Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
cyberlaw:intermediaries_copyright [2019/09/25 17:06]
nic
cyberlaw:intermediaries_copyright [2019/09/25 17:22] (current)
nic
Line 341: Line 341:
  
 Relevant to the court’s finding was that the library had an access policy which stated that only single copies of materials would be provided for the purposes of research, review, private study and criticism as well as use in legal proceedings,​ and that any requests for copies in excess of 5% of the volume would be referred to the Reference Librarian and might be refused. ​ Additionally,​ the service was provided on a not for profit basis. ​ Also relevant was that there were no apparent alternatives to the custom photocopy service – the court considered it unreasonable to expect that patrons would always conduct their research onsite, particularly as 20% of the library’s patrons lived outside the Toronto area.  The court held that the availability of a licence is not relevant to deciding whether a dealing has been fair and that it was not incumbent upon the Law Society to adduce evidence that every patron uses the material provided in a fair dealing manner – reliance on a general practice would suffice. Relevant to the court’s finding was that the library had an access policy which stated that only single copies of materials would be provided for the purposes of research, review, private study and criticism as well as use in legal proceedings,​ and that any requests for copies in excess of 5% of the volume would be referred to the Reference Librarian and might be refused. ​ Additionally,​ the service was provided on a not for profit basis. ​ Also relevant was that there were no apparent alternatives to the custom photocopy service – the court considered it unreasonable to expect that patrons would always conduct their research onsite, particularly as 20% of the library’s patrons lived outside the Toronto area.  The court held that the availability of a licence is not relevant to deciding whether a dealing has been fair and that it was not incumbent upon the Law Society to adduce evidence that every patron uses the material provided in a fair dealing manner – reliance on a general practice would suffice.
 +
 +## Recent developments
 +
 +### European Copyright Directive: the 'link tax' (Article 15)
 +
 +**Video overview by Katherine Karan on the ['Link Tax'​](https://​www.youtube.com/​watch?​v=6xpSsvpuQKU)**
 +
 +Article 15 (previously known as draft Article 11) provides a new copyright rules to allow news websites to be remunerated for their work when displayed or promoted on large commercial platforms, such as Facebook or Google. This does not affect private or non-commercial users. It is designed to increase compensation to the publishers of news articles. ​
 +
 +Because the link tax is yet to implemented by countries of the EU, it remains to be seen how states will deal with the ambiguities and potential adverse effects of Article 15. For instance, each platform will only be permitted to present a very short extract of the news article without breaching copyright, however it is at the country’s discretion to determine what constitutes a “very short extract”. This link tax will also have a major potential impact on small news websites that may see less traffic as a result. Exceptions do exist to this link tax, such as individual words, copyright expiry dates and hyperlinks. ​
  • cyberlaw/intermediaries_copyright.txt
  • Last modified: 3 weeks ago
  • by nic