A  paródiakivétel szükségessége és lehetséges keretrendszere a hazai szerzői jogban

Dávid Ujhelyi

doi:10.36250/00940_00

Szerzők

Ujhelyi Dávid

Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36250/00940_00

Absztrakt

Az alfa és a Z generáció tagjai bizonyára a mémeket és egyéb humoros, gúnyos felhasználói tartalmakat tekintik a paródia világának – és kétségtelen, hogy tömegével ömlik ránk a legkülönfélébb „vicces” tartalom a modern kommunikációs csatornák mindegyikén. A paródia maga ugyanakkor évezredekre visszanyúló gyökerekkel rendelkezik, és valamennyi társadalomban meghatározó szerepe volt. A Szerző visszatekint ezekre a gyökerekre, ugyanakkor a paródián mint irodalomtudományi műfajon és a paródia céljára készült műveken túllépve kifejezetten a szerzői művek paródiacélú felhasználására mint aktuális kihívásra koncentrál, amely a paródiakivétel hazai jogrendszerünkben való hiányára tekintettel különösen szembeötlő, mégis régóta húzódó jogi probléma. A Szerző feltárja a jelenlegi szabályozást, és továbbmenve vázolja annak – a hiányosságokat kiküszöbölő – kívánatos keretrendszerét. A szerzői jog nemzetközi és európai uniós szabályrendszerén magabiztosan kalauzolja végig az olvasót a téma szempontjából releváns rendelkezések elemzésével, a háromlépcsős tesztbonyolult viszonyrendszerének világos bemutatásával.

Információk a szerzőről

Ujhelyi Dávid, Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem

oktató

Hivatkozások

Abelman, Lawrence E. – Linda L. Berkowitz: International copyright law. New York Law School Review, 22. (1977), 3. 619–651.

Abramowicz, Michael: A new uneasy case for copyright. The George Washington Law Review, 79. (2011), 6. 1644–1691.

Afori, Orit Fischman: The evolution of copyright law and inductive speculations as to its future. Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 19. (2012), 2. 253–257. Online: https://goo.gl/hPbSNN

Alexander, Isabella – Tomás H. Gómez-Arostegui: Research handbook on the history of copyright law. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2016.

Alì, Gabriele Spina: A Bay of Pigs crisis in southern Europe? Fan-dubbing and parody in the Italian peninsula. European Intellectual Property Review, 37. (2015), 12. 756–764. Online: https://goo.gl/SMDtVX

Al-Sharieh, Saleh: Toward a human rights method for measuring international copyright law’s compliance with international human rights law. Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, 32. (2016), 82. 5–26.

Amarnick, Phyllis: American recognition of the moral right: issues and options. Copyright Law Symposium, 29. (1979).

Ames, E. Kenly: Beyond Rogers v. Koons: a fair use standard for appropriation. Columbia Law Review, 93. (1993), 6. 1473–1526. Online: https://doi.org/10.2307/1123081

Anderson, Michael G. – Paul F. Brown – Andrew P. Cores: Market substitution and copyrights: predicting fair use case law. University of Miami Entertainment And Sports Law Review, 10. (1993), 1–2. 33–50. Online: https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=umeslr

Angelopoulos, Christina – Joao Pedro Quintais: Fixing copyright reform. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 10. (2019), 2. 147–172.

Arnold, Richard – Eleonora Rosati: Are national courts the addressees of the InfoSoc threestep test? Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 10. (2015), 10. 741–749. Online: https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpv138

Atkinson, Benedict – Brian Fitzgerald: A short history of copyright the genie of information. Springer, 2014.

Austin, Graeme W.: Four questions about the Australian approach to fair dealing defen- ses to copyright infringement. Copyright Society of the U.S.A. Journal, 57. (2010), 3. 611–630. Online: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2184592

Austin, Graeme W.: EU and US perspectives on fair dealing for the purpose of parody or satire. UNSW Law Journal, 39. (2016), 2. 684–714.

Ayoubi, Lida: The Marrakesh Treaty: fixing international copyright law for the benefit of the visually impaired persons. New Zealand Journal of Public and International Law, 13. (2015). 255–276.

Babiskin, Lisa M.: Oh pretty parody: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 8. (1994), 1. 193–229.

Banko, James Richard – Horace Satires: „Schlurppes Tonic Bubble Bath”: in defense of parody. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Business Law, 11. (1990), 3. 627–656.

Barbosa, Roberto Garza: International copyright law and litigation: Mechanism for impro- vement. Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, 11. (2007a), 1. 78–147. Online: https://goo.gl/hC4imB

Barbosa, Roberto Garza: Revisiting international copyright law. Barry Law Review, 8. (2007b). 43–110. Online: https://goo.gl/bWx2Es

Barbu, Ana-Maria: Parody in European copyright law and the two sides of the coin. Stockholm Intellectual Property Law Review, 1. (2018), 2. 36–51.

Barkan, Judith: Universal v. Sony: Is home use in fact fair use. A Journal of Communications and Entertainment Law, 3. (1980), 1. 53–81.

Barta Judit: Építészeti alkotások szerzői jogi védelme és a gazdasági reklámozás némely összefüggései megtörtént esetek alapján. Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle, 116. (2011), 6. 104–119. Online: www.sztnh.gov.hu/sites/default/files/kiadv/ipsz/201106-pdf/06.pdf

Bartóki-Gönczy Balázs: A tárhelyszolgáltatók felelőssége a jogsértő tartalmakért – különös tekintettel a francia bíróságok gyakorlatára. Iustum Aequum Salutare, 7. (2011), 3. 125–142. Online: http://ias.jak.ppke.hu/hir/ias/20113sz/14.pdf

Bartow, Ann: Bloodsucking copyright. Maryland Law Review, 70. (2011), 1. 62–86.

Bazzi, Michael J. – Martha J. Widdows: Parody and the fair use doctrine revisited. Entertainment and Sports Lawyer, 4. (1998), 1.

Bechtel, Michael: Algorithmic notification and monetization: Using YouTube’s Content ID System as a model for European Union copyright reform. Michigan State International Law Review, 28. (2020), 2. 237–271.

Beck, Joseph: Flexibility in parody of copyrighted material. Media Law & Policy, 10. (2002), 2.

Békés Gergely – Mezei Péter: A sampling megítélése a magyar szerzői jogban. Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle, 5. (2010), 6. 5–33. Online: https://goo.gl/XpsZ9d

Békés Gergely: Breaking news: hatályba lép a Pekingi Szerződés. Copyright21 – Szerzői jog a XXI. században, 2020. 01. 30. Online: http://copy21.com/2020/01/breaking-news-hatalyba-lep-a-pekingi-szerzodes/

Benacchio, Giannantonio: Az Európai Közösség magánjoga – Polgári jog, kereskedelmi jog. Budapest, Osiris, 2003.

Bentley, Alicia J.: Hustler Magazine v. Falwell: the application of the actual malice standard to intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. Ohio State Law Journal, 49. (1988), 3. 825–840.

Bergne, J. H. G.: International Copyright Union. The Law Quarterly Review, 3. (1887), 9.

Bernárd Aurél – Timár István (szerk.): A szerzői jog kézikönyve. Budapest, Közgazdasági és Jogi Könyvkiadó, 1973.

Bernstein, Richard A.: Parody and fair use in copyright law. Copyright Law Symposium, 31. (1981).

Bimbaité, Monika: When is a parody a violation of copyright? International Journal of Baltic Law, 1. (2004), 2. 16–32.

Bird, Robert C. – Lucille M. Ponte: Protecting moral rights in the United States and the United Kingdom: Challenges and opportunities under the U.K.’s New Performances Regulations. Boston University International Law Journal, 24. (2006), 2. 213–282.

