Copyright (Switzerland)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Switzerland, copyright is a field of law that serves to protect intellectual property.

Legal sources

copyright

Protection criteria

The work must basically meet the following conditions: It must represent a spiritual creation and have an individual character. The following works are specifically mentioned according to Art. 2 CopA:

a. literary, scientific and other language works;
b. Works of music and other acoustic works;
c. Works of fine art, in particular painting, sculpture and graphics;
d. Works with scientific or technical content such as drawings, plans, maps or plastic representations;
e. Works of architecture;
f. Works of applied art;
G. photographic, cinematic and other visual or audiovisual works;
H. choreographic works and pantomimes.

Furthermore, computer programs and - insofar as they meet the above requirements - drafts, titles and parts of works are protected. Second-hand works (a new work created on the basis of existing works. The works used must remain recognizable) and collections enjoy independent protection.

Originator

In principle, the ( natural ) person who created the work is considered the author. If several people have helped to create a work, they can only jointly decide on the use of the work (unless otherwise agreed and if the individual contributions cannot be shared). Legal violations can be prosecuted by each individual co-author. The author has the right to first publication and the right to recognition of the authorship. Furthermore, according to Art. 10 Paragraph 2, he has the following rights of use:

In particular, the author has the right:
a. To produce copies of works such as printed matter, sound, audio-visual or data carriers;
b. To offer, sell or otherwise distribute copies of the work;
c. to recite, perform, demonstrate or make it perceptible elsewhere, directly or by any means;
d. to broadcast the work by radio, television or similar equipment, including via lines;
e. retransmit broadcasted works with the help of technical equipment, the carrier of which is not the original broadcasting company, in particular also via lines;
f. To make broadcasts and retransmissions perceptible.

The author of computer programs has the exclusive right to rent them out. The author may dispose of changes, the creation of second-hand works and the inclusion in a collective work.

Transfer of copyrights

In contrast to Germany and Austria, copyright in Switzerland can also be transferred among the living. In addition, it is not only transferable and hereditary, it can also be dispensed with entirely.

"You [the authors] can, however, also waive the universal right, whereby the copyright on the work in question expires."

- Denis Barrelet, Willi Egloff : The new copyright law

There is a special regulation for computer programs in Art. 17 URG:

If a computer program is created in an employment relationship while carrying out official activities and fulfilling contractual obligations, the employer is solely entitled to exercise the exclusive rights of use.

Limitations of Copyright

The use of published works for personal use is permitted. That means, use of the work in the personal sphere as well as in the circle of relatives and friends. A teacher is allowed to use the work for teaching in the class. Copies of works are also permitted for internal information or documentation in companies, public administrations, etc. Such reproductions can also be made by third parties. The whole thing does not apply to computer programs. For the last two types of use of the work (teaching, internal information / documentation) the author is owed a fee that can only be claimed by the licensed collecting societies. Anyone who, as a third party (for example a library that provides its users with a copier), reproduces copies of the work owes the author a fee.

Computer programs, of which one has the right to use them, can obtain the necessary information via interfaces to independently developed programs by decoding the program code. This is also permitted for third parties.

The right to make broadcast works perceptible or to send them on can only be asserted through collecting societies. However, it is permitted to forward works via a technical facility that is intended for a small audience. These provisions do not apply to the transmission of subscription television programs ( Pay TV ) and programs that cannot be received in Switzerland.

If a musical work has been recorded, offered, sold or otherwise distributed on phonograms with the consent of the author, the manufacturer - provided the commercial establishment is in the country of the copyright owner - has the right « (...) to grant the same license for Switzerland for a fee claim. »( Art. 23 para. 1 CopA).

Copies for archiving purposes may be made on the condition that the copy marked as an archive copy is kept in an archive that is not accessible to the public . A backup copy of computer programs is also permitted.

Quotations from published works are permitted in accordance with Art. 25 CopA.

