April 28, 2020 Preprint Open Access

Caso, Roberto; Dore, Giulia

MARC21 XML Export

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<record xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
  <leader>00000nam##2200000uu#4500</leader>
  <datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">ita</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Intellectual property</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Copyright</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Industrial design</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Originality</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Neutraility</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Artistic value</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <controlfield tag="005">20210208142412.0</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">in corso di pubblicazione in pubblicazione in B. Pasa (ed.), Design, innovazione tecnologica e digitale. Proposta interdi-sciplinare per ripensare le tutele / Design, technological and digital innovation. Interdisci-plinary proposals for reshaping legal protections, ESI Napoli, 2020.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <controlfield tag="001">4059398</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">Università di Trento</subfield>
    <subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0003-4647-2161</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Dore, Giulia</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="s">456409</subfield>
    <subfield code="z">md5:c6b59fc368af9a0de847ef857c7ae292</subfield>
    <subfield code="u">https://zenodo.org/record/4059398/files/LTRP_40_Caso_Dore_def_28.04.20.pdf</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="542" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="l">open</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">2020-04-28</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="909" ind1="C" ind2="O">
    <subfield code="p">openaire</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">user-trentolawtechgroup</subfield>
    <subfield code="o">oai:zenodo.org:4059398</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">Università di Trento</subfield>
    <subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-9220-6449</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Caso, Roberto</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Opere di disegno industriale tra creatività, neutralità e valore artistico: esercizi (e acrobazie) sulla quadratura del cerchio</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="980" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">user-trentolawtechgroup</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="540" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 4.0 International</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1="1" ind2="7">
    <subfield code="a">cc-by</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">opendefinition.org</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">&lt;p&gt;The intersection of copyright and design is problematic. Despite the attempt of harmonization at EU level, national applications of EU principles appear confused and contradictory.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This paper will focus on the Italian legal system, although there will be short references to the United Kingdom, where the harmonizing grip of the European Court of Justice unfolds - or at least has unfolded prior to Brexit - emblematically.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;After a first illustration of the Italian legislation on the protection of industrial design, which will examine in detail the difficulties related to the intersection of copyright and other forms of protection, we will focus on the conflictual meaning and scope of the criterion of artistic value against the interpretation of the originality threshold for copyright protection suggested by the European Court of Justice. The second part of the essay is dedicated to the analysis of related case law, which offers further and specific food for thought that flows into the final paragraph.&lt;/p&gt;</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="n">doi</subfield>
    <subfield code="i">isVersionOf</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">10.5281/zenodo.3772746</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="024" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">10.5281/zenodo.4059398</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">doi</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="980" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">publication</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">preprint</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>