Bisceglia, Julie: Parody and copyright protection: turning the balancing act into a juggling act. Copyright Law Symposium (ASCAP), 34. (1984).

Blankenship, Mark Edward: Prince & the revolution of transformative use: observing “New Portraits” alongside the potential specter of appropriation art’s past. Kentucky Law Journal, 107. (2018). 2. Online: https://tinyurl.com/yax8ultr

Bogdonoff, Michael A.: Copyright – Infringement – Use of song Cunnilingus Champion of Company C not a fair use of Song Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy of Company B. Rutgers Law Journal, 13. (1982), 4.

Bohannan, Christina: Reclaiming copyright. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 23. (2006). 568–634.

Bohannan, Christina: Copyright harm, foreseeability, and fair use. Washington University Law Review, 85. (2007), 5. 969–1031.

Bond, Catherine – Abi Paramaguru – Graham Greenleaf: Advance Australia Fair? The copyright reform process. Journal of World Intellectual Property, 10. (2007), 3–4. 284–313. Online: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1796.2007.00324.x

Boytha György: A nemzetközi szerzői jogi és szomszédjogi egyezmények komplex összefüggései. Jogtudományi Közlöny, 36. (1981), 12. 994–1007. Online: http://real-j.mtak. hu/2243/1/JogtudomanyiKozlony_1981.pdf

Boytha György: A nemzetközi szerzőijog-védelem keletkezésének kérdései. Jogtudományi Közlöny, 41. (1986), 11. 515–520.

Boytha György: Computer programs as authors works and their protection under European law. In Csehi Zoltán (szerk.): Boytha György válogatott írásai. Budapest, Gondolat, 2015a.

Boytha György: Interrelationship of conventions on copyright and neighboring rights. In Csehi Zoltán (szerk.): Boytha György válogatott írásai. Budapest, Gondolat, 2015b.

Boytha György: Penal protection of works of visual art under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. In Csehi Zoltán (szerk.): Boytha György válogatott írásai. Budapest, Gondolat, 2015c.

Boytha György: The historical developement of the regulation by international treaties of rights related to translation. In Csehi Zoltán (szerk.): Boytha György válogatott írásai. Budapest, Gondolat, 2015d.

Boytha György: Új problémák a szerzői alkotások nemzetközi felhasználása terén. A Berni Unió válsága. In Csehi Zoltán (szerk.): Boytha György válogatott írásai. Budapest, Gondolat, 2015e.

Bradford, Laura R.: Parody and perception: Using cognitive research to expand fair use in copyright. Boston College Law Review, 46. (2005), 4. 705–770. Online: https://lawdig-italcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2306&context=bclr

Braithwaite, William J.: From revolution to constitution: Copyright, compulsory licences and the parodied song. University of British Columbia Law Review, 18. (1984), 1. 35–68.

Brown, Abbe – Smita Kheria – Jane Cornwell – Marta Iljadica: Contemporary intellectual property – Law and policy. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2019.

Bruguiere, Jean-Michel: Adoption of British fair dealing by the French system of exceptions: In praise of the technique of standards and the philosophy of the reasonable. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 50. (2019), 9. 278–304. Online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-019-00795-z

Buckland, Andrew: Rap, parody, and fair use: Luther R. Campbell aka Luke Skyywalker, et al v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. Sydney Law Review, 17. (1995), 4. 599–610.

Butt, Rachel Isabelle: Appropriation art and fair use. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 25. (2010), 4. 1055–1093.

Caddy, Lorna – Niri Shan – Valerie Aumage: The European approach to fair dealing – Harmony or discord. Copyright Society of the U.S.A. Journal, 57. (2010), 3.

Cameron, Alec: Copyright exceptions for the digital age: new rights of private copying, parody and quotation. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 9. (2014), 12. 1002–1007. Online: https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpu202

Carlisle, Stephen: One suit, two suits, both about Seuss, so why is one wrong, and the other fair use? Nova Southeastern University blog, 2019. 03. 21. Online: http://copyright.nova.edu/seuss/

Carter, Edward L.: Harmonization of copyright law in response to technological change: lessons from Europe about fair use and free expression. University of La Verne Law Review, 30. (2009), 2.

Caviedes, Alexander A.: International copyright law: Should the European Union dictate its development. Boston University International Law Journal, 16. (1998), 1. 165–230.

Cervantes, Miguel de: Az elmés nemes Don Quijote de la Mancha. Budapest, Európa, [1605] 1989.

Chagares, Michael A.: Parody or piracy: the protective scope of the fair use defense to copyright infringement actions regarding parodies. Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & the Arts, 12. (1987), 2.

Cherry, Daniel: Blanch it, mix it, mash it: a fair use framework for the mashup. Thomas M. Cooley Law Review, 28. (2011), 3. 495–524.

Christie, Andrew – Robin Wright: A comparative analysis of the three-step tests in international treaties. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 45. (2014), 4. 409–433.

Ciolino, Dane S.: Rethinking the compatibility of moral rights and fair use. Washington and Lee Law Review, 54. (1997), 1. 33–90.

Clemmons, Melanie A.: Author v. parodist: striking a compromise. Copyright Law Symposium (ASCAP), 33. (1983).

Clode, Daniel: Power to the artist: the false promise of moral rights. A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, 5. (1998), 1. 123–132.

Commission of the European Communities: Copyright and related rights in the information society. Zöld könyv, COM(95)382 final (1995. július 19.). Online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:51995DC0382&from=EN

Cooper, Jay L.: Wihtol v. Crow: fair use revisited. UCLA Law Review, 11. (1963), 1. Cordray, Monique L.: GATT v. WIPO. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, 76. (1994).

Cotter, Thomas F.: Memes and copyright. Tulane Law Review, 80. (2005), 2.

Craig, Carys J.: Putting the community in communication: dissolving the conflict between freedom of expression and copyright. University of Toronto Law Journal, 56. (2006), 1. 75–114.

Craig, Carys J.: Globalizing user rights-talk: on copyright limits and rhetorical risks. American University International Law Review, 33. (2017), 1. 1–73.

Crews, Kenneth D.: Harmonization and the goals of copyright: property rights or cultural progress? Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 6. (1998), 1. 117–138.

Crittenden, David R.: Copyright law – Fair use privilege – In an action for copyright infringement, the commercial nature of a song parody does not invoke a presumption against a finding of fair use. Seton Hall Law Review, 25. (1995), 3.

Crossland, Hugh J.: Rise and fall of fair use: the protection of literary materials against copyright infringement by new and developing media. South Carolina Law Review, 20. (1968), 2. 153–242.

Crowne, Emir Aly: Parody as fair dealing in Canada: a guide for lawyers and judges. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 4. (2009), 7. 468–472. Online: https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpp070

Cuartero, Victoria – Dan Satorius – Michael Donaldson: Parody, satire, and jokes. Entertainment and Sports Lawyer, 32. (2015), 2.

Czeglédi Ádám Sándor: Case law update – az elmúlt egy év legfontosabb védjegyjogi tárgyú döntései Magyarországon és az EU-ban. MIE-konferencia-előadás, 2019. 11. 21. Online: http://mie.org.hu/2019_osz/Czegledi_DC_Comics_HVG.pdf

Csokonai Vitéz Mihály: Homerus Batrachomiomachiája vagy a Béka és egér-harc. Budapest, Szépirodalmi, [1791] 1960. Online: https://mek.oszk.hu/00600/00636/html/vs179102.htm

Dabo, Miatta Tenneh: Recent developement – Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. – Fair use doctrine: when is copyright infringement a parody? Baltimore Intellectual Property Law Journal, 7. (1999).