Published works may be quoted if the quotation is for explanation, reference or illustration and the scope of the quotation is justified by this purpose.

The quote should be recognizable as such. In addition, the source and - if stated in the source - the authorship must be indicated.

Works may be displayed in a catalog by the management of a collection if the collection is publicly accessible. The same applies to trade fair and auction catalogs.

If the work is on generally accessible ground, it may be reproduced. In addition, the image may be offered, sold, sent or distributed in any other way. According to Art. 27 (2) URG, however, the image “ (...) must not be three-dimensional and also not usable for the same purpose as the original. »

If it is necessary for reporting on current events, according to Art. 28 Para. 1 CopA « (…) the works perceived may be recorded, reproduced, presented, broadcast, distributed or otherwise made perceptible. ». Short excerpts from press, radio and television reports can be reproduced, distributed and broadcast or retransmitted for the purpose of providing information on current issues in accordance with Art. 28 Paragraph 2 « . ». The same rules apply to labeling as to quotations.

Term of protection

If the authorship is known, according to Art. 29 URG, a protection period of 70 years applies after their death, or 50 years for computer programs. If the authorship is unknown, according to Art. 31 URG a protection period of 70 years applies after publication or after the last delivery (if the work was published in several deliveries). In the case of co-authorship, according to Art. 30 URG, the term of protection is calculated from the death of the last deceased person. If the individual contributions are separable, a protection period of 70 or 50 years after the death of the respective author applies to the individual contributions, as is the case with simple authorship. In the case of films and other audiovisual works, only the director is decisive for calculating the term of protection. The reference date is December 31 ( Art. 32 URG).

The protection period of 70 years was only introduced by the new URG that came into force on July 1, 1993. Previously, a protection period of 50 years applied, but when it was increased to 70 years, it was not extended for works whose protection period had already expired at this point in time. This means that in Switzerland all works by authors who died before 1943 remained in the public domain after 1993. The Federal Supreme Court ruled this on January 13, 1998:

For all these reasons, Art. 80 (1) CopA is to be interpreted as meaning that the retroactive effect of the new law does not apply to works that were protected by copyright under previous law, but whose term of protection expired before the new law came into force. This result can also be formulated in accordance with Art. 66 to Para. 1a URG in such a way that the extension of the term of protection from fifty to seventy years after the death of the author is only applicable to those works that already existed at the time of When the extension came into force, they were still protected.

Thus, up to January 1, 2013, there was a noticeable difference in this regard between Swiss copyright law on the one hand and German and Austrian copyright law on the other, which for example affects the legal position of the works of Carl Sternheim , who died in 1942 (the judgment of the Federal Supreme Court quoted refers to a legal dispute over a play by Sternheim).

Related property rights

Performing artist

Performing artists are natural persons who, in accordance with Art. 33 Para. 1 CopA, “perform a work or participate artistically in the performance of a work. »According to Art. 33 Para. 2 CopA, you have the following rights:

The performing artists have the exclusive right to their performance:
a. to make it perceptible outside the room in which it is provided;
b. to broadcast by radio, television or similar methods, including via lines, as well as to retransmit the broadcast performance with the help of technical equipment that is not the carrier of the original broadcasting company;
c. to record on sound, audio-visual or data carriers and to reproduce such recordings;
d. to offer, sell or otherwise distribute as reproductions;
e. to make it perceptible when it is sent or retransmitted.

If several people participate artistically in the performance, they are jointly entitled to the property right. In the case of choir, orchestral and stage performances, the law stipulates from whom approval is required for the use of the performance. As long as the group has no representation or the management is unknown, the related property right can be exercised by the organizer, who has made or broadcast copies of the performance.

When using commercially available sound and audiovisual carriers for broadcasting, retransmission, public reception or performance, performing artists are entitled to remuneration, in which the manufacturer of the carrier used is to be appropriately involved. The corresponding claims can only be asserted by the collecting societies.

