CCPlusDesign.EU - or how to apply Creative Commons Licences to 3D printed products in the light of the most recent developments of the European Court of Justice case law

The paper starts with an attempt to clarify and explain the interface between copyright and design rights protection in relation to the originality standard under EU law. It looks in particular at the partial/perfect cumulation of protections as established in the relevant legislation (the Design Directive and the Community Design Regulation) and interpreted by the ECJ. Moreover, the paper tries to establish the real implications of the Flos v Semeraro decision in the area of copyright originality and its harmonisation. The paper then moves to an analysis of Creative Commons licences, both version 3.0 and the newly released version 4.0. It tries to determine under which conditions a blueprint or digital file released under CC licences can be 3D printed in a physical object, that is to say it tries to establish the legal relationship between the digital file and its manufacturing in order to determine how far copyright protection - and contract law - can reach. In the last part, the paper tries to provide a set of normative elements based on copyright, design and contract law that will constitute the legal framework for an Open Design model

Inheritance of the S113L mutation within an inbred family with carnitine palmitoyltransferase enzyme deficiency

Deficiency of carnitine palmitoyltransferase type II (CPT II) is a clinically heterogeneous autosomal recessive disorder of lipid metabolism. The most common mutation in the CPT II gene is the S113L mutation, which substitutes leucine for serine at amino acid position 113. We studied an inbred family with three affected cousins with CPT II deficiency and found the S113L mutation to be present in a homozygous state in all three patients. Pedigree analysis traced the S113L mutation back to one common ancestor. Although the patients in this family have an identical genotype at the CPT II locus, their clinical picture ranges from asymptomatic to lethal

The digitisation of cultural heritage: originality, derivative works and (non) original photographs

The purpose of this paper is to explore the legal consequences of the digitisation of cultural heritage institutions' archives and in particular to establish whether digitisation processes involve the originality required to trigger new copyright or copyright-related protection. As the European Commission and many MS reported, copyright and in particular "photographers rights" are cause of legal uncertainty during digitisation processes. A major role in this legally uncertain field is played by the standard of originality which is one of the main requirements for copyright protection. Only when a subject matter achieves the requested level of originality, it can be considered a work of authorship. Therefore, a first key issue analysed in this study is whether - and under which conditions - digitisation activities can be considered to be original enough as to constitute works (usually a photographic work) in their own right. A second element of uncertainty is connected with the type of work eventually created by acts of digitisation. If the process of digitisation of a (protected) work can be considered authorial, then the resulting work will be a derivative composed by two works: the original work digitally reproduced and the - probably - photographic work reproducing it. Finally, a third element of uncertainty is found in the protection afforded to "other photographs" by the last sentence of Art. 6 Term Directive and implemented in a handful of European countries. Accordingly, the paper is structured as follows: Part I is dedicated to the analysis of copyright law key concepts such as the originality standard, the definition of derivative works and the forms of protection available in cases of digital (or film-based) representations of objects (photographs). The second part of the study is devoted to a survey of a selection of EU Member States in an attempt to verify how the general concepts identified in Part I are applied by national legislatures and courts. The selected countries are Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands and the UK. The country analysis fulfils a double function: on the one hand it provides a specific overview of the national implementation of the solutions found at international and EU level. On the other hand, it constitutes the only possible approach in order to analyse the protection afforded by some MS to those "other photographs" (also called non original photographs or mere/simple photographs) provided for by the last sentence of Art. 6 Copyright Term Directive. Part III presents some conclusions and recommendations for cultural heritage institutions and for legislatures