GERMANY: Creating New Property Rights on the Basis of General Legal Concepts - Without Limits?

In two cases recently decided by two different senates of the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH), the following issue was raised: To what extent can the filming of sports events organized by someone else, on the one hand, and the photographing of someone else’s physical property, on the other hand, be legally controlled by the organizer of the sports event and the owner of the property respectively? In its “Hartplatzhelden.de” decision, the first senate of the Federal Supreme Court concluded that the act of filming sports events does not constitute an act of unfair competition as such, and hence is allowed even without the consent of the organizer of the sports event in question. However, the fifth senate, in its “Prussian gardens and parks” decision, held that photographing someone else’s property is subject to the consent of the owner of the grounds, provided the photographs are taken from a spot situated on the owner’s property. In spite of their different outcomes, the two cases do not necessarily contradict each other. Rather, read together, they may well lead to an unwanted – and unjustified – extension of exclusive protection, thus creating a new “organizer’s” IP right.

Multilingualism in Finland: A Legal Perspective

Multilingualism is an increasingly frequent societal phenomenon. More and more societies and individuals are, or have become, multilingual. Legislation is an important tool for language policy and, ultimately, language environment. Yet, it seems that little research has been dedicated to multilingualism from a legal framework perspective. The law is, generally speaking, blind to language. This means that the legal framework rarely takes into account the co-existence of several languages in a society other than national languages. In addition, there are altogether relatively few provisions regarding what language shall be used in which contexts. The article focuses on multilingualism in Finland where the cornerstone for the Finnish language policy of the country is laid down in the Constitution. Multilingualism is particularly interesting in a bilingual country Finland that has a long and solid history of language legislation. The country has over a few decades undergone change and rapidly developed into a multilingual country. This article examines whether the Finnish current legislation enables and supports the societal multilingualism or poses restrictions on the parallel use of several languages. Another more fundamental question discussed in this article is if societal multilingualism sets new demands on the national legislation.

Multilingualism, Legal Drafting and Interpretation of Bilingual Law in Italy

The article begins with a short history of the current Italian language, as an example of a dialect evolving and becoming elevated to the status of a national language. Next, an overview of Italy as characterized by multilingualism and of the different minority languages is offered. A third part is devoted to the different legal languages of Italian law and particularly to the consequences of multilingualism in Italy, which refers to the obligation to draft some local laws in two or tree languages. Multilingual drafting concerns institutions – and therefore concepts – of Italian law which are applied within one single legal system, namely the Italian one, and are merely expressed in a legal language which is not only Italian, but German, French or Ladin. This part is discussed more in deep. The article underlines that legal multilingualism in Italy is a rather unexplored research field. As in Europe there is a clear need for studies inquiring the problem of intepretation and application of mulitlingual law, the praxis and the operative reality of the “regional” legal languages in Italy would probably deserve more attention.

The Levy Runs Dry: A Legal and Economic Analysis of EU Private Copying Levies

This article provides a legal and economic analysis of private copying levies in the EU, against the background of the Copyright Directive (2001/29), a number of recent rulings by the European Court of Justice and the recommendations presented by mediator Vitorino earlier this year. It concludes that notwithstanding these rulings and recommendations, there remains a lack of concordance on the relevance of contractual stipulations and digital rights management technologies (DRM) for setting levies, and the concept of harm. While Mr Vitorino and AG Sharpston (in the Opinion preceding VG Wort v. Kyocera) use different lines of reasoning to argue that levies raised on authorised copies would lead to double payment, the Court of Justice’s decision in VG Wort v. Kyocera seems to conclude that such copies should nonetheless be levied. If levies are to provide fair compensation for harm resulting from acts of private copying, economic analysis suggests one should distinguish between various kinds of private copies and take account of the extent to which the value said copies have for consumers can be priced into the purchase. Given the availability of DRM (including technical protection measures), the possibility of such indirect appropriation leads to the conclusion that the harm from most kinds of private copies is de minimis and gives no cause for levies. The user value of copies from unauthorised sources (e.g. from torrent networks or cyber lockers), on the other hand, cannot be appropriated indirectly by rightholders. It is, however, an open question in references for preliminary rulings pending at the Court of Justice whether these copies are included in the scope of the private copying exception or limitation and can thus be levied for. If they are not, as currently happens in several EU Member States, legal and economic analysis leads to the conclusion that the scope of private copying acts giving rise to harm susceptible of justifying levies is gradually diminishing.