Art. 36 CopA states:

The manufacturer of sound or audiovisual media has the exclusive right to reproduce the recordings and to offer, sell or otherwise distribute the reproductions.

According to Art. 37 CopA, broadcasting companies have the exclusive right:

a. to forward his broadcast;
b. to make one's mission perceptible;
c. record his broadcast on sound, audio-visual or data carriers and reproduce such recordings;
d. to offer, sell or otherwise distribute the reproductions of the broadcast.

Art. 39 para. 1 CopA states:

Protection begins with the performance of the work by the performing artists, with the production of the sound or audio-visual carriers and with the broadcasting of the program; it expires after 50 years.

The reference date is December 31st.

Collecting societies

The following aspects are subject to federal supervision in accordance with Art. 40 para. 1 CopA:

a. the exploitation of the exclusive rights to perform and broadcast non-theatrical works of music and to produce sound carriers or audio-visual carriers of such works;
b. the assertion of the remuneration claims provided for in this Act in accordance with Articles Art. 13 , Art. 20 , Art. 22 and Art. 35 .

The collecting societies require a license from the Institute for Intellectual Property. You will only be granted a permit if, in accordance with Art. 42 Para. 1 CopA:

a. were founded under Swiss law, have their registered office in Switzerland and conduct their business from Switzerland;
b. have the exploitation of copyrights or related rights as their main purpose;
c. are open to all rights holders;
d. grant authors and performing artists an appropriate right of co-determination;
e. provide a guarantee for compliance with the statutory provisions, in particular based on their statutes;
f. an effective and economic recovery can be expected.

The permit is granted for five years and can be extended by five years.

Duties

The collecting societies must set up tariffs for the remuneration they demand, about which they must negotiate with the relevant user associations and which they must submit to the Federal Arbitration Commission for the exploitation of copyrights and related rights for approval. If several collecting societies are active in the same area of ​​use, they have to set a common tariff for the same use.

To distribute keeps Art 49th URG following conditions that:

¹The collecting societies must distribute the exploitation proceeds based on the income from the individual works and performances. You have to make all reasonable efforts to determine the authorized persons.

and

³ The proceeds are to be divided between the original rights holders and other beneficiaries in such a way that the authors and the performing artists generally retain an appropriate share. A different distribution is permitted if the effort would be unreasonable.

Agreements between the original rights holder and third parties are not canceled by the distribution regulations.

The users of the work must provide the collecting societies - insofar as this is reasonable - with all information that is relevant for the design and application of the tariffs and the distribution of the proceeds.

The Institute for Intellectual Property acts as the supervisory authority. The supervisory authority is responsible for monitoring the management of the collecting societies. It checks whether the collecting societies are fulfilling their obligations. The Federal Arbitration Commission for the Exploitation of Copyrights and Related Rights is responsible for the supervision of the tariffs.

Legal protection

According to Art. 62 Para. 1 CopA, anyone who has violated their rights can demand:

a. to forbid an impending violation;
b. eliminate an existing violation;
c. to oblige the defendant to indicate the origin of the objects in their possession, illegally manufactured or placed on the market.

Legal actions under the Swiss Code of Obligations for damages, satisfaction and surrender of a profit are also possible . According to Art. 63 Para. 1 CopA, the court can “order the confiscation, destruction or rendering unusable of unlawfully manufactured or used objects that are in the possession of the defendant. »This does not apply to completed architectural works. Furthermore, a person who is seriously violated in their rights or who has to fear such violations can apply for precautionary measures such as preservation of evidence, determination of the origin, to preserve the existing situation or for the provisional enforcement of injunctive relief and removal claims.

Criminal provisions

Violations of copyright and related rights are claims offenses. This means that the person who has had their rights violated has to file a criminal complaint on their own initiative. The period for filing a criminal complaint is three months after knowledge of the copyright infringement and the perpetrator ( Art. 31 StGB ). The sentence is generally imprisonment for up to one year or a fine. Anyone who commits the offense on a commercial basis can expect prison and a fine of up to CHF 100,000.

