| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA) v The Newspaper Licensing Agency (NLA) ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd
Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA) v The Newspaper Licensing Agency (NLA) (() UKSC 18, on appeal from: () EWCA Civ 890 ) was a 2011 case UK Supreme Court case decided in 2013.〔http://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2011_0202_Judgment.pdf〕
It essentially paralleled the US case ''Associated Press v. Meltwater'', insofar as it considered the same questions and essentially the same nature of plaintiffs, and the same defendant, as the US case - namely whether media clippings business Meltwater Group was in breach of copyright by providing a paid clippings services from (copyrighted) news sources, to its clients.
The UK case, initially decided by lower courts in favour of the NLA at the initial case and appeal, was overturned by the UK Supreme Court who ruled Meltwater's activities legal, subject to certain questions referred to the European Court of Justice and intended to clarify matters of a cross-border nature.〔http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62013CJ0360&qid=1401959911292&from=EN〕
== Issue ==
Meltwater Group operated a media monitoring service in which relevant results are shown to clients who pay Meltwater, but do not buy a license from a newspaper company or copyright service to read the brief extracts displayed to them by Meltwater (unless they wish to proceed and view the entire source article). NLA media access, part of the Newspaper Licensing Agency (NLA), a licensing organization, introduced a license covering media monitoring services that crawl sites and offer paid-for services based on their filtered results. The majority of media monitoring agencies signed up for the new NLA web licence with the exception of Meltwater who argued no license was required by its clients for this purpose, and in conjunction with the PRCA referred the scheme to the Copyright Tribunal, and the matter was escalated. The case revolved around whether a client lacking a license would infringe copyright by being shown, and viewing, the extracts from copyrighted material in this way. (It was common ground that to subsequently view a full article would of course require a license.) NLA argued that for an end user to view indexed media, and viewable extracts, constituted 'copying' and re-use by the end user, and was therefore infringing.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|