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):||22 March 2004|
|PDF File Size:||17.54 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.67 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The recordings of the conversations were handed over to the Nationale Recherche National Investigation Bureau. Although the decision was rendered in the very quiet holiday seasons, the first reactions followed soon.
Endstra’s final work? Dutch copyright: scope of protection remains very wide – Lexology
Duidelijk een oppertunistisch boekje voor het moment, heel even een geldmakertjie. These courts see the conversations as a businesslike transfer of information. Netherlands February 4 For publication thereof, permission is required from the Endstra heirs.
No trivia or quizzes yet. Among other things, they asserted that the back seat conversations were conducted in an interview form and that these interviews were to be designated as a work for the purposes of the Copyright Act and therefore acquired copyright.
Refresh and try again.
Deze website wordt niet meer bijgewerkt. Back to the Endstra-tapes.
Mbvvluth marked it as to-read Jun 20, In other words, the work must be original. Tot 31 december schreef Bart Beuving wel eens over auteursrecht, e-business, databankenrecht en open source software.
tappes You are commenting using your WordPress. The Supreme Court referred the case back to the appeal court to decide the case and to apply the conclusions of the Supreme Court on the facts of the case.
The report had also already been published in other media prior to the book. Integrale weergave van de gesprekken die de Amsterdamse vastgoedmakelaar vermoord in hield met de Criminele Inlichtingendienst van de Amsterdamse politie over zijn contacten met de onderwereld.
“Backseat conversations” not protected by copyright – Kluwer Copyright Blog
Bart Beuving over intellectueel eigendom, e-business en IT. In the same year it was also affirmed that kinetic schemes may also be copyrighted. The Court of Appeal said that if someone does not intend to make a copyright work, no copyright work is created. He was assassinated in broad daylight in May Corina added it Oct endstta, The police started an investigation into his murder and the extortion by the Holleeder-organisation.
Jaiant marked it as to-read Jan 31, endstrs A second demarcation line is the fine line between private copyright and the free flow of information in public domain. Bert rated it did not like it Oct 03, Thanks for telling us about the problem. There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Mark Verstraeten rated it liked it Mar 15, He was not writing crime fiction and therefore does not deserve copyright protection according to the Court of Appeal.
Edwin Meijer marked it as to-read May 28, After the Amsterdam Court of Appeal had ruled that the backseat conversations could not be protected by copyright, the Dutch Supreme Court concluded that copyright protection was not impossible by definition. This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 10th, at 1: Both the District Court Amsterdam rapes the Court of Appeal Amsterdam did not find that these conversations are copyrighted.
In these conversations, which were being recorded as they took place, the businessman indicated that he was being extorted by Willem Holleeder. Ferdinand marked it as to-read Jul 23, As long as there is an original expression this will generally be sufficient.