Not every act of plagiarism is an infringement of copyright and not every copyright infringement is an act of plagiarism.
Plagiarism is an unethical and immoral act of a person stealing someone else’s work and presenting it as its own. With this act the person deceives the public, for example an academic community, the colleagues or the audience. Infringement of copyright, on the other hand, is a use of a copyright work without the authorization of the rightholder. This is an offense against the law and it is directed against the rightholder.
There is no law that would define plagiarism, prohibit it or prescribe sanctions for plagiarists (such as loss of the integrity, deprivation of the title, loss of function or excommunication), however, this is regulated by codes of ethics adopted by the community.
dr. Maja Bogataj Jančič for Delo
Yesterday, University College of London (UCL) hosted a seminar on the doctrine of functionality. Experts from different sectors and jurisdictions discussed one of the most debated absolute grounds for refusal of registration of a trade mark, namely that the sign consists exclusively of (i) the shape, or another characteristic, which results from the nature of the goods themselves; (ii) the shape, or another characteristic, of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result; or (iii) the shape, or another characteristic, which gives substantial value to the goods (Art. 7 of the EUTMR and Art. of the Trade Marks Directive).
On Friday 31 January 2020 at midnight (or at 23:00 GMT), more than three years of various proceedings and discussions finally resulted in Brexit. Nevertheless, its consequences will not fully materialise at least until 31 December 2020, since the United Kingdom and the European Union concluded the Withdrawal Agreement, providing for the transition period during which the EU Law will continue to apply in the UK.
What implications will Brexit have in the area of intellectual property?
Just before Christmas, the CJEU issued its long-awaited decision in the Tom Kabinet case. The Court followed the opinion of advocate general Szpunar and decided that copyrights are not exhausted in case of sale of e-books. A distinction was drawn between e-book and computer programs, the latter not being subject to the exhaustion doctrine. This means that to establish an online market of “second-hand” software no authorisation of copyright holders is required.
Two seconds – the difference between violation of phonogram producers’ rights and freedom of expression ?
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has, in its judgment of 29 July 2019 in the Case C‑476/17 (Pelham v. Hütter and Schneider-Esleben), made a significant step forward in interpreting the role of fundamental human rights in the EU copyright law.