First, there is no such thing as international copyright law. Oh no. That would make it too easy. Instead, there is a whole conglomeration of international treaties, unions, and conventions. If it weren't for these international treaties and conventions, there would be no way for copyright holders to enforce their rights in other countries. visit this ; drow last names

Because of the rise of global commerce and the increasing importance of intellectual property, most nations of the world have entered into a series of treaties, unions and conventions. For the over-achievers, I am linking to a list of countries and the various copyright treaties/conventions they have entered into. For example, the U.S. has entered into the following treaties: the Berne Union, the Paris revision of the Berne treaty, NAFTA, the UCC, the Paris revision of the UCC, the WIPO Copyright Treaty, and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, blah blah blah etc. etc. These treaties often have different levels of copyright protection and jurisdiction rules. This is part of the reason that the short answer to Mr. Critchlow's question is "it depends." I'm not just being coy.

I'm going to give you some general principles and trends to try and make international copyright not seem so complicated. Then I'm going to ruin your new-found confidence by throwing several wrenches into the mix. Sounds like fun, right?

Where will my international copyright case be heard?

Very generally speaking, a copyright infringement case with international components (what I'm calling an "international copyright case" will be brought where the infringement took place. Lawyers refer to this principle as the “territoriality” of copyright law. Of course, this begs the question, “How do you determine where the infringement took place when dealing with infringements on the internet?”

Courts around the world have grappled with this question, the same way philosophers have grappled with the mind/body problem. Is the infringement location determined by the location of the server? By the residence of the person authorizing the infringement? The residence of the copyright holder resides? Where the defendant resides? What about where the harm from the infringement occurred? After laboring over this issue, most courts in most of the world have given up trying to use a simple, one-factor test. It’s just not that simple. Instead, judges are doing what judges love to do: considering all the factors and then going with their gut instincts. It’s similar to Justice Stewart’s famous definition of hard-core pornography: “I know it when I see it.”

Despite the difficulty of determining the location of infringement on the internet, there are certain things courts all over the world agree on. First, the mere fact that you can view a website with infringing content in Country A does not give Country A jurisdiction. Now, if you can purchase infringing content, such as a book or a song from that website in Country A, then that may be different story. Second, the mere fact that a host server is located in Country B, without more, does not give Country B jurisdiction. If the connection is that minimal, it is not enough to establish jurisdiction.

Because of the many factors to be considered, there may be more than one right answer in determining where your international copyright case should be heard. It is increasingly common in the global marketplace that two or more countries have jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

For example, assume that the copyright holder lives in the U.K., the infringer lives in the U.K., but the host server and the target market for the infringing website is in Russia. It is likely that the case could be brought in either Britain or Russia because both countries have substantial connections to the dispute.

Don’t you just love multiple choice questions where the answer can be all of the above?

Visit This: getloadedinthepark