D’Agostino, Giuseppina: Healing fair dealing? A comparative copyright analysis of Canada’s fair dealing to U.K. fair dealing and U.S. fair use. McGill Law Journal, 53. (2008), 2. 309–363.

Dawid, Heinz: Basic principles of international copyright. Copyright Society of the U.S.A. Bulletin, 21. (1973).

Deazley, Ronan: Parody and copyright infringement. Columbia Law Review, 56. (1956), 4.

Deazley, Ronan: Copyright and parody: taking backward the gowers review? The Modern Law Review, 73. (2010), 5. 785–807.

Deely, Pat: Copyright: limitation on exclusive rights, fair use. Houston Law Review, 13. (1976), 5.

De Gregorio, Giovanni: Expressions on platforms: Freedom of expression and ISP liability in the European digital single market. European Competition and Regulatory Law Review. 2. (2018), 3. 203–215.

Del Casino, F. Casey: The potential harm of musical parody: toward an enlightened fair use calculus. University of Miami Entertainment and Sports Law Review, 6. (1989), 1. 35–59.

Deli Gergely: Emberi méltóság, történelmi narratívák és a jog. Vázlat a természetjog mai kilátásairól. Iustum Aequum Salutare, 11. (2015), 1. 41–58. Online: http://ias.jak.ppke.hu/hir/ias/20151sz/03.pdf

de los Reyes, James: Examining copyright exemptions for web mashups in the international context – Applying American constitutional considerations as guideposts for the TRIPS three-step test. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 38. (2011), 2. 473–498.

Demeter, Thomas Paul: Legal perils of parody and burlesque. Cleveland-Marshall Law Review, 17. (1968), 2. 242–250.

Dentith, Simon: Parody – The new critical idiom. London, Routledge, 2010.

Derclaye, Estelle (szerk.): Research handbook on the future of EU copyright. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2009.

Deutsch, Alvin: Parody or piracy – Jack Benny’s Faustian Compact. Entertainment and Sports Lawyer, 11. (1993), 2.

Deutsch, Alvin: The piracy of parody. Entertainment and Sports Lawyer, 12. (1994), 3.

Dinwoodie, Graeme B.: Copyright lawmaking authority: an (inter)nationalist perspective on the treaty clause. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 30. (2007a). 355–395. Online: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1001268

Dinwoodie, Graeme B.: The international intellectual property system: treaties, norms, national courts, and private ordering. In: Daniel Gervais (szerk.): Intellectual property, trade and development: strategies to optimize economic develpoment in a TRIPS Plus era. Oxford, Oxford Universtiy Press, 2007b.

Dinwoodie, Graeme B.: The WIPO Copyright Treaty: a transition to the future of international copyright lawmaking? Case Western Reserve Law Review, 57. (2007c), 4. 751–766. Online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1601235

Dogan, Stacey L. – Mark A. Lemley: Parody as brand. U.C. Davis Law Review, 47. (2013), 2. 473–513.

Döhl, Frédéric: Zum drohenden Pastiche-Begriff im Kontext der freien Benutzung nach § 24 Abs. 1 UrhG. UFITA – Archiv für Medienrecht und Medienwissenschaft, (2019), 1. Online: https://tinyurl.com/yakyf546

Dratler, Jay: Distilling the Witches’ Brew of fair use in copyright law. University of Miami Law Review, 43. (1988), 2. 234–341.

Dreier, Thomas K.: Copyright and film: the infringement of copyrighted works by motion picture. Communications and the Law, 6. (1984), 6.

Dreier, Thomas: Limitations: the centerpiece of copyright in distress – An introduction. Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 1. (2010), 2. 50–54.

Drexl, Josef: European and international intellectual property law between propertization and regulation: how a fundamental-rights approach can mitigate the tension. The University of the Pacific Law Review, 47. (2016), 2. 199–219.

Dreyfuss, Rochelle: From incentive to commodity to asset: how international law is recon- ceptualizing intellectual property. Michigan Journal of International Law, 36. (2015), 4. 557–602.

Duffy, F. Ryan: International copyright. Air Law Review, 8. (1937).

Duhl, Gregory M.: Old lyrics, knock-off videos, and copycat comic books: the fourth fair use factor in U.S. copyright law. Syracuse Law Review, 54. (2004), 3. 665–738.

Dworkin, Gerald: Exceptions to copyright exclusivity: is fair use consistent with Article 9.2 Berne and the new international order. International Intellectual Property Law & Policy, 4. (2000), 66.

Edwards, David N.: Usages of copyrighted musical works permissible without acquiring a copyright license, assignment, or release. Journal of College and University Law, 6. (1979), 4. 363–384.

Elmahjub, Ezieddin – Nicolas Suzor: Fair use and fairness in copyright: a distributive justice perspective on users’ rights. Monash University Law Review, 43. (2017), 1. 274–298.

Engle, Eric Allen: When is fair use fair: a comparison of E.U. and U.S. intellectual property law. The Transnational Lawyer, 15. (2002), 187. 188–225.

Eőry Vilma: Magyar értelmező szótár diákoknak – Szómagyarázatok példamondatokkal. Budapest, Tinta, 2010.

Erickson, Kristofer – Martin Kretschmer: This video is unavailable. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 9. (2018), 1. 75–89.

Esmail, Parveen: CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada: case comment on a landmark copyright case. Appeal: Review of Current Law and Law Reform, 10. (2005), 1. 13–24.

Európai Bizottság: Egységes keret az elektronikus kereskedelem és az online szolgáltatások digitális egységes piacába vetett bizalom megerősítésére. COM(2011)942 final (2012. november 11.). Online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0942:FIN:hu:PDF

Európai Bizottság: Európai digitális egységes piaci stratégia. COM(2015)192 final (2015. május 6.). Online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/HU/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0192&from=EN

Európai Bizottság: A korszerű, európaibb szerzői jogi keret felé. COM(2015)626 final (2015. december 9.). Online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/HU/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0626&from=EN

Európai Bizottság: Értékelő beszéd az Unió helyzetéről (2016): a Bizottság korszerű uniós szerzői jogi szabályok bevezetését javasolja az európai kultúra virágzásának és az európai kulturális javak terjesztésének előmozdítása érdekében. Sajtóközlemény, 2016. szeptember 14. Online: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/hu/IP_16_3010

European Commission: Green Paper on copyright and the challenge of technology – Copyright issues requiring immediate action. COM(88)172 final (1988. június 7.). Online: http://aei.pitt.edu/1209/1/COM_(88)_172_final.pdf

European Commission: Green Paper on copyright and related rights in the information society. COM(95)382 final (1995. július 19.). Online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:1995:0382:FIN:EN:PDF

European Commisson: Targeted consultation addressed to the participants to the stakeholder dialogue on Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. 2020. Online: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=68591

European Copyright Society: Opinion on The Judgment of the CJEU in Case C-201/13 Deckmyn. 2014a. Online: https://goo.gl/BH79v6

European Copyright Society: Limitations and exceptions as key elements of the legal framework for copyright in the European Union – Opinion on The Judgment of the CJEU in Case C-201/13 Deckmyn. 2014b. Online: https://goo.gl/ZjjmEb

Faaland, Susan Linehan: Parody and fair use: the critical question. Washington Law Review, 57. (1981), 1. 163–192.

Faludi Gábor: Szerzői jog, iparvédelem és a Ptk. koncepciója – I. rész. Polgári Jogi Kodifikáció, 5. (2003a), 2. 3–14. Online: https://ptk2013.hu/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/2003-2kodi.pdf

Faludi Gábor: Szerzői jog, iparvédelem és a Ptk. koncepciója – II. rész. Polgári Jogi Kodifikáció,

(2003b), 3. 3–14. Online: https://ptk2013.hu/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/2003-3kodi.pdf Faludi Gábor: A szerzői jog és az iparjogvédelem belső korlátjai. Jogtudományi Közlöny, 61. (2006), 7–8. 280–291.