According to Art. 67, Paragraph 1 of the Copyright Act , anyone who intentionally and unlawfully:

a. uses a work under a false name or a name different from that specified by the author;
b. published a work;
c. changes a work;
d. a work used to create a second hand work;
e. makes copies of the work in any way;
f. Offers, sells or otherwise disseminates copies of the work;
G. Performs, performs, demonstrates or makes it perceptible elsewhere, either directly or by any means;
H. broadcasts a work by radio, television or similar processes, including via lines, or retransmits a broadcast work using technical equipment that is not the carrier of the original broadcasting company;
i. makes a broadcast or broadcast work perceptible;
k. refuses to inform the competent authority of the origin of the copies of the work in his possession, illegally manufactured or placed on the market;
l. rented a computer program.

Furthermore, Art. 68 URG states :

Anyone who deliberately fails to indicate the source used in the cases provided for by law (Art. 25 and 28) and, if it is named in it, the author, will be punished with a fine at the request of the person whose rights have been violated.

According to Art. 69 Para. 1 CopA, anyone who willfully and unlawfully:

a. broadcasts a work performance by radio, television or similar methods, including via lines;
b. records a work performance on audio, audio or data carriers;
c. Offers, sells or otherwise disseminates copies of a work performed;
d. retransmits a broadcast work performance using technical equipment that is not the carrier of the original broadcasting company;
e. makes a broadcast or retransmitted work performance perceptible;
f. reproduces a sound or audio-visual carrier that offers, sells or otherwise disseminates copies;
G. resends a program;
H. records a broadcast on audio, video or data carriers;
i. reproduces a broadcast specified on audio, audio-visual or data carriers or distributes such reproductions;
k. refuses to inform the competent authority of the origin of the unlawfully manufactured or placed on the market carriers of a service protected under Articles Art. 33 , Art. 36 or Art. 37 in his possession .

Art. 70 URG states:

Anyone who asserts copyrights or related property rights without the required authorization ( Art. 41 URG), the exploitation of which is subject to federal supervision ( Art. 41 URG), will be punished with imprisonment or a fine.

In the case of offenses in business operations, by agents, etc., Articles Art. 6 and Art. 7 of the Administrative Criminal Law Act of March 22, 1974 apply in accordance with Art. 71 CopA . »The individual cantons are responsible for prosecution. The unauthorized assertion of rights is prosecuted and assessed by the Institute for Intellectual Property.

The rulings of the supervisory authority can be challenged with the appeals committee for intellectual property. Appeals can be lodged with the Federal Supreme Court against the decisions of the Appeals Commission and the Arbitration Commission.

The URG also contains provisions on assistance from the customs administration.

Relationship to the antitrust law

According to Art. 3 (2) of the Cartel Act , competition effects that result exclusively from intellectual property legislation do not fall under the Cartel Act. The provisions of the Copyright Act therefore generally take precedence over the Cartel Act. This does not apply to import restrictions based on intellectual property rights . These are subject to assessment in accordance with the Cartel Act.

Partial revision 2008

In autumn 2004, the Institute for Intellectual Property, on behalf of the Federal Council, submitted a draft for a new copyright law for consultation, which ran until January 31, 2005. The aim of this legal revision is to adapt the URG to new communication technologies such as the Internet. Another goal that is to be achieved with this revision is the implementation of the WIPO agreement signed by Switzerland (WIPO = World Organization for Intellectual Property ) and the alignment with EU law.

The revision comprises the following core components: comprehensive protection of technical protective measures, prohibition of circumvention of such measures, prohibition of devices, services etc. to circumvent such measures; Introduction of a fee for all devices with which the reproduction of works protected by copyright is possible; making copyrighted works accessible to the disabled; Expansion of related rights

Concrete adjustments

The author is now given the right to make his works so accessible and perceptible that people have access from a place and time of their choice.

