Proposed WIPO Treaty for Improved Access for Blind, Visually Impaired, and Other Reading Disabled Persons

Although the world’s attention has on several occasions been turned to the plight of the vision impaired, there has been no international copyright instrument that specifically provides for limitations or exceptions to copyright for their benefit. Such an instrument becomes imperative amidst the grow- ing number of persons in this category and the need to facilitate their access to information that will give them the opportunity to participate in public affairs. Brazil, Ecuador, Paraguay, and Mexico (Brazilian group) seek to fill this gap by submitting to the WIPO’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights a draft treaty for Improved Access for Blind, Visually Impaired and Other Reading Disabled Persons. How- ever, this proposal has generated a lot of reactions, resulting in three other such proposals being submit- ted to WIPO for deliberations. Copyright owners have also opposed the treaty. Amidst these reactions, this work seeks to analyze the compatibility of the Brazilian group’s proposal with the TRIPS three-step test, which has enjoyed a great deal of international recognition since its inclusion in the Berne Convention. It also seeks to find its compatibility with EU copyright law as harmonized in the Directive 2001/29/EC. In the end, we conclude that the proposed treaty is in harmony with the three-step test, and though it has some variations from the EU Copyright Directive, it nonetheless shares some underlying objectives with the Directive and does not radically depart from what prevails in several EU member states.

Domain Name Transfer before Slovak and Czech Courts

In Europe, a disagreement persists in the courts about the possibility of plaintiffs to request a domain name transfer in domain name disputes. In the last ten years, Slovak and Czech courts also produced some jurisprudence on this issue. Interestingly, the BGH’s influential opinion in the shell.de decision, which denied domain name transfer as an available remedy under German law back in 2002, wasn’t initially followed. To the contrary, several Slovak and Czech decisions of lower courts allowed a domain name transfer using two different legal bases. This seemingly settled case law was rejected a few months ago by the globtour.cz decision of the Czech Supreme Court, which refused domain name transfers for the time being

Facebook’s Real Name Policy: Bye-Bye, Max Mustermann?

Facebook requires all members to use their real names and email addresses when joining the social network. Not only does the policy seem to be difficult to enforce (as the prevalence of accounts with people’s pets or fake names suggests), but it may also interfere with European (and, in particular, German) data protection laws. A German Data Protection Commissioner recently took action and ordered that Facebook permit pseudonymous accounts as its current anti-pseudonymous policy violates § 13 VI of the German Telemedia Act. This provision requires telemedia providers to allow for an anonymous or pseudonymous use of services insofar as this is reasonable and technically feasible. Irrespective of whether the pseudonymous use of Facebook is reasonable, the case can be narrowed down to one single question: Does German data protection law apply to Facebook? In that respect, this paper analyses the current Facebook dispute, in particular in relation to who controls the processing of personal data of Facebook users in Germany. It also briefly discusses whether a real name policy really presents a fix for anti-normative and anti-social behaviour on the Internet.