Faludi Gábor: A szerzői jog alapjogi szemlélete az Európai Unióban. In Faludi Gábor (szerk.): Liber amicorum: studia P. Gyertyánfy dedicata. Ünnepi dolgozatok Gyertyánfy Péter tiszteletére. Budapest, ELTE ÁJK Polgári Jogi Tanszék, 2008.

Faludi Gábor: A paródia a szerzői jogban. In Kőhidi Ákos – Keserű Barna Arnold (szerk.): Tanulmányok a 65 éves Lenkovics Barnabás tiszteletére. Budapest–Győr, Eötvös József Könyv- és Lapkiadó, 2015.

Faludi Gábor: A szerzői mű egysége védelmének egyes kérdései. Infokommunikáció és Jog, 8. (2011), 5. 163–169.

Faludi Gábor: Az új Ptk. hatása a szerzői jogi és iparjogvédelmi jogátruházási szerződésekre. In Pogácsás Anett (szerk.): Quærendo et creando. Ünnepi kötet Tattay Levente 70. szü- letésnapja tiszteletére. Budapest, Szent István Társulat, 2014.

Fang, Albert: Let digital technology lay the moral right of integrity to rest. Connecticut Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 26. (2011).

Farrell, A. Hunter: Fair use of copyrighted material in advertisement parodies. Columbia Law Review, 92. (1992), 6. 1550–1591.

Fewer, David: Constitutionalizing copyright: freedom of expression and the limits of copyright in Canada. University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review, 55. (1997), 2.

Fhima, Ilanah: Fairness in copyright law: an Anglo-American comparison. Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal, 34. (2017), 1. 44–77.

Ficsor Mihály: Copyright for the digital era: the WIPO „Internet” Treaties. Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & the Arts, 21. (1997), 3–4. 197–223.

Ficsor Mihály: The international digital agenda and the new WIPO treaties. International Intellectual Property Law & Policy, 4. (2000a), 67.

Ficsor Mihály: The WIPO internet treaties: international developments. International Intellectual Property Law & Policy, 4. (2000b), 76.

Ficsor Mihály: How much of what? The „three-step test” and its application in two recent WTO dispute settlement cases. Revue internationale du droit d’auteur, (2002), 192.

Ficsor Mihály: Guide to the copyright and related rights treaties administered by WIPO and glossary of copyright and related rights terms. WIPO, 2003. Online: www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/copyright/891/wipo_pub_891.pdf

Ficsor Mihály: The WIPO internet treaties: the United States as the driver: the United States as the main source of obstruction – As seen by an anti-revolutionary Central European. The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law, 6. (2006). 15–39.

Ficsor, Mihály: Adventures of a copyright lawyer in a WTO patent panel: interpretation of the three-step test relevant for both patents and copyright. A Fordham Intellectual Property Law Institute & Emily C. & John E. Hansen Intellectual Property Institute 23rd Annual Intellectual Property Law & Policy Conference. Cambridge, Cambridge University, Apr 8–9, 2015. Online: https://fordhamipinstitute.com/wp-content/upload-s/2015/08/4A-B-2-Ficsor-Mihaly.pdf

Fisher, William: Promises to keep – Technology, law, and the future of entertainment. Stanford, Stanford University Press, 2004.

Fitzgerald, Brian – John Gilchrist (szerk.): Copyright perspectives, past, present and prospect. Springer, 2015.

Flegal, Robyn M.: Diametrically opposing viewpoints – Why polar opposites should not attract the parody label under the fair use exception to copyright infringement. Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 21. (2013), 1. 105–135.

Foshee, Alyce W.: Monge v. Maya Magazines, Inc.: the demand for celebrity gossip and the doctrine of transformative use in the ninth circuit. Golden Gate University Law Review, 44. (2014), 1. 5–34.

Foster, Mariko A.: Parody’s precarious place: the need to legally recognize parody as Japan’s cultural property. Seton Hall Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law, 23. (2013), 2. 313–344.

Fox, Jonathan M.: The fair use commercial parody defense and how to improve it. IDEA – The Intellectual Property Law Review, 46. (2006), 46.

Frankel, Susy: The international copyright problem and durable solutions. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, 18. (2015), 1. 101–137.

Freeland, Adam: Negotiating under the new EU Copyright Directive 2019/790 and GDPR. Journal of International Economic Law, 24. (2020), 1. Online: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3573605

French, Robert A.: Copyright: Rogers v. Koons: artistic appropriation and the fair use defense. Oklahoma Law Review, 46. (1993), 1. 175–204.

Frosio, Giancarlo F.: Internet intermediary liability: WILMap, theory and trends. Indian Journal of Law and Technology, 13. (2017), 1.

Frosio, Giancarlo F.: To filter, or not to filter – that is the question in EU copyright reform. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 36. (2018a), 2. 331–368.

Frosio, Giancarlo F.: Reconciling copyright with cumulative creativity: the third paradigm. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2018b.

Fruehwald, E. Scott: The parody fair use defense after Campbell. Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & the Arts, 18. (1993), 1–2.

Garbus, Martin: The integrity of copyright. Media Law & Policy, 10. (2002), 2.

Gauthier, Tammi A.: Fun and profit: when commercial parodies constitute copyright or trademark infringement. Pepperdine Law Review, 21. (1993), 1. 165–205.

Geiger, Christophe – Giancarlo Frosio – Oleksandr Bulayenko: Facilitating access to out-of-commerce works in the digital single market – How to make Pico della Mirandola’s dream a reality in the European Union. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 9. (2018), 3. 240–250.

Geiger, Christophe – Daniel Gervais – Martin Senftleben: The three-step test revisited: How to use the test’s lexibility in national copyright law. American University International Law Review, 29. (2014), 3. 581–626.

Geiger, Christophe – Elena Izyumenko: Copyright on the Human Rights’ Trial: redefining the boundaries of exclusivity through freedom of expression. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 45. (2014), 3. 316–342.

Geiger, Christophe – Elena Izyumenko: The role of human rights in Copyright Enforcement Online: elaborating a legal framework for website blocking. American University International Law Review, 32. (2016), 1. 43–115.

Geiger, Christophe – Elena Izyumenko: Towards a European fair use grounded in freedom of expression. American University International Law Review, 35. (2019), 1. 1–74.

Geiger, Christophe – Elena Izyumenko: The constitutionalization of intellectual property law in the EU and the Funke Medien, Pelham and Spiegel Online decisions of the CJEU: progress, but still some way to go! International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 51. (2020), 3. 282–302. Online: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3472852

Geiger, Christophe: Copyright as an access right: Securing cultural participation through the protection of creators’ interests. In Rebeca Giblin – Kimberlee Weatherall (szerk.): What if we could reimagine copyright? Canberra, ANU Press, 2017.

Geiger, Christophe: “Fair Use” through fundamental rights in Europe, when freedom of artistic expression allows creative appropriations and opens up statutory copyright limitations. Center for International Intellectual Property Studies Research Paper Series, (2018a), 9. 1–32. Online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3256899

Geiger, Christophe: Freedom of artistic creativity and copyright law: a compatible combination. UC Irvine Law Review, 8. (2018b), 3. 413–458.

Geist, Michael: The copyright pentalogy – How the Supreme Court of Canada shook the foundations of Canadian copyright law. Ottawa, University of Ottawa Press, 2013.

Geller, Paul Edward: New dynamics in international copyright. Columbia – VLA Journal of Law & the Arts, 16. (1992).