The reproduction of works in private circles, for teaching, in companies, etc. and by third parties is now subject to payment. In the private sphere, this remuneration is only owed by the manufacturers or importers of devices that are suitable for reproduction. In the case of reproductions for lessons, in companies, and by third parties, the manufacturer and the device owner are the debtors. This does not apply to SMEs , in which protected works are reproduced only occasionally or to a limited extent. The new device fee can be accumulated with the blank media fee. These claims for remuneration are asserted by the licensed collecting societies.

Making works of non-theatrical music accessible via radio and television programs is only possible with the consent of a collecting society. If commercially available or made accessible sound and audio image carriers are used for this purpose, the reproductions may not be distributed. They must be deleted when they have served their purpose.

Temporary duplications are permitted under certain conditions with regard to volatile storage.

Another new feature is that works can be made accessible in a form that is handicapped accessible. However, such specimens may only be produced and put into circulation for the disabled and without profit. For this type of use, the author is owed a fee that can only be claimed by the collecting societies.

In the case of performing artists, it is new that in addition to the performance of a work, the performance of a form of expression from folklore is now also protected. As with the authors, they are now given the right to make their performances so accessible and perceptible that people can access them from a place and time of their choice. In addition, performing artists should now also have the right to recognition of the status of interpreter in their performances.

The manufacturers of sound and audiovisual carriers and broadcasting companies are also to be given the right to make their recordings or broadcasts accessible in such a way that people can access them from a place and time of their choice.

If the beneficiaries and / or their whereabouts are unknown, the objects to be exploited were produced or manufactured in Switzerland and ten years have passed, the rights to archive recordings, audiovisual works, sound and audio-visual carriers are managed by a collecting society.

The exploitation of exclusive rights (if they are subject to collective exploitation), the assertion of remuneration claims and the exploitation of related property rights are now subject to federal supervision.

In contrast to that of the protection authority, the activity of the supervisory authority (institute for intellectual property) is no longer subject to fees.

Protection of technical protective measures

Technical measures to protect works protected by copyright may no longer be circumvented before the term of protection expires. Protected according to E-URG Art. 39a “ Access and copying controls, encryption, distortion and other conversion mechanisms ” are applied by authorized persons (right holders and exclusive licensees) in order to prevent unauthorized use of works. This category also includes DRM . Any circumvention, advertising for circumvention or helping to circumvent is prohibited, but cannot be enforced if it serves a legally permitted use.

The users of such protective measures must provide information about the type of measures and their identity. In addition, upon request of a person with legal access to the protected object, they must enable the legally permitted action, which, however, does not apply to the (largely) complete reproduction of commercially available copies. If the user of technical protective measures does not meet the above conditions, he has no right to protection of his measures. In addition, the person who did not get through with their request has the option of demanding that the court oblige the user to grant the request.

Information on the exercise of copyrights and related rights is protected in that it does not have to be removed. Electronic information, as well as numbers, codes, etc. that are attached to sound, audio or data carriers or that appear in an immaterial reproduction of a protected object are protected. Works from which such information has been removed may not be reproduced, passed on, broadcast, made accessible, etc. The protection of such information expires with the term of protection of the work or protected object.

Legal protection

The penal provisions for copyright violations will be adapted accordingly to the revised law (making illegal works accessible and perceptible in such a way that people can access them from a place and time of their choice).

