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):||9 October 2007|
|PDF File Size:||10.69 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.7 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The police started an investigation into his murder and the extortion by the Holleeder-organisation. Wim added it Sep 26, Both the District Court Amsterdam and the Court of Appeal Amsterdam did not find that these conversations are copyrighted. The official report eventually also made its way onto the Internet and was available on the website of Quote magazine.
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
Less than four months after the last conversation, Endstra was murdered. It is therefore rapes that a large diversity of works in Endstta Netherlands enjoy copyright protection.
The transcripts of 9 conversations and summaries of the other back seat conversations were added to the criminal file and were obtained by two journalists of the Dutch newspaper the Parool. Endstra told them that Willem Holleeder had illicitly obtained a large amount of money from him.
May 19, Emma rated it did not like it. Whether this is also actually the case tapss be assessed by the Court of Appeal The Hague. In addition, the intention requirement is not completely logical: The district court of Amsterdam declared that for a conversation to be protected by copyright, creative choices in the manner such a conversation is led must be made.
Endstra’s final work? Dutch copyright: scope of protection remains very wide
If in the Endstra-tapes sufficiently creative choices were made, these conversations attract copyright. Corina added endstrx Oct 05, Soray marked it as to-read Jan 27, An author must intentionally want to make an intellectual creation, as the Court of Appeal told.
The basics of copyright law: Hetty rated it it was ok Jun 22, Please contact customerservices lexology.
You are commenting using your Twitter account. There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Therefore, permission was required from the Endstra heirs to publish the conversations.
“Backseat conversations” not protected by copyright – Kluwer Copyright Blog
Inthe Dutch Supreme Court determined that also a scent may qualify for copyright protection. Peter de Wit rated it liked it Sep 01, Whether the work is beautiful or ugly, good or bad, requires little effort or years of work, is irrelevant in establishing whether or not the work attracts copyright protection.
A few days later, Willem Holleeder and his associates were arrested for the extortion of Willem Endstra and tapee real estate entrepreneurs. You are commenting using your WordPress. In this case the appellate court could avoid a discussion about copyright and article 10 EHRM, ejdstra it already concluded that the conversations were not protected by copyright. It is true that there must be human labour and therefore creative choices, but it concerns a characteristic that is to be known from the product itself.
In its own words, the court stated:. As long endtsra there is an original expression this will generally be sufficient. Edwin Meijer marked it as to-read May 28, Bert rated it did not like it Oct 03, Melomaan rated it it was ok Apr 23, Nauticamike rated it it was amazing Oct 12, No trivia or quizzes yet. It is true that there must be human labour and therefore creative choices.
The Supreme court concluded that, again in the words of Hugenholtz: The primary object of this article is to inform you, not to create a copyrighted work. Germain added it Aug 28, In its own words, the court stated: Login Register Follow on Twitter Search.
Concrete examples of works that may be copyrighted, are novels, paintings, software and this article, but also television formats, musical improvisations, games and lectures.
Jacco Van marked it as to-read Oct 14, Both the District Court Amsterdam and the Court of Appeal Amsterdam found that these conversations were not protected by copyright. The Supreme Court disagreed. To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Just a moment while we sign you in to your Goodreads account.
But this is not the end of it. My saved default Read later Folders shared sndstra you. Actually, the Court of Appeal says here that if someone does not intend to make a copyrighted work, no copyrighted work is created. Elske marked it as to-read Dec 02, Although Endstra undoubtedly thought about what he wanted and did not want to release to the detectives and therefore applied a certain selection, he did not intentionally couch his story in this design, which means that there is no copyrighted work.
Return to Book Page.