Geller, Paul Edward: Rethinking the Berne-Plus framework: from conflicts of laws to copy- right. European Intellectual Property Review, 31. (2009). 391–395.

Geller, Paul Edward: A German approach to fair use: test cases for TRIPs criteria for copyright limitations. Copyright Society of the U.S.A. Journal, 57. (2010).

Gendreau, Ysolde: Canada and the three-step test: a step in which direction. Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, 15. (2011), 2. 309–323.

Gerber, Michael: Barry Trotter and the unauthorized parody. Greencastle, Fireside, 2002.

Gervais, Daniel J.: The internationalization of intellactual property: new challanges from the very old and the very new. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, 12. (2002). 929–990.

Gervais, Daniel J.: Towards a new core international copyright norm: the reverse three-step test. Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, 9. (2005), 1. 1–35.

Gervais, Daniel J.: Making copyright whole: a principled approach to copyright exceptions and limitations. University of Ottawa Law & Technology Journal, 5. (2008), 1–2. 1–41. Online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1825342

Gervais, Daniel: The derivative right, or why copyright law protects foxes better than hedge- hogs. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 15. (2013), 4. 785–855. Online: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2233941

Gibson, Alex: International copyright. The Commonwealth Law Review, 4. (1907).

Gilbert-Eggleston, Jennifer: Cariou v. Prince: painter or prince of thieves. University of Denver Sports and Entertainment Law Journal, 11. (2011). 117–136.

Gilden, Andrew: Copyright’s market gibberish. Washington Law Review, 94. (2019), 3. 1019–1083.

Gin, Elaine B.: International copyright law: beyond the WIPO & TRIPS debate. Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, 86. (2004).

Ginsburg, Jane C.: International copyright: from a bundle of national copyright laws to a supranational code. Copyright Society of the U.S.A. Journal, 47. (2000), 10. 1–26.

Ginsburg, Jane C.: Toward supranational copyright law? The WTO panel decision and the “three-step test” for copyright exceptions. The Center for Law and Economic Studies, Working Paper No. 181, 2001. Online: http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abst ract_id=253867

Ginsburg, Jane C.: European Copyright Code – Back to the first principles (with some additional detail). Copyright Society of the U.S.A. Journal, 58. (2011), 2. 265–294.

Ginsburg, Jane C.: Fair use in the United States: transformed, deformed, reformed? Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, (2020), 1.

Goetsch, Charles C.: Parody as free speech – The replacement of the fair use doctrine by first amendment protection. Western New England Review, 3. (1980), 1. 39–66.

Goldstein, Paul – Bernt P. Hugenholtz: International copyright principles, law, and practice. New York, Oxford University Press, 2010.

Goldstein, Paul: Derivative rights and derivative works in copyright. Copyright Society of the U.S.A. Journal, 30. (1983). 209–252.

Goold, Patrick R.: The interpretive argument for a balanced three-step test. American University International Law Review, 33. (2017), 1. 187–230.

Gorman, Ashley: Parody of copyrighted works: death of an art form. Wayne Law Review, 4. (1957), 1.

Gorman, Eric D.: Who gets the last laugh? Satire, doctrine of fair use, and copywrong inf- ringement. Temple Journal of Science, Technology & Environmental Law, 29. (2010), 2.

Gowers review of intellectual property. Colegate, HMSO, 2006. Online: https://goo.gl/sbos8I

Grad-Gyenge Anikó: Szabad felhasználások a látáskárosultak művekhez való jobb hozzáférése érdekében. In Pogácsás Anett (szerk.): Quærendo et creando. Ünnepi kötet Tattay Levente 70. születésnapja tiszteletére. Budapest, Szent István Társulat, 2014.

Grad-Gyenge Anikó: Film és szerzői jog – A megfilmesítési szerződés. Budapest, Médiatudományi Intézet, 2016.

Grad-Gyenge Anikó: A szerződési jog harmonizációja rendelettel: új utak a szerzői jogi harmonizációban. In Grad-Gyenge Anikó – Kabai Eszter – Menyhárd Attila (szerk.): Liber Amicorum – Studia G. Faludi Dedicata. Ünnepi tanulmányok Faludi Gábor 65. születésnapja tiszteletére. Budapest, ELTE Eötvös, 2018.

Grad-Gyenge Anikó (szerk.): Kézikönyv a szerzői jog érvényesítéséhez. Gödöllő, ProArt, 2019.

Greenberg, Brad A.: Copyright trolls and presumptively fair uses. University of Colorado Law Review, 85. (2014b). 53–128.

Greenberg, Marc H.: Comic art, creativity and the law. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2014a.

Greenstone, Richard J.: Protection of obscene parody as fair use. The Entertainment and Sports Law Journal, 4. (1986).

Griffiths, Jonathan: The ’three-step test’ in European copyright law – problems and solutions. Queen Mary University of London, School of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper, (2009), 31. Online: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1476968

Griffiths, Jonathan: Unsticking the centre-piece – The liberation of European copyright law? Journal of Intellectual Property Information Technology and e-Commerce Law, 87. (2010), 1. 87–95.

Griffiths, Jonathan: Infopaq, BSA and the “Europeanisation” of United Kingdom copyright law. Media & Arts Law Review, 16. (2011). Online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1777027

Griffiths, Jonathan: Fair dealing after Deckmyn – The United Kingdom’s defence for caricature, parody or pastiche. In Sam Ricketson – Megan Richardson (szerk.): Research handbook on intellectual property in media and entertainment. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2017. Online: http://goo.gl/XcddE7

Griffiths, Jonathan: European Union copyright law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Advocate General Szpunar’s opinions in (C-469/17) Funke Medien, (C-476/17) Pelham GmbH and (C-516/17) Spiegel Online. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 20. (2019). 35–50.

Grossman, Gene M. – Petros C. Mavroidis: United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act, Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU: would’ve or should’ve? Impaired benefits due to copyright infringement. World Trade Review, 2. (2003), 2. 281–299.

Guadamuz, Andres: Living in a remixed world: comparative analysis of transformative uses in copyright law. In Lilian Edwards – Burkhard Schafer – Edina Harbinja (szerk.): Future law – Emerging technology, regulation and ethics. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2020.

Guan, Wenwei: Fair dealing doctrine caught between parody and UGC exceptions: Hong Kong’s 2014 copyright amendment and beyond. Hong Kong Law Journal, 45. (2015), 3. 719–742.

Guibault, Lucie: The Netherlands: Darfurnica, Miffy and the right to parody. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 3. (2011), 2. 236–248.

Gyenge Anikó – Békés Gergely: A Digital Rights Management szerzői jogi természetéről. Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle, 111. (2006), 1. Online: www.sztnh.gov.hu/sites/default/files/kiadv/ipsz/200602-pdf/03_tanulmany%20gyenge_bekes.pdf

Gyenge Anikó: Alkotmányossági kérdések a szerzői jogban. Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle, (2003), 5. Online: www.sztnh.gov.hu/hu/kiadv/ipsz/200310/01-gyenge.html Gyenge Anikó: A szerzői jog h-moll miséje: a háromlépcsős teszt. Jogi Tanulmányok, 10. (2005), 1. 155–176.

Gyenge Anikó: Szerzői jogi korlátozások és a szerzői jog emberi jogi háttere. Budapest, HVG-ORAC, 2010a.

