Parody of Audio-Visual Works

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216224%3A14220%2F24%3A00135494" target="_blank" >RIV/00216224:14220/24:00135494 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://academic.oup.com/grurint/article/73/2/172/7512571" target="_blank" >https://academic.oup.com/grurint/article/73/2/172/7512571</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikad143" target="_blank" >10.1093/grurint/ikad143</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Parody of Audio-Visual Works

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

This case note discusses a significant decision by the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic in the case of ČEZ v. Greenpeace Česká Republika, which dealt with the limits of parody within copyright law. The dispute arose from Greenpeace's modification of an advertising video by ČEZ, a major energy company, to highlight environmental concerns. ČEZ claimed that this modification infringed their copyright. The courts analyzed Sec. 38g of the Copyright Act, focusing on whether a work modified for parody could claim exception from copyright infringement. This case clarifies the legal landscape for parody under Czech copyright law and highlights the balance between copyright protections and freedom of expression. The decision emphasizes that achieving a humorous effect or mocking intent is not necessary for a work to be considered a parody. Instead, it focuses on the creator's artistic intent and the modified work's ability to convey a contrasting message to the original.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Parody of Audio-Visual Works

Popis výsledku anglicky

This case note discusses a significant decision by the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic in the case of ČEZ v. Greenpeace Česká Republika, which dealt with the limits of parody within copyright law. The dispute arose from Greenpeace's modification of an advertising video by ČEZ, a major energy company, to highlight environmental concerns. ČEZ claimed that this modification infringed their copyright. The courts analyzed Sec. 38g of the Copyright Act, focusing on whether a work modified for parody could claim exception from copyright infringement. This case clarifies the legal landscape for parody under Czech copyright law and highlights the balance between copyright protections and freedom of expression. The decision emphasizes that achieving a humorous effect or mocking intent is not necessary for a work to be considered a parody. Instead, it focuses on the creator's artistic intent and the modified work's ability to convey a contrasting message to the original.

Druh

J_ost - Ostatní články v recenzovaných periodicích

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50501 - Law

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2024

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

GRUR International

ISSN

2632-8623

e-ISSN

2632-8550

Svazek periodika

73

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

2

Stát vydavatele periodika

GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

Počet stran výsledku

8

Strana od-do

172-179

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—