more information.

In addition, Tranpedia is simply not responsible for any show is only by translating the writings of foreign licenses that are compatible with CC-BY-SA license information.

0 개의 댓글:

댓글 쓰기

피드 구독하기: 댓글 (Atom)