We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics. If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
On 12 September 2011, Directive 2011 77 EU, amending Directive 2006 116 EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights (the Directive) was adopted
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled in Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure C- 40308 and Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd C- 42908 (4 October 2011) that a system of licences for the broadcasting of sporting events which grants licensees territorial exclusivity on a Member State basis, and which prohibits television viewers from watching the broadcasts in one Member State using a decoder licensed for use in another, is contrary to EU law
The Copyright Designs and Patents Act (CDPA) 1988 (Amendment) Regulations 20102694 has abolished, as of 1 January 2011, exemptions in the CDPA that allowed charitable and not-for-profit organisations to play recorded or broadcast music in public without obtaining a PPL licence
This ruling from Mrs Justice Proudman confirms that businesses using an online commercial media monitoring service require a licence from the Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd
Refusing the Defendant's application for summary judgment in ITV Broadcasting Ltd v TV Catch Up Ltd 2010 EWHC 3063 (Ch), Mr Justice Kitchin has held that, as regards broadcasts, the meaning of communication to the public within Section 20 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 is not limited to broadcasts but extends to all communications by electronic means, whether one-to-one or one-to-many
In JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd 2010 EWHC 2818 (QB), the High Court of England and Wales refused to continue an anonymity order, despite the parties having agreed thereto, but agreed to continue an order to withhold all information concerning the subject-matter of the case
The fact that there are differences in the extent to which you might like to eat certain food products depending on their place of production, the ingredients and who produced them, does not, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has said in Lidl SNC v Vierzon Distribution SA C-15909, preclude the possibility that an advertisement comparing such products (by reference to price alone, as opposed by reference to any of their other attributes) will fall within the boundaries of permitted comparative advertising, provided the advertisement is not misleading
