Document Actions

Citation and Metadata

Back to the article.

Recommended citation

Guibault L (2010). Why Cherry-Picking Never Leads to Harmonisation: The Case of the Limitations on Copyright under Directive 2001/29/EC. jipitec, Vol. 1. (urn:nbn:de:0009-29-26036)

Download Citation

Endnote

%0 Journal Article
%T Why Cherry-Picking Never Leads to Harmonisation: The Case of the Limitations on Copyright under Directive 2001/29/EC
%A Guibault, Lucie
%J jipitec
%D 2010
%V 1
%N 2
%@ 2190-3387
%F guibault2010
%X The article examines whether the norms laid down in the Directive in relation to the exceptions and limitations on copyright and relatedrights can be conducive to a sensible degree of harmonisation across the European Union. Before discussing the degree of harmonisation achieved so far by the Directive, the first part gives a short overview of the main characteristics of the list of exceptions and limitations contained in Article 5 of the Directive. A comprehensive review of the implementation of each limitation by the Member States is beyond the scope of this article. The following section takes a closer look at three examples of limitations that have led to legislative changes at the Member State levelas express measures towards the implementation of the Information Society Directive, that is, the limitations for the benefit of libraries, for teaching and research, and for persons with a disability. These exceptions and limitations were later on also identified by the European Commission as key elements in the deployment of a digital knowledge economy. The analysis will show that the implementation of the provisions on limitations in the Information SocietyDirective did not, and probably cannot, yield the expected level of harmonisation across the European Union and that, as a consequence, there still exists a significant degree of uncertainty for the stakeholders regarding the extent of permissible acts with respect to copyright protected works.
%L 340
%U http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-26036

Bibtex

@Article{guibault2010,
  author = 	"Guibault, Lucie",
  title = 	"Why Cherry-Picking Never Leads to Harmonisation: The Case of the Limitations on Copyright under Directive 2001/29/EC",
  journal = 	"jipitec",
  year = 	"2010",
  volume = 	"1",
  number = 	"2",
  abstract = 	"The article examines whether the norms laid down in the Directive in relation to the exceptions and limitations on copyright and relatedrights can be conducive to a sensible degree of harmonisation across the European Union. Before discussing the degree of harmonisation achieved so far by the Directive, the first part gives a short overview of the main characteristics of the list of exceptions and limitations contained in Article 5 of the Directive. A comprehensive review of the implementation of each limitation by the Member States is beyond the scope of this article. The following section takes a closer look at three examples of limitations that have led to legislative changes at the Member State levelas express measures towards the implementation of the Information Society Directive, that is, the limitations for the benefit of libraries, for teaching and research, and for persons with a disability. These exceptions and limitations were later on also identified by the European Commission as key elements in the deployment of a digital knowledge economy. The analysis will show that the implementation of the provisions on limitations in the Information SocietyDirective did not, and probably cannot, yield the expected level of harmonisation across the European Union and that, as a consequence, there still exists a significant degree of uncertainty for the stakeholders regarding the extent of permissible acts with respect to copyright protected works.",
  issn = 	"2190-3387",
  url = 	"http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-26036"
}

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Guibault, Lucie
PY  - 2010//
TI  - Why Cherry-Picking Never Leads to Harmonisation: The Case of the Limitations on Copyright under Directive 2001/29/EC
JO  - jipitec
VL  - 1
IS  - 2
N2  - The article examines whether the norms laid down in the Directive in relation to the exceptions and limitations on copyright and relatedrights can be conducive to a sensible degree of harmonisation across the European Union. Before discussing the degree of harmonisation achieved so far by the Directive, the first part gives a short overview of the main characteristics of the list of exceptions and limitations contained in Article 5 of the Directive. A comprehensive review of the implementation of each limitation by the Member States is beyond the scope of this article. The following section takes a closer look at three examples of limitations that have led to legislative changes at the Member State levelas express measures towards the implementation of the Information Society Directive, that is, the limitations for the benefit of libraries, for teaching and research, and for persons with a disability. These exceptions and limitations were later on also identified by the European Commission as key elements in the deployment of a digital knowledge economy. The analysis will show that the implementation of the provisions on limitations in the Information SocietyDirective did not, and probably cannot, yield the expected level of harmonisation across the European Union and that, as a consequence, there still exists a significant degree of uncertainty for the stakeholders regarding the extent of permissible acts with respect to copyright protected works.
SN  - 2190-3387
UR  - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-26036
ID  - guibault2010
ER  -

Wordbib

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<b:Sources SelectedStyle="" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"  xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" >
<b:Source>
<b:Tag>guibault2010</b:Tag>
<b:SourceType>ArticleInAPeriodical</b:SourceType>
<b:Year>2010</b:Year>
<b:PeriodicalName>jipitec</b:PeriodicalName>
<b:Volume>1</b:Volume>
<b:Issue>2</b:Issue>
<b:Author>
<b:Author><b:NameList>
<b:Person><b:Last>Guibault</b:Last><b:First>Lucie</b:First></b:Person>
</b:NameList></b:Author>
</b:Author>
<b:Title>Why Cherry-Picking Never Leads to Harmonisation: The Case of the Limitations on Copyright under Directive 2001/29/EC</b:Title>
<b:Comments>The article examines whether the norms laid down in the Directive in relation to the exceptions and limitations on copyright and relatedrights can be conducive to a sensible degree of harmonisation across the European Union. Before discussing the degree of harmonisation achieved so far by the Directive, the first part gives a short overview of the main characteristics of the list of exceptions and limitations contained in Article 5 of the Directive. A comprehensive review of the implementation of each limitation by the Member States is beyond the scope of this article. The following section takes a closer look at three examples of limitations that have led to legislative changes at the Member State levelas express measures towards the implementation of the Information Society Directive, that is, the limitations for the benefit of libraries, for teaching and research, and for persons with a disability. These exceptions and limitations were later on also identified by the European Commission as key elements in the deployment of a digital knowledge economy. The analysis will show that the implementation of the provisions on limitations in the Information SocietyDirective did not, and probably cannot, yield the expected level of harmonisation across the European Union and that, as a consequence, there still exists a significant degree of uncertainty for the stakeholders regarding the extent of permissible acts with respect to copyright protected works.</b:Comments>
</b:Source>
</b:Sources>

