Cases of case law relating to copyright infringement

Case 1

Rentmeester Photography created an iconic photograph of basketball player Michael Jordan jumping into the air that made him look like he was resisting gravity. Rentmeester, alleged Nike, infringed on the copyright in the photo when ordering the picture of Michael Jordan, which he later used to create her logo called “Jumpman.”
The Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s ruling, saying the two photos were not substantially similar as a matter of law.

Correctly, the Court ruled that Michael Jordan’s pose was not an element that could be protected, only the mode of presentation of the position, including the camera angle, and the time interval of the speed at which the digital camera sensor was exposed to light. The two pictures were not substantially similar because there were objective differences in selecting and arranging the elements between the two images. Rentmeester filed a motion seeking the Supreme Court’s review of the Court of Appeal’s decision.

Case 2

Case 2, before the European Court of Justice, in which one party sought to establish a filtering system by an SP on its networks, cannot be said to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the rights of the holder of the property. Intellectual property and, on the other hand, the rights of internet access providers and their clients.

The European Court of Justice on November 24, 2011, issued a court order obliging ISPs to install filtration systems on their networks to respect copyright.

The case involved a conflict between Scarlet Extended SA, a Belgian-based internet access provider, and the Belgian collective management organization. SABAM initiated the proceeding alleging that Scarlet has deliberately allowed third parties to illegally download its protected works through peer-to-peer sharing on its networks. The Court of The Brussels First Instance accepted SABAM’s request and, by a court decision, obliged the ISP to install fingerprint-based content management and identification software to prevent unauthorized exchanges by non-compliant persons on protected materials.

Scarlet appealed the ruling, and the Court of Appeal filed a motion with the Court of Justice for a preliminary decision on whether European law allowed member states to authorize national courts to order the ISP to install at its own expense and for an indefinite period, mainly as a precautionary measure, a system of filtering all electronic communications to identify illegal file downloads.

The Court ruled that requiring an ISP to install a filtration system would violate this prohibition. The Court then examined the compatibility of the filtering decision with the EU’s basic legal framework. The Court noted that, although the protection of intellectual property has been enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, no word of the provision suggests that the right is inviolable and must be protected. On the contrary, intellectual property protection must be balanced with the security of other fundamental rights. The Court held that the inclusive and costly nature of the decision in question, which would require monitoring of all electronic communications made on the ISP network without the time constraints and at the ISP’s expense, would result in a severe violation of Scarlet’s freedom. To do business.

Furthermore, it would add adverse effects to ISP clients: first, the decision would include a systematic analysis of the content and the collection and identification of all IP addresses of users from whom illegal content was sent, contain protected personal data. Second, since filtration systems cannot distinguish clearly between legal and illegal content, their inadequacy can obstruct legitimate communications, impairing information freedom. The CourtCourt concluded that a ruling requiring installing a filtration system by an ISP is exempt from European law.

Case 3

Regarding the examples of our case law, we can mention Albtelekom Sh.A. and Arba Editions sh.pk, which started in February 1999 in the Tirana District Court. Albtelecom was sued by Arba Editions sh.pk, which required: Compensation for damages by Articles 608, 625, and 640 of the Civil Code and Articles 1,4,5 and 50 of Law No. 7564 dated 19.05.1992 “On Copyright.”

With the cooperation contract dated 20.2.1997 concluded between Arba Editions and a third party (photographer, photo author), the latter undertakes to carry out and prepare for the publishing house as the author of photographic works, photographs, and other ‘used in postcards, tourist albums or calendars, cross-applicants are entitled to publish letters of photographic works produced and authored by the plaintiff, agreeing to have the works published under the name of the publishing house.

Paragraph 11 of the contract stipulates that the publishing house bears full responsibility and is obliged to repay the author in the event of third-party reproduction of the photographic work, having the right to authorize the action for its publications, while the author will allow a copyrighted work. In his lawsuit, Arba Editions allegedly produced by the Respondent produced and marketed a quantity of 4-digit telephone cards taken from posters published and sold by the Claimant. As a consequence of this action, the plaintiff alleges that his copyright has been violated by inflicting severe economic damage on him and therefore requires Albtelecom (the Respondent) to repay him.

This case, or other similar cases related to reproduction in any form or size, constitutes a violation of the Copyright Law and has caused the publishing house significant economic damage. Arba Editions alleged that the Respondent, namely Albtelecom, by its actions violated its moral rights, disregarding the authorship, meaning that the perpetrator’s name was never mentioned and insulting the reputation of this house publishing.

Arba Editions also dismissed the allegations as saying that it had suffered extensive economic losses from the Respondent due to the unlawful infringement of the material and moral rights of the photographic works for which it had a franchise.