Gyenge Anikó: A kivételek és korlátozások céljai a szerzői monopoljogban. Verseny és Szabályozás, 4. (2010b), 1. 72–119. Online: http://econ.core.hu/file/download/vesz2010/02_szerzoi_monopoljog.pdf

Gyenge Anikó: A szerzői mű ára – díjak az egyedi felhasználási szerződésekben, 1. rész. Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle, (2014), 6. Online: www.sztnh.gov.hu/hu/kiadv/ipsz/200412/01-gyenge-aniko.html

Gyertyánfy Péter: A szerzői jog bírói gyakorlata 2006-tól: a védelem tárgya és a mű egysége. Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle, 117. (2012), 4. 35–51. Online: www.sztnh.gov.hu/kiadv/ipsz/201204-pdf/04.pdf

Gyertyánfy Péter: A szerzői jog bírói gyakorlata 2006-tól: a jogok keletkezése, forgal- muk; a személyhez fűződő jogok. Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle, 118. (2013), 3. 70–92. Online: www.hipo.gov.hu/kiadv/ipsz/201303-pdf/03.pdf

Gyertyánfy Péter: Repedések a hatályos szerzői jogi épületén. In Grad-Gyenge Anikó – Kabai Eszter – Menyhárd Attila (szerk.): Liber Amicorum – Studia G. Faludi Dedicata. Ünnepi tanulmányok Faludi Gábor 65. születésnapja tiszteletére. Budapest, ELTE Eötvös, 2018. Online: www.eltereader.hu/media/2018/07/Faludi-READER.pdf

Gyertyánfy Péter (szerk.): Nagykommentár a szerzői jogról szóló 1999. évi LXXVI. törvényhez. Jogtár-verzió. Budapest, CompLex, 2019.

Hadl, Robert D.: Parody lyrics – The Mad Magazine case. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. Bulletin, 11. (1964).

Hadl, Robert D.: The crisis in international copyright. Columbia – VLA Journal of Law & the Arts, 16. (1992).

Haft, Jonathan D.: University City Studios v. Sony Corporation of America: the case against fair use. Art & the Law, 7. (1982), 2.

Haile, Biruk: Scrutiny of the Ethiopian system of copyright limitations in the light of international legal hybrid resulting from (the impending) WTO membership: Three-step test in focus. Journal of Ethiopian Law, 25. (2012). 159–178.

Hajdú Dóra: A magáncélú másolásra tekintettel fizetett díjak egyes értelmezési kérdései az Európai Unió Bíróságának gyakorlatában. Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle, 119. (2014), 6. 27–69. Online: https://www.sztnh.gov.hu/sites/default/files/files/kiadv/ szkv/szemle-2014-06/02.pdf

Hajdú Dóra: A törvény által előírt közös jogkezelés a magyar és francia szerzői jog- ban. Budapest, Médiatudományi Intézet, 2016. Online: https://nmhh.hu/dokumen-tum/192048/A_torveny_altal_eloirt_kozos_jogkezeles_a_magyar_es_francia_szer- zoi_jogban.pdf

Halek, Jakub – Martin Hrachovina: Directive on copyright in the digital single market: a challenge for the future. Common Law Review, (2020), 16. 44–48.

Hamill, Jasper: EU votes for copyright law which could kill memes and introduce ‘automated surveillance and control’ of the internet. Metro.co.uk, 2018. 06. 20. Online: https://metro.co.uk/2018/06/20/eu-votes-copyright-law-kill-memes-introduce-automated-surveillan-ce-control-internet-7647997/

Hampel, Sherri Carl: Are samplers getting a bum rap: copyright infringement or technological creativity. University of Illinois Law Review, (1992), 2. 559–584.

Hansen, Hugh C.: International copyright: an unorthodox analysis. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 29. (1996). 579–593.

Hansmann, Henry – Marina Santilli: Authors’ and artists’ moral rights: a comparative legal and economic analysis. The Journal of Legal Studies, 26. (1997), 1. 95–143.

Hargreaves, Ian: Digital opportunity – a review of intellectual property and growth. Independent Report, 2011. Online: https://goo.gl/GGprAj

Harkai István: Az internet hatása a többszörözési és a nyilvánossághoz közvetítési jogra. PhD-értekezés. Szeged, Szegedi Tudományegyetem Állam- és Jogtudományi Doktori Iskola, 2020. Online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/286782855.pdf

Harpur, Paul – Nicolas Suzor: Copyright protections and disability rights: turning the page to a new international paradigm. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 36. (2013),3. 745–778.

Harris, Lesley Ellen: A single international copyright law. Australian Law Librarian, 9. (2001), 2. 134–136.

Hartnick, Alan J.: The defense of fair use: a primer. Touro Law Review, 15. (1998), 1. 153–176. Hayhurst, W. L.: The Canadian Supreme Court on copyright: CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada. Canadian Business Law Journal, 41. (2004). 134–148.

Haynes, Jason: Critically reconceptualizing the United Kingdom’s fair dealing exception to copyright infringement in light of the government’s most recent proposals for reform and lessons learnt from civil law countries. European Intellectual Property Review, 34. (2012), 12. 811–814.

Heide, Thomas P.: The moral right of integrity and the global information infrastructure: time for a new approach. U.C. Davis Journal of International Law & Policy, 2. (1996). 245–247. Heinke, Rex S. – Heather D. Rafter: Copyright, copywrong. Business Law Today, 3. (1994), 6. 24–29.

Helfer, Laurence R. – Graeme W. Austin: Human rights and intellectual property: mapping the global interface. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Herrera-Lim, Leo M. – Gerardo M. C. Valero: The critical effect test: toward the protection of parody as fair use. Philippine Law Journal, 59. (1984), 4.

Heymann, Laura A.: Reasonable appropriation and reader response. UC Irvine Law Review, 9. (2019), 2. 343–365.

Hicks, Randall B.: Requiem for a parody. Hastings Journal of Communications and Entertainment Law, 8. (1985), 1. 55–74.

Hilty, Reto M. – Sylvie Nérisson (szerk.): Balancing copyright – A survey of national approaches. Springer, 2012.

Hilty, Reto M.: Declaration on the three-step test: where do we go from here. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 1. (2010). 83–86.

Hobbs, Renee (szerk.): The Routledge Companion to media education, copyright, and fair use. London, Routledge, 2018.

Hoeren, Thomas: The European Union Commission and recent trends in European information law. Rutgers Computer Technology Law Journal, 29. (2003), 1. 1–31.

Hugenholtz, P. Bernt – Martin R.F. Senftleben: Fair use in Europe: in search of flexibilities. Amsterdam Law School Research Paper, (2012), 39. Online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2013239

Hugenholtz, P. Bernt (ed.): Harmonizing European copyright law – The challenges of better lawmaking. Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer Law International, 2009.

Hung, Lisan: The Supreme Court holds that parody may be a fair use under Section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. Computer & High Technology Law Journal, 10. (1994), 2. 507–518.

Husovec, Martin: Slovakia adopts a new copyright act: it’s a mixed bag – Part I. Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2016. 02. 29. Online: https://goo.gl/Eq0iP8

Husovec, Martin: The promises of algorithmic copyright enforcement: takedown or staydown? Which is superior? And why? Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 42. (2018), 1. 53–84.

Hutcheon, Linda: The theory of parody – The teachings of twentieth-century art forms. Chicago, University of Illinios Press, 2000.

Igaztollú Olivér levelei színházról, filmről, pletykáról. Magyar Közélet, 9. (1937), 9–10. 10–12.

Intellectual Property Office (United Kingdom): Copyright and the economic Effects of parody – an empirical study of music videos on the YouTube platform and an assessment of the regulatory options. 2013a.

Intellectual Property Office (United Kingdom): The Treatment of Parodies under copyright law in seven jurisdictions – a comparative review of the underlying principles. 2013b.

Itahara, Julie: Digital sampling: putting the pieces together. DePaul-LCA Journal of Art and Entertainment Law, 3. (1992), 1.

