Revisão do DMCA traz novas exceções

Revisão do DMCA traz novas exceções

Boa notícia, nesse momento de discussão sobre a necessidade de revisarmos a  lei de direitos autorais no Brasil, acerca da inclusão de novas exceções ao copyright (ou fair uses, como são mais conhecidas) na legislação norte-americana. Veja o texto oficial aqui.

Algumas das novas exceçõe previstas, segundo o Washington Post:

  • é permitida a quebra dos controles de acesso de aparelhos celulares para permitir seu uso com outras operadoras de telefonia
  • é permitida a quebra das proteções em videogames para possibilitar a investigar ou corrigir de falhas de segurança
  • é permitida, para professores, estudantes de cinema, produtores de documentários e de vídeos não-comerciais, a quebra de proteções anti-cópia em DVD’s para que possam ser usar trechos dos vídeos para fins educacionais, crítica ou comentários
  • é permitida a quebra de dispositivos externos de proteção de softwares (hardlocks) se esses dispositivos não funcionam mais e nem podem ser substituídos
  • é permitida a quebra de bloqueios em livros eletrônicos para que pessoas cegas possam utilizar programas que façam a leitura em voz alta ou auxílios semelhantes

———-

Fonte: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/07/27/review-of-us-digital-millennium-copyright-act-brings-new-exemptions/?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts

Review Of US Digital Millennium Copyright Act Brings New Exemptions

By Leslee Friedman for Intellectual Property Watch @ 7:06 pm

The United States Copyright Office this week completed its statutorily required review of the landmark Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Included in the ruling were three major exemptions: a renewal on the exemption for cell-phone unlocking, a new exemption for the jailbreaking of smart phones technology, and the use of visual media clips for transformative, non-commercial works. The ruling has resulted in a flood of optimism from a range of open-access advocates.

The Copyright Office ruling on the DMCA, held every third year, was released on 26 July and is available here.

The campaign for the first of these two exemptions was spearheaded by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which hailed the ruling. “Unlocking” is when a cellphone owner reworks the phone so that it can run on alternative provider networks than the one through which it was activated. “Jailbreaking” is the modification of software on smart phones so as to be interoperable with other operating systems.

EFF and the Organization for Transformative Works (OTW) joined together to gain the final exemption, useful in the world of “vidding” or using short clips from films, television and other media sources in order to create a new work that comments upon, criticises or otherwise engages with the old one. As of now, so long as these works remain non-commercial, they are not breaking copyright law under the 1998 DMCA.

These exemptions will have to undergo new scrutiny in order to be renewed through the same process in three years, but for the moment, the vidding exemption opens up new ground for professionals working on presentations, artists, and educators to grapple with visual media while being certain they are covered by Fair Use Doctrine, according to sources.

“Vidding and other forms of video remix are a form of speech,” Francesca Coppa, OTW board member, director of film studies, and associate professor of English at Muhlenberg College (US), said in a press release. “If we want to promote multimedia literacy, we need to let people speak the language of mass media without criminalising them. This exemption is crucial for remix artists.”

Leslee Friedman is an intern at Intellectual Property Watch.

Os perigos de não revisarmos os direitos autorais

Os perigos de não revisarmos os direitos autorais

Christiano Lacorte

Advogado, bacharel em ciências da computação, mestrando em Direito, Estado e Sociedade na UFSC, membro do Grupo de Estudos em Direito Autoral e Informação (GEDAI/UFSC)

No dia 27 de junho de 2010, o jornal O Globo publicou um editorial intitulado “Os perigos da Revisão dos Direitos Autorais”. No texto, o jornal apresenta argumentos contrários à proposta de revisão, focando em uma eventual vontade de regulação por parte do governo e um grande perigo de que se diminua a amplitude da propriedade autoral.

O perigo, porém, é muito maior se a nossa lei de direitos autorais não for discutida, e depois, revista. Perigo de estarmos todos cometendo atos ilícitos ao usar a Internet e, por exemplo, imprimir textos, na íntegra e para uso privado, de artigos que achamos interessantes. Perigo de bibliotecas ou arquivos perderem obras raras que estão se deteriorando por não poderem realizar cópias com o fim de preservação. Perigo de investidores não buscarem novos modelos de negócio condizentes com o cenário tecnológico atual, e que poderiam representar boas oportunidades para autores e usuários de obras culturais, em razão da insegurança jurídica representado por uma lei que apresenta defeitos e lacunas.

O perigo maior, porém, talvez seja o de não a sociedade não discutir, de forma ampla e profunda, um tema que lhe será cada vez mais sensível, face ao contexto atual de amplo acesso às ferramentas tecnológicas que facilitam a criação e a distribuição de obras.

Os resultados de diversos encontros e discussões sobre direitos autorais que ocorreram nos últimos anos merecem ser mais bem conhecidos pela sociedade, para que esta critique e aperfeiçoe as propostas de mudanças apresentadas – especialmente porque todos somos diretamente afetados pela proteção autoral: se há uma norma clara e precisa, ganhamos todos os envolvidos; do contrário, se tivermos uma lei confusa e sem objetividade, perdemos todos.