The penal provisions for infringement of related rights are expanded to include three points:

At the request of the person who has had their rights violated, a prison sentence of up to one year or a fine will be imposed on anyone who willfully and unlawfully:
e. makes a work performance that has been made accessible, broadcast or retransmitted perceptible;
ebis. uses a performance of a work under a false or a different artist name than that determined by the performing artist;
eter. makes a work performance, a sound or audio-visual carrier or a broadcast accessible by any means in such a way that people have access to it from places and at times of their choice

The violation of the protection of technical measures and of information for the exercise of rights is, like the other two offenses, an application offense that is now punishable by imprisonment of up to one year or a fine. According to E-URG 69a, anyone who intentionally and unlawfully:

a. circumvents technical measures in accordance with Article 39a paragraph 2 with the intention of making unauthorized use of works or other protected objects or of allowing another person to do so;
b. Manufactures, imports, offers, sells or otherwise disseminates, leases, lends for use or possesses devices and products for commercial purposes, which mainly serve to circumvent technical measures in accordance with Article 39a paragraph 2;
c. Offers or provides services to circumvent technical measures in accordance with Article 39a paragraph 2;
d. Advertises means or services to circumvent technical measures in accordance with Article 39a paragraph 2;
e. removes or changes electronic information on the exercise of copyright and related rights in accordance with Article 39c paragraph 2;
f. Works or other protected objects on which information on the exercise of rights under Article 39c paragraph 2 has been removed or changed, reproduced, imported, offered, sold or otherwise disseminated, broadcast, perceptible or made accessible.

The last two points are only punishable if the person knows or needs to know that they are causing or enabling the violation of a copyright or related right.

Anyone who violates E-URG 96a commercially can even face imprisonment of up to three years or a fine. This fact is prosecuted ex officio.

Another new feature is that users of technical protective measures who intentionally violate their labeling obligation will be fined up to 20,000 francs.

Different points of view and opinions

The draft for a new copyright law is very controversial. On the one hand, there is above all the music and film industry as well as the software industry, which are primarily committed to the increased protection of technical protective measures (copy protection, DRM); on the other hand, those associations, parties, organizations etc. that fear that the users' interests will be restricted too much by the present draft. The lowest common denominator of the counterparties is indeed very small: It is limited to the understanding that copyright has to be adapted to the new (digital) technologies - above all the internet.

Advocates

Among the proponents, one must first of all mention the music and film industry as well as the software industry, which allegedly lose several hundred million francs in income every year due to copyright infringements - the software industry alone gives annual losses of around 400 million francs. The music industry says it lost around $ 2.1 billion worldwide to piracy in 2004. Above all, the right to private copies - at least in the digital sector - is a thorn in their side. Some of your demands go beyond the present draft. For example, in its statement on the new copyright law, the Swiss Association of Film Distributors demands that users no longer have the right to private copies of technically protected works.

The culture, artists, authors' associations, etc., and the SP for the major parties are far more moderate . In its statement, the organization Swissculture demands, for example, that downloads from an illegal source for private personal use are explicitly allowed in the new law (the URG or the new draft does not provide any regulation for this question) and sees itself as opposed to Switzerland. Association of film distributors who would like to have such acts prosecuted as an official offense.

opponent

The opponents argue primarily with user interests. The present draft goes one-sidedly to the wishes of the authors - especially the music, film and software industries - and neglects user interests.

The most criticized points are the introduction of a device levy - especially the cumulative ability with the blank media levy - and the protection of technical protective measures such as DRM, copy barriers, etc.

The main criticism of the device levy is that it should be levied on all devices that are only suitable for reproducing protected works and not only on those devices that are intended to reproduce works. Because it should be cumulative with the empty media levy, it is feared that users will be asked to pay twice. For example, through the blank media levy on blank CDs and the device levy that is levied when buying a CD burner. In addition, the rights of use are partially remunerated separately with DRM, without the users having to forego their share of the device or empty media levy.

Another strongly criticized point is the protection of technical protective measures, in particular the prohibition of circumvention. It is true that the draft provides that the user with legitimate access to the protected object can request the user of such measures to be lifted. However, he has to find the user himself, which would mean that it will be virtually impossible for the user to exercise his rights within a short period of time.