ISI

PT Journal
AU Guibault, L
TI Why Cherry-Picking Never Leads to Harmonisation: The Case of the Limitations on Copyright under Directive 2001/29/EC
SO jipitec
PY 2010
VL 1
IS 2
AB The article examines whether the norms laid down in the Directive in relation to the exceptions and limitations on copyright and relatedrights can be conducive to a sensible degree of harmonisation across the European Union. Before discussing the degree of harmonisation achieved so far by the Directive, the first part gives a short overview of the main characteristics of the list of exceptions and limitations contained in Article 5 of the Directive. A comprehensive review of the implementation of each limitation by the Member States is beyond the scope of this article. The following section takes a closer look at three examples of limitations that have led to legislative changes at the Member State levelas express measures towards the implementation of the Information Society Directive, that is, the limitations for the benefit of libraries, for teaching and research, and for persons with a disability. These exceptions and limitations were later on also identified by the European Commission as key elements in the deployment of a digital knowledge economy. The analysis will show that the implementation of the provisions on limitations in the Information SocietyDirective did not, and probably cannot, yield the expected level of harmonisation across the European Union and that, as a consequence, there still exists a significant degree of uncertainty for the stakeholders regarding the extent of permissible acts with respect to copyright protected works.
ER

Mods

<mods>
  <titleInfo>
    <title>Why Cherry-Picking Never Leads to Harmonisation: The Case of the Limitations on Copyright under Directive 2001/29/EC</title>
  </titleInfo>
  <name type="personal">
    <namePart type="family">Guibault</namePart>
    <namePart type="given">Lucie</namePart>
  </name>
  <abstract>The article examines whether the norms laid down in the Directive in relation to the exceptions and limitations on copyright and related
rights can be conducive to a sensible degree of harmonisation across the European Union. Before discussing the degree of harmonisation achieved so far by the Directive, the first part gives a short overview of the main characteristics of the list of exceptions and limitations contained in Article 5 of the Directive. A comprehensive review of the implementation of each limitation by the Member States is beyond the scope of this article. 
The following section takes a closer look at three examples of limitations that have led to legislative changes at the Member State level
as express measures towards the implementation of the Information Society Directive, that is, the limitations for the benefit of libraries, for teaching and research, and for persons with a disability. 
These exceptions and limitations were later on also identified by the European Commission as key elements in the deployment of a digital knowledge economy. The analysis will show that the implementation of the provisions on limitations in the Information Society
Directive did not, and probably cannot, yield the expected level of harmonisation across the European Union and that, as a consequence, there still exists a significant degree of uncertainty for the stakeholders regarding the extent of permissible acts with respect to copyright protected works.</abstract>
  <subject />
  <classification authority="ddc">340</classification>
  <relatedItem type="host">
    <genre authority="marcgt">periodical</genre>
    <genre>academic journal</genre>
    <titleInfo>
      <title>jipitec</title>
    </titleInfo>
    <part>
      <detail type="volume">
        <number>1</number>
      </detail>
      <detail type="issue">
        <number>2</number>
      </detail>
      <date>2010</date>
    </part>
  </relatedItem>
  <identifier type="issn">2190-3387</identifier>
  <identifier type="urn">urn:nbn:de:0009-29-26036</identifier>
  <identifier type="uri">http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-26036</identifier>
  <identifier type="citekey">guibault2010</identifier>
</mods>

Full Metadata

Bibliographic Citation jipitec, Vol. 1, Iss. 2
Title Why Cherry-Picking Never Leads to Harmonisation: The Case of the Limitations on Copyright under Directive 2001/29/EC (eng)
Author Lucie Guibault
Language eng
Abstract The article examines whether the norms laid down in the Directive in relation to the exceptions and limitations on copyright and related rights can be conducive to a sensible degree of harmonisation across the European Union. Before discussing the degree of harmonisation achieved so far by the Directive, the first part gives a short overview of the main characteristics of the list of exceptions and limitations contained in Article 5 of the Directive. A comprehensive review of the implementation of each limitation by the Member States is beyond the scope of this article. The following section takes a closer look at three examples of limitations that have led to legislative changes at the Member State level as express measures towards the implementation of the Information Society Directive, that is, the limitations for the benefit of libraries, for teaching and research, and for persons with a disability. These exceptions and limitations were later on also identified by the European Commission as key elements in the deployment of a digital knowledge economy. The analysis will show that the implementation of the provisions on limitations in the Information Society Directive did not, and probably cannot, yield the expected level of harmonisation across the European Union and that, as a consequence, there still exists a significant degree of uncertainty for the stakeholders regarding the extent of permissible acts with respect to copyright protected works.
Subject
DDC 340
Rights DPPL
URN: urn:nbn:de:0009-29-26036