Nesse sentido, importante traçar algumas considerações sobre os pontos abordados naquele texto do jornal.

Ler mais

Direito Moral, copyright, Coca-cola e Copa do Mundo

Direito Moral, copyright, Coca-cola e Copa do Mundo

Caso bastante interessante, que trata de questões relacionadas a direito autoral moral – presente na Convenção de Berna – em um contrato firmado nos EUA, que adota o modelo do Copyright. Cabe lembrar o acordo TRIPS, que aproximou os modelos de proteção autoral em razão de interesses econômicos.

——————-

Original: http://madisonian.net/2010/06/04/moral-rights-and-the-world-cup/

Moral Rights and the World Cup

Posted by Mike Madison · June 4th, 2010 · 1 Comment

Today’s law-and-soccer post involves a quasi-moral rights problem.

Rafael “Rafa” Vergara Hermosilla is a Mexican singer, songwriter, and music producer who was asked by Universal Music to produce a Spanish-language mix of an existing song — Wavin’ Flag by K’naan — for use by Coca-Cola as part of Coke’s World Cup marketing. (Coca-Cola calls the song — the version called Wavin’ Flag Coca-Cola Celebration Mix — its “campaign anthem.”) Coca-Cola cleared the rights to the musical composition. Vergara translated the lyrics into Spanish and mixed and produced a Spanish language vocal track by David Bisbal, to be combined with K’naan’s English language track.

Vergara did the work and produced the record, and Coca-Cola started using the result. Then things went awry; the smile-and-a-handshake nature of the relationship broke down. Before Universal would pay Vergara, Universal asked Vergara to confirm in writing that Universal owned all rights in his work, as a work made for hire. Vergara not only denied that he had ever been engaged in a work for hire relationship on this project, but he also demanded that he be credited by name each time the work was used.

Vergara sued Coca-Cola for copyright infringement, for its unauthorized distribution of his translated lyrics, and on Wednesday, a district court in Miami agreed with him, entering a preliminary injunction that recites:

Defendant Coca-Cola and any individuals or entities acting under its direction or control cease advertising, selling, distributing, or otherwise disseminating “Wavin’ Flag (Coca-Cola Spanish Celebration Mix)” unless adaptation credit is given to Vergara whenever his lyrics are used and either: (1) the original
English composer is credited or (2) a composer is often credited with such a use.

It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, by June 11, 20 10, Defendant Coca-Cola post on its website on the page offering “Wavin’ Flag; (Coca-Cola Spanish Celebration Mix)” for download, a conspicuous notice indicating Vergara’s contribution to the song.

The relief granted is less than the relief sought.  According to the court, Vergara asked for an order “requiring that Coca-Cola and its subsidiaries cease advertising with, selling, distributing or otherwise commercially exploiting the song containing Vergara’s lyrics.  Additionally, Vergara requests that the Order require Coca-Cola to immediately provide a public acknowledgment of Vergara’s contribution ‘by such media or other vectors as the Work has been previously disseminated.’”

Still, whether or not the court gave Vergara everything that Vergara asked for, Vergara asked for something — and the court gave him something — that the American copyright statute does not grant:  a kind of moral right.  In this case, that moral right is a species of attribution right.  The court agreed that Vergara was likely to succeed on the merits of his underlying infringement claim, that Coca-Cola was reproducing the copyrighted lyrics without permission.  But there was no agreement between Vergara and Coca-Cola (or between Vergara and Universal) regarding the work being attributed to him; this was not a request for specific performance of an underlying private obligation.  Vergara was claiming rights under American copyright law based on his having produced a work protected under Mexican copyright law; American copyright law includes no statutory attribution right that would apply to this case.  There was, in other words, no preexisting obligation on Coca-Cola’s part to attribute the work to Vergara.

Queries:  Did the judge exceed his authority?  Is the injunction within the court’s equitable powers?  Is the attribution obligation inconsistent with a broad reading of Dastar?

Had the judge granted a broad injunction prohibiting Coca-Cola from reproducing, distributing, or performing Vergara’s work, the judge would have been on safe ground under the statute, and the parties could have settled the case (just as they could have settled it earlier) by providing for various forms of attribution.  In one sense, then the judge simply cut to the chase.

You can download the Mexican version of the song here (mp3 link) from the Coca-Cola website, but as of this post there is no reference to Vergara.  Under the injunction, Coca-Cola has another week to comply.  Perhaps there is an appeal in the works?  Or a settlement?  Meanwhile, presumably Coca-Cola is less than thrilled with Universal.

Rafa Vergara’s press release about the litigation is here.

The district court’s order is here.

Boletim sobre Direitos Autorais

Boletim sobre Direitos Autorais

O Grupo de Estudos em Direito Autoral e Informação da Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (GEDAI/UFSC) tem publicado, desde abril de 2010, um bolteim contendo informações sobre as pesquisas realizadas pelo grupo, bem como o registro da participação do grupo em eventos sobre os temas estudados e outras informações sobre Direitos Autorais na Sociedade da Informação.

Veja a lista todas as edições do Boletim do GEDAI/UFSC .