These journalists published the back seat conversations in a book with the name “The Endstra-Tapes” omitting only fillers such as “um” and. Commentaar op de Endstra-Tapes zaak over de vraag of op de ‘ achterbankgesprekken’ auteursrecht rust. De auteur meent van wel en bekritiseert de uitspraak. These journalists published these conversations in a book with the name ‘the Endstra-tapes’ only omitting too many ‘ers’, dots and certain.
|Published (Last):||17 October 2014|
|PDF File Size:||5.12 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.25 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
It is therefore clear that a large diversity of works in The Netherlands enjoy copyright protection. Return to Book Page. Preview — De Endstra-tapes by Endstga Middelburg.
I myself think that the Supreme Court is right though.
Endstra’s final work? Dutch copyright: scope of protection remains very wide – Lexology
Sohrab rated it it was ok Jul 02, After the Amsterdam Court of Appeal had ruled that the backseat conversations could not be endstda by copyright, the Dutch Supreme Court concluded that copyright protection was not impossible by definition. For publication thereof, permission is required from the Endstra heirs.
The Court of Appeal said that if someone does not intend to make a copyright work, no copyright work is created. A second demarcation line is the fine line between private copyright and the free flow of information in public domain. The interviews can therefore not qualify for copyright protection.
The recordings are an important public topic and they provide useful insight into the way the CIE handled the Endstra case.
Bert rated it did not like it Oct 03, Furthermore, in practical respect it is naturally very hard to find out whether a particular form was intentionally chosen. The official report eventually also made its way onto the Internet and was available on the website of Quote magazine. Both the District Court Amsterdam and the Court of Appeal Amsterdam did not find that these conversations are copyrighted. Regina rated it liked it Jul 22, Vinod Kadirbaks added it Dec 22, These courts saw the conversations as a businesslike transfer of information.
“Backseat conversations” not protected by copyright – Kluwer Copyright Blog
Michelle marked it as to-read Nov 26, Using an inherently vague definition to establish a clear lower limit of copyright protection requires a lot of creative labour. Open Preview See a Problem? The Supreme court concluded that, again in the words of Hugenholtz: Claudia marked it as to-read Nov 24, Soray marked it as to-read Jan 27, No trivia or quizzes yet.
Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service. Ook moeten deze voorwaarden altijd letterlijk worden vermeld. Nauticamike rated it it was amazing Oct 12, Leonora added it Sep 24, In addition an intention requirement is not logical: Books by Bart Middelburg.
Corina added it Oct 05, It is not important whether the author has intentionally wanted to create a work and has intentionally wanted to make creative choices.
Endstra told them that Willem Holleeder had illicitly obtained a large amount of money from him. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. As long as there is an original expression this will generally be sufficient.
Etienne Stekelenburg rated it liked it May 19, One comment Seemingly to say that the quality of the conversation counts?
Edwin Meijer marked it as to-read May 28,