Iuliano, Jason: Is legal file sharing legal? An analysis of the Berne three-step test. Virginia Journal of Law & Technology, 16. (2011), 3. 464–501.

Izyumenko, Elena: The freedom of expression contours of copyright in the digital era: a European perspective. Journal of World Intellectual Property, 19. (2016), 3–4. 115–130. Online: https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12057

Jacobson, Nels: Faith, hope & parody: Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, Oh, pretty woman, and parodists’ rights. Houston Law Review, 31. (1994), 3.

Jacques, Sabine – Krzysztof Garstka – Morten Hviid – John Street: An empirical study of the use of automated anti-piracy systems and their consequences for cultural diversity. SCRIPTed: A Journal of Law, Technology and Society, 15. (2018), 2. 277–312.

Jacques, Sabine: First application of the Canadian parody exception. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 12. (2017), 11. 895–896.

Jacques, Sabine: The parody exception in copyright law. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2019.

Jamar, Steven D.: A social justice perspective on the role of copyright in realizing international human rights. Global Business & Development Law Journal, 25. (2012).

Jensen, William C.: Fair use: as viewed by the user. Dicta, 39. (1962), 1.

Jiménez, Enrique: The Babylonian disputation poems. Leiden, Brill, 2017.

Joffrain, Thierry: Deriving a (moral) right for creators. Texas International Law Journal, 36. (2001).

Jogesetek – a Magyar Királyi Curia, a Királyi Táblák és a Magyar Királyi Közigazgatási Bíróság elvi jelentőségű határozatai. Ügyvédek Lapja, 31. (1914), 21. Melléklet, 1–8.

Jollymore, Nicholas J.: Ancillary uses of collective works. Communications and the Law, 12. (1990), 3. 21.

Jones, Peter: Copyright law and moral rights. Waikato Law Review, 5. (1997). 83–96.

Jongsma, Daniël: Parody after Deckmyn. A comparative overview of the approach to parody under copyright law in Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 48. (2017). 652–682.

Jongsma, Daniël: AG Szpunar on copyright’s relation to fundamental rights: one step forward and two steps back? IPRinfo, (2019), 1. 1–18. Online: https://iprinfo.fi/wp-content/uploads/ sites/2/2019/02/FINAL_Jongsma_IPRinfo_1_2019.pdf

Jordan, Lynn M. – David M. Kelly: Another decade of Rogers v. Grimaldi: continuing to balance the Lanham Act with the first amendment rights of creators of artistic works. The Trademark Reporter, 109. (2019), 5. 833–874.

Joyce, James: Ulysses. Budapest, Európa, [1922] 2012.

Jun, Meeka – Steven D. Rosenboro: The WIPO treaties – The international battle over copy-right cyberturf. Entertainment and Sports Lawyer, 15. (1997), 3.

Junker, Carl: Die Berner convention zum schutze der werke der litteratur und kunst und Österreich-Ungarn. Wien, Hölder, 1900. Online: https://archive.org/details/diebernerconven00junkgoog/page/n5

Jütte, Bernd Justin: The EU’s trouble with mashups – From disabling to enabling a digital art form. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology & E-Commerce Law, 5. (2014), 3. 172–193.

Kairalla, Ryan: Work as weapon, author as target – Why parodies that target authors (not just their works) should be fair uses. New York University Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law, 2. (2013). 227–255.

Kampantai, Andromachi: Trademark parody: limit to the concept of dilution or inherent right of the public? UK Law Students Review, 3. (2015), 1. 41–54.

Kampelman, Max M.: The United States and international copyright. American Journal of International Law, 41. (1947), 2. 406–429.

Kang, John M.: Hustler v. Falwell: worst case in the history of the world, maybe the universe. Nevada Law Journal, 12. (2012), 3. 582–590.

Kapelke, Robert J.: Piracy or parody: never the Twain. University of Colorado Law Review, 38. (1966), 4. 550.

Kaplan, Lisa Moloff: Parody and the fair use defense to copyright infringement: appropriate purpose and object of humor. Arizona State Law Journal, 26. (1994).

Kardos Andrea – Szilágyi Dorottya: Szellemi alkotások büntetőjogi védelme – I. rész. Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle, 116. (2011), 6. 5–27. Online: www.sztnh.gov.hu/sites/default/files/kiadv/ipsz/201106-pdf/1112-szemle.pdf

Karlsson, Lisette: Copyright and the parody problem – An examination between the UK, Sweden and Canada. Doktori értekezés. Lund, Lund University Faculty of Law, 2013.

Karsay Enikő – Laetitia Lagarde – Nikos Prentoulis: When trade mark rights meet free speech. Managing Intellectual Property, 243. (2014).

Kaufman, Tracey L.: Rogers v. Koons and Sonnabend Gallery, Inc. 751 F. Supp. 474 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). DePaul-LCA Journal of Art and Entertainment Law, 2. (1992), 2. 50–51.

Keller, Bruce P. – David H. Bernstein: As satiric as they wanna be: parody lawsuits under copyright, trademark, dilution and publicity laws. The Trademark Reporter, 85. (1995), 3. 239–262.

Keller, Bruce P. – Rebecca Tushnet: Even more parodic than the real thing: parody lawsuits revisited. The Trademark Reporter, 94. (2004). 979–1016.

Kemp, Deborah J. – Lynn M. Forsythe – Ida M. Jones: Parody in trademark law – Dumb Starbucks makes trademark law look dumb. The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law, 14. (2015). 143–198.

Kennedy, Matthew: WTO dispute settlement and the TRIPS agreement – Applying intellectual property standards in trade law framework. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2016.

Kenoe, Lisa Broido: Parody: not always a laughing matter. Update on Law-Related Education, 7. (1983), 1.

Kent, Marian: From Sony to Kinko’s: dismantling the fair use doctrine. Journal of Law and Commerce, 12. (1992), 1.

Kernan, Alvin: The death of literature. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1990. Kerremans, Robin: A critical view on the European draft directive for orphan works. Queen

Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, 2. (2012), 1. 36–60. Online: https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2012.01.03

King, Joseph H.: Defamation claims based on parody and other fanciful communications not intended to be understood as fact. Utah Law Review, (2008), 3. 875–946.

Kis Réka: Az Európai Unió hatásköre a szerzői jog területén. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae: Legal Studies, 2. (2017), 6. 279–296.

Kiss Zoltán: Kommentár a szerzői jogról szóló 1999. évi LXXVI. törvényhez. (Online verzió.) Budapest, KJK-Kerszöv, 1999.

Kiss Zoltán: A szabad felhasználás az alkotómunka, a tudományos kutatás, az archiválás, vala- mint a magánce1ú és az intézményi cé1ú felhasználások forrásvidékein. Jura, 21. (2015), 2. 76–90.

Knapp, John C.: Laugh, and the whole world… Scowls at you? A defense of the United States’ fair use exception for parody under TRIPs. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 33. (2005). 347–366.

Koelman, Kamiel J.: Fixing the three-step test. European Intellectual Property Review, (2006), 8. 1–6.

Koltay András: A gyűlöletbeszéd korlátozásának elméleti szempontjai. Iustum Aequum Salutare, 7. (2011), 3. 111–124. Online: http://ias.jak.ppke.hu/hir/ias/20113sz/13.pdf

Koltay András: A közéleti szereplők hírnév- és becsületvédelme Európában. In Pogácsás Anett (szerk.): Quærendo et creando. Ünnepi kötet Tattay Levente 70. születésnapja tiszteletére. Budapest, Szent István Társulat, 2014.

