Law Students Should Know Better; Who Is Piipa?

Those who can, teach; those who can't, infringe?

has received a hot slice of copyright ownership intelligence from his learned friend Sharon Kaplan (who is currently reading for the aeroplane of LLM at UCL). Sharon writes:

"In a determination of the Israeli Supreme Court (16 Jan 2006), Case 8117/03 Inbar v Jacob, it was held that a textbook published past times a educatee infringed the lecturer's copyright inwards his academy lectures. Jacob lectured inwards Tort Law; Inbar, a onetime educatee of his, published a legal textbook on tort constabulary a few years after graduation. from constabulary school. Jacob sued for copyright infringement, claiming that substantial portions of the textbook were copied cast his lectures. The copying was reflected, he alleged, inwards the construction of the textbook, the mode inwards which diverse ideas were expressed together with analysed, the occupation of examples that were given past times the lecturer together with and thus on. Inbar denied the allegations together with argued, inter alia, that the textbook was based on full general ideas inwards tort constabulary which were inwards the populace domain, together with that he solely used the full general noesis acquired past times him during his studies.

The Tel-Aviv District Court accepted the lecturer's claim together with institute copyright infringement. The student's appeal to the Supreme Court has at nowadays been dismissed. According to that Court (whose judgment was given past times Justice Naor)

* academy lectures are dependent area to copyright protection fifty-fifty though they are non explicitly listed inwards the Definition of "literary work" inwards the Israeli Copyright Law.

* the enquiry whether lectures, orally delivered, are protected fifty-fifty if they are non fixed (i.e., documented) was left open, since inwards the specific instance the lectures were indeed fixed, both past times the lecturer together with past times his students inwards their classes;

* in that place was a 'distinguishable similarity' betwixt the lectures together with the textbook (including inwards the construction of the ii works, the literal seem of ideas together with the examples used);

* substantial parts of the lectures had been copied into the textbook.

The Supreme Court yet emphasised that a educatee is entitled to occupation ideas included inwards the lectures besides every bit the methodologies he acquires; he is non yet entitled to occupation the specific mode of seem used past times the lecturer. The Court cited the old English linguistic communication instance of Nicols v Pitman (1884) 2 Ch 374:

"…where a lecture of this sort is delivered to an audience… the agreement betwixt the lecturer together with the audience is that whether the lecture has been committed to writing beforehand or non the audience are quite at freedom to convey the fullest notes they similar for their ain personal purposes, but they are non at liberty, having taken those notes, to occupation them afterwards for the role of publishing the lecture for profit. That is the dry reason upon which I am going to create upwards one's hear this case".

says thanks, Sharon, for letting him know virtually this. Since both the IPKat's blogmeisters practise quite a lot of lecturing, they are glad to know that lecturer's copyright is respected (even if the lecture sometimes isn't ...). He adds that the lengthy determination of the Tel-Aviv District Court (procured for him past times Gadi Oron) is shortly to move reported inwards Sweet & Maxwell's European Copyright together with Design Reports. Merpel comments, I'd hold off a constabulary educatee to know amend than to endeavor a stunt similar this.

Footnote: the successful lecturer was represented past times Avi Ordo together with Sharon Kaplan herself (for S. Horowitz & Co).


Who is PIIPA?

The older business office of the IPKat has been active inwards IP since the 1970s together with is rarely startled past times acronyms these days. However, he was asked yesterday to respond to a survey asking from PIIPA, which was a novel i on him. PIIPA turned out to move 'Public Interest Intellectual Property Advisors', who wrote:

"We are writing to enquire yous to consummate a survey assessing the world-wide demand for intellectual holding (IP) services inwards developing countries, inwards special for pro bono (no or depression cost) professional person services. Public Interest Intellectual Property Advisors is distributing the PIIPA Survey past times electronic mail together with postal service to respondents around the world, inwards governmental together with non-governmental organizations, universities, together with industry. If yous received the 2005 PIIPA Survey together with create got completed it, delight disregard this message. You create got been selected based on your past times sense together with affiliations. By participating inwards this survey, yous tin assist forthwith assistance to where it is most needed.

We enquire that yous consummate the survey yourself and/or frontward to other individuals within or exterior your organisation every bit presently every bit possible but no afterward than Feb 15, 2006. The 2006 PIIPA Survey contains 17 questions, together with volition solely convey virtually v minutes to complete. The results of the PIIPA Survey volition move presented internationally".

The electronic mail is signed past times Steven C. Price, CEO/President PIIPA (left).

notes that PIIPA describes itself every bit an international non-profit organisation that makes intellectual holding counsel available for developing countries together with populace involvement organisations who seek to promote health, agriculture, biodiversity, science, culture, together with the environment. The organisation evidently has 3 primary activities:

* expanding a worldwide network of IP professional person volunteers (the IP Corps);

* operating a processing essence where assistance seekers tin apply to observe private volunteers or teams who tin supply advice together with representation every bit a populace service (free or pro bono) and

* edifice a resources middle alongside data for professionals together with those seeking assistance.

This all sounds tremendously commendable, but the IPKat - similar all kats - is e'er a piffling circumspect - non to say suspicious - when it comes to novel players inwards the IP game, yet laudable their stated aims. Accordingly he asks his readers if they tin response whatever the next questions:

1. Where does PIIPA acquire its backing from, financially together with politically?

2. What is PIIPA's standing alongside WIPO, WTO together with other international organisations that convey an active business office inwards IP matters?

3. Whatever happened to PIIPA's 2005 Survey - together with to what occupation volition the 2006 Survey move put?

4. Has whatever reader actively benefited from whatever PIIPA activity, or does anyone know of someone who has?

Please merely post your comments below or email the IPKat here. Perhaps nosotros tin all larn something ...