Open Innovation: Legal Hurdles in the Creation of Contractual Arrangements Governing Idea Competitions?

The phenomenon of Open Innovation has been gaining prominence over the last decade. Idea competitions have been used in a variety of industrial sectors. Nevertheless, the legal issues raised by this topic have not been broadly addressed, yet. These arise from the adverse interests of the actors. The company which organizes an idea competition would usually like to have the opportunity to comprehensively use the solutions, ideas or products submitted by the competition entrants. For the company it is important to obtain all intellectual property rights in the idea, in the product created as a result and, thus, in the rights to be exploited in the future, in particular, patents, utility models, trademarks, copyrights and registered designs as well as other industrial property rights. The participant would like to participate to the greatest extent possible in the success of the submitted solution. This affects, firstly, the question of fair remuneration or further participation in any profits earned as well as, secondly, any personal rights such as being named as inventor or author. The article aims to show the contractual difficulties which have to be addressed tailoring theterms of an idea competition under German law.

Oblivion, Erasure and Forgetting in the Digital Age

In light of the recent European Court of Justice ruling (ECJ C-131/12, Google Spain v Spanish Data Protection Agency),the “right to be forgotten” has once again gained worldwide media attention. Already in 2012, whenthe European Commission proposed aright to be forgotten,this proposal received broad public interest and was debated intensively. Under certain conditions, individuals should thereby be able todelete personal data concerning them. More recently – in light of the European Parliament’s approval of the LIBE Committee’samendments onMarch 14, 2014 – the concept seems tobe close to its final form.Although it remains, for the most part,unchanged from the previously circulated drafts, it has beenre-labelled as a“right of erasure”. This article argues that, despite its catchy terminology, the right to be forgotten can be understood as a generic term, bringing together existing legal provisions: the substantial right of oblivion and the rather procedural right to erasure derived from data protection. Hereinafter, the article presents an analysis of selected national legal frameworks and corresponding case law, accounting for data protection, privacy, and general tort law as well as defamation law. This comparative analysis grasps the practical challenges which the attempt to strengthen individual control and informational self-determination faces. Consequently, it is argued that narrowing the focus on the data protection law amendments neglects the elaborate balancing of conflicting interests in European legal tradition. It is shown thatthe attemptto implement oblivion, erasure and forgetting in the digital age is a complex undertaking.

A Qualitative Study on the Adoption of Copyright Assignment Agreements (CAA) and Copyright License Agreements (CLA) within Selected FOSS Projects

Open source software projects are multi-collaborative works incorporating the contributions of numerous developers who, in spite of publishing their code under a public license such as GPL, Apache or BSD, retain the copyright in their contributions. Having multiple copyright-owners can make the steering of a project difficult, if not impossible, as there is no ultimate authority able to take decisions relating to the maintenance and use of the project. This predicament can be remedied by centring the dispersed copyrights in a single authority via contributor agreements. Whether to introduce contributor agreements, and if so in which form, is a pressing question for many emerging, but also for established projects. The current paper provides an insight into the ethos of different projects and their reason for adopting or rejecting particular contributor agreements. It further examines the exact set-up of the contributor agreements used and concludes that smart drafting can blur the difference between CAAs and CLAs to a considerable extent, manoeuvring them into a legal grey area. To avoid costly litigation to test the legal enforceability of individual clauses, this paper proposes the establishment of an international committee comprised of developers, product managers and lawyers interested in finding a common terminology that may serve as a foundation for every contributor agreement