The protection of technical protective measures and thus also of DRM measures is also meeting with fierce resistance in the open source community. It is feared that because of DRM, for example, the user can no longer determine himself which program he wants to play his music with or, in the worst case, that a DRM integrated in the operating system prevents open source software or software from the competition from being installed .

Other disputed points

Practically all sides welcome the possibility of making protected works accessible in a way that is accessible to the disabled.

It is often criticized that the draft remains silent about the central issue of piracy and does not clarify this gray area.

Another controversial point is the expansion of related property rights, as well as the lack of a manufacturer's article, which is intended to automatically transfer the copyrights to the employer or client in the case of an employment or contract, analogous to the already existing rules for computer programs.

All of these points are controversial within the group of supporters and opponents.

Come into effect

On March 10, 2006, the Federal Council submitted a draft to parliament to ratify two agreements of the World Intellectual Property Organization and to partially revise the Copyright Act. The focus of the template is a prohibition on circumventing technical measures such as access barriers on the Internet or copying blocks on CDs and DVDs.

The Council of States and the National Council discussed the two drafts between December 2006 and October 2007 without making any major changes to the drafts of the Federal Council. The referendum was not taken, so the changes came into effect on July 1, 2008.

Change efforts since 2015

Another change in copyright law was initiated in 2015, more or less in the same period as the EU was busy with its copyright reform . Among other things, Internet piracy should be better combated, but without the users of such offers being criminalized. At the same time, the legal provisions are being adapted to technological developments. After a controversial consultation, the Federal Council passed its draft revision for submission to parliament in November 2017 . The National Council began its deliberations in December 2018. Since the beginning of 2019, the Council of States has been involved in changing the UWG as a second councilor . The status of the deliberations on the law in the councils can be found in the Parliament's Curia Vista business database under 17.069 Copyright Act. Change to be tracked.

literature

  • Comprehensive presentations
  • Work quality
    • Max Kummer: The work that can be protected by copyright (= treatises on Swiss law. Volume 384) . Stämpfli Verlag, Bern 1968 (also dissertation, Bern 1968).
  • Barriers
    • Martin J. Lutz: The barriers of copyright under Swiss law (= Zurich contributions to jurisprudence. Volume 264) . Schulthess Verlag, Zurich 1964 (also dissertation, Bern 1964).
  • Enforcement
    • Marc Wullschleger: The enforcement of copyright on the Internet (=  writings on media and intellectual property law . Issue 101). Stämpfli Verlag, Bern 2015, ISBN 978-3-7272-1900-9 (also dissertation, Bern 2014).

See also

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Denis Barrelet, Willi Egloff: The new copyright . Commentary on the Federal Law on Copyright and Related Rights. 3. Edition. Stämpfli, Bern 2008, ISBN 978-3-7272-9563-8 , p. 107 .
  2. ↑ Denis Barrelet, Willi Egloff: The new copyright . Commentary on the Federal Law on Copyright and Related Rights. 3. Edition. Stämpfli, Bern 2008, ISBN 978-3-7272-9563-8 , p. 113 .
  3. ↑ Swiss Federal Court: Excerpt from the judgment of the I. Civil Department of January 13, 1998 in the context of Neue Schauspiel AG against Felix Bloch Erben (direct litigation)
  4. ↑ Every third program is a pirated copy. In: Aargauer Zeitung . November 3, 2004.
  5. ↑ The pirate hunter. In: Sunday newspaper. February 20, 2005, p. 95.
  6. ↑ parliament.ch on the 2006/07 revision
  7. ↑ Partial revision of the copyright as of July 1, 2008 website of the Federal Institute for Intellectual Property , November 26, 2015
  8. ↑ Modernization of Copyright 2015 Website of the Federal Institute for Intellectual Property , December 5, 2016
  9. ^ Federal Council press release. Retrieved November 25, 2017 .
  10. ↑ a b 17.069 Copyright Act. Modification. In: parlament.ch. Retrieved December 13, 2018 .