Legal Integration of Islam: A Transatlantic Comparison

The status of Islam in Western societies remains deeply contentious. Countering strident claims on both the right and left, Legal Integration of Islam offers an empirically informed analysis of how four liberal democracies—France, Germany, Canada, and the United States—have responded to the challenge of integrating Islam and Muslim populations. Demonstrating the centrality of the legal system to this process, Christian Joppke and John Torpey reject the widely held notion that Europe is incapable of accommodating Islam and argue that institutional barriers to Muslim integration are no greater on one side of the Atlantic than the other. While Muslims have achieved a substantial degree of equality working through the courts, political dynamics increasingly push back against these gains, particularly in Europe. From a classical liberal viewpoint, religion can either be driven out of public space, as in France, or included without sectarian preference, as in Germany. But both policies come at a price—religious liberty in France and full equality in Germany. Often seen as the flagship of multiculturalism, Canada has found itself responding to nativist and liberal pressures as Muslims become more assertive. And although there have been outbursts of anti-Islamic sentiment in the United States, the legal and political recognition of Islam is well established and largely uncontested. Legal Integration of Islam brings to light the successes and the shortcomings of integrating Islam through law without denying the challenges that this religion presents for liberal societies.

Double Standards? Veils and Crucifixes in the European Legal Order

Comparing the treatment of Islamic veils and Christian crucifixes by the European Court of Human Rights, this paper re-examines the charge of “double standards” on the part of this guardian of the European legal order, which is seen as disadvantaging Islam and favoring Christianity. While this is proved partially correct, the paper calls for a more differentiated treatment of the issue. For one, there is a modicum of consistency in the European Court’s decisions, because they are all meant to further “pluralism”. Only, Islam and Christianity fare differently in this respect, as “threat” to and “affirmation” of pluralism, respectively. This distinction hinges on Islam’s compatibility with the liberal-secular order, on which the jury is out. A possible way out of the “pluralism v. pluralism” dilemma, I argue, is signaled in the European Court’s recent decision in Lautsi v. Italy (2011), which pairs a preference for “culturalized” Christianity with robust minority pluralism.

The Board Committee as a Legal Transplant: a Comparative Analysis illustrated by the example of the Audit Committee

Bilanzskandale und Missmanagement haben in den vergangenen Jahren den Ruf nach besseren Kontrollmechanismen in der Unternehmensführung laut werden lassen. Audit Committees sind ein wichtiges Werkzeug um eine solche Kontrolle sicherzustellen und sind inzwischen weltweit zum integralen Bestandteil einer guten "Corporate Governance" geworden. Die Audit Committees haben sich in unterschiedlichen kulturellen und rechtlichen Umgebungen etabliert. Wie der Beitrag zeigt, hat die weltweite Zunahme der Bedeutung der "Corporate Governance" das Audit Committee zum Vorzeigebeispiel eines "legal transplant" gemacht.

Online privacy concerns and legal assurance: a user perspective

Since the emergence of the Internet and Social Media, privacy concerns and need for regulation in this area have been a frequent subject on the agenda of numerous stakeholders and policy-makers worldwide. Contributing to this debate, this paper builds on the responses of 553 Internet users to uncover users’ current privacy concerns and their attitudes towards legal assurances in this context. Our findings suggest that users have a complex attitude towards these issues. While they express strong concerns about privacy when asked directly, they often have difficulties formulating the exact nature of these concerns. In the Facebook context, Facebook itself is often mentioned as the primary source of threat, closely followed by marketing organizations. Users feel ill-protected by existing legal framework, especially when using Social Networking Sites. Reasons include common beliefs that the law is unable to address complexities of the Internet; local character of laws; possibilities to disregard the law, particularly since enforcement is difficult. Overall, positive changes in legal framework are desirable, with many respondents willing to pay more in taxes to ensure progress in this area.