Koltay András: A becsület, a jóhírnév és az emberi méltóság fogalmi elhatárolása a magyar magánjogban. In Koltay András – Darák Péter (szerk.): Ad Astra Per Aspera. Ünnepi kötet Solt Pál 80. születésnapja alkalmából. Budapest, Pázmány Press, 2017.

Korn, Alan: Renaming that tune: aural collage, parody and fair use. Golden Gate University Law Review, 22. (1992), 2. 321–370.

Kovács M. Dávid: Letiltották a Pamkutya Despacito-paródiáját. Index.hu, 2017. 08. 28. Online: https://index.hu/kultur/2017/08/28/letiltottak_a_pamkutya_despacito-parodiajat/

Kritharas, Theodoros: Challenge of copyright in the information society: copyright on the internet – Current legal aspects. Revue Hellenique de Droit International, 56. (2003).

Kur, Annette – Marianne Levin (szerk.): Intellectual property rights in a fair world trade system – Proposals for reform of TRIPS. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2011.

Kur, Annette: Of oceans, islands, and inland water – How much room for exceptions and limitations under the three step-test? Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property Competition & Tax Law Research Paper Series, (2008), No. 08-04. Online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1317707

Kwall, Roberta Rosenthal: Copyright and the moral right: is an American marriage possible? Vanderbilt Law Review, 38. (1985), 1. 1–69.

Kwall, Roberta Rosenthal: The soul of creativity: forging a moral rights law for the United States. Stanford, Stanford University Press, 2010.

Lae, Elina: Mashups – A protected form of appropriation art or a blatant copyright infringement. Virginia Sports and Entertainment Law Journal, 12. (2012), 1.

Lai, Amy: Copyright law and its parody defense – Multiple legal perspectives. New York University Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law, 4. (2015), 2. 311–336. Lai, Amy: The natural right to parody: assessing the (potential) parody/satire dichotomies in American and Canadian copyright laws. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, 35. (2018), 1. 69–98. Online: https://doi.org/10.22329/wyaj.v35i0.5111

Lai, Amy: The right to parody – Comparative analysis of copyright and free speech. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2019.

Lampke, Monique Bradley: Why the fair use defense of free speech or parody under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act needs judicial review by the United States Supreme Court. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 11. (2010), 1. 267–315.

Láncos Petra Lea: Az uniós soft law kutatásának főbb eredményei és aktuális kihívásai. Iustum Aequum Salutare, 14. (2018), 4. 56–68. Online: http://ias.jak.ppke.hu/hir/ias/20184sz/05_LancosPL_IAS_2018_4.pdf

Landy, Brian R.: The two strands of the fair use web: A theory for resolving the dilemma of music parody. Ohio State Law Journal, 54. (1993), 1. 227–259.

Langus, Gregor – Damien Neven – Gareth Shier: Assessing the economic impacts of adapting certain limitations and exceptions to copyright and related rights in the EU. Boston, Charles River Associates, 2013. Online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/5092b309-660e-48d7-a984-390ebb549062

Langwallner, David: The availability of a parody defence under Irish copyright Law: the United States as a model. Irish Business Law Quarterly, 2. (2007), 2.

Lawrence, Daniel L.: Addressing the value gap in the age of digital music streaming. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 52. (2019), 2. 511–543.

Leavens, Thomas R.: In defense of the unauthorized use: recent developments in defending copyright infringement. Law and Contemporary Problems, 44. (1981), 4. 3–26.

Lee, Yin Harn: United Kingdom copyright decisions and legislative developments 2014. München, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, 2015.

Legeza Dénes: Egy paragrafus margójára – Adalékok a munkaviszonyban létrehozott művek szabályozásához. Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle, 119. (2014), 2. 107–124. Online: www.sztnh.gov.hu/sites/default/files/kiadv/ipsz/201402-pdf/05.pdf

Lemley, Kevin M.: A proposal to expand the religious services exemption under the copyright act. University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review, 34. (2012), 3. 481–506.

Leonard, Claire: Copyright, moral rights and the first amendment: the problem of integrity and compulsory speech. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 35. (2012), 2. 293–320. Online: https://doi.org/10.7916/jla.v35i2.2177

Levin, Bob: The pirates and the mouse – Disney’s war against the counterculture. Seattle, Fantagraphics Books, 2003.

Light, Sheldon N.: Parody, burlesque, and the economic rationale for copyright. Connecticut Law Review, 11. (1979), 4. 615.

Lim, Eugene C.: On the uneasy interface between economic rights, moral rights and users’ rights in copyright law: can Canada learn from the UK experience? SCRIPTed: A Journal of Law, Technology and Society, 15. (2018), 1. 70–102.

Lipton, Jacqueline D.: Moral rights and supernatural fiction: authorial dignity and the new moral rights agendas. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 21. (2011), 3. 537–580.

Litman, Jessica: Digital copyright. Buffalo, Prometheus Books, 2006.

Little, Laura E.: Regulating funny – Humor and the law. Cornell Law Review, 94. (2008), 5. 1235–1292.

Liu, Jiarui: An empirical study of transformative use in copyright law. Stanford Technology Law Review, 22. (2019), 1. 163–241.

Liu, Joseph P.: Copyright and breathing space. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 30. (2007), 3–4. 101–123.

Liu, Kung-Chung – Haochen Sun: A universal copyright fund: a new way to bridge the copyright divide. National Taiwan University Law Review, 1. (2006), 2. 33–55.

Locke, Scott D.: Parallel novels and the reimagining of literary notables by follow-on authors: copyrights issues when characters are first created by others. Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property, 17. (2018), 2. 271–289.

Luhar, Namrata: Moral rights: origin, development, importance and challanges. International Journal of Legal Research Studies, 4. (2019), 4. 12–25.

Lula, Katie: Neither here nor there but fair: an international copyright legal system between east and west, past and present. Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal, 8. (2006), 1. 96–137. Mack, Robert L.: The genius of parody: imitation and originality in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century English literature. London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

MacMillan, Fiona: New directions in copyright law. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007.

Maier, Henrike: German Federal Court of Justice rules on parody and free use. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 12. (2017), 1. 16–17. Online: https://doi.org/10.1093/ jiplp/jpw169

Maier, Henrike: Remixe auf Hostingplattformen – Eine urheberrechtliche Untersuchung filmischer Remixe zwischen grundrechtsrelevanten Schranken und Inhaltefiltern. Heidelberg, Mohr Siebeck GmbH, 2018.

Malbon, Justin – Charles Lawson – Mark Davison: The WTO Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2014.

Marcus, George E.: The debate over parody in copyright law: an experiment in cultural critique. Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 1. (1989), 2. 295–316.

Marques, Jeannine M.: Fair use in the 21st century: Bill Graham and Blanch v. Koons. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 22. (2007), 1. 331–354.

Marquis, Mel: Fair use of the first amendment: parody and its protections. Seton Hall Constitutional Law Journal, 8. (1997), 1. 123.

Marshall, Lee: Bootlegging: romanticism and copyright in the music industry. London, SAGE Publications, 2005.

Marshman, Sara D.: Giving a country of pirates a chance: using the three-step test to accom- modate the shifting of national attitudes on copyright protection. George Washington International Law Review, 43. (2011), 4. 703–740.

Martin, Rebecca F.: The WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty: will the U.S. whistle a new tune? Copyright Society of the U.S.A. Journal, 44. (1997).

Martin-Bariteau, Florian: The idea of property in intellectual property. U.B.C. Law Review, 52. (2019), 3. 891–942.

Max Planck Institue for Innovation and Competition (MPI): Declaration – A balanced interpretation of the “three-step test” in copyright law. München, ATRIP Conference, 2008. Online: https://www.ip.mpg.de/fileadmin/ipmpg/content/forschung_aktuell/01_balanced/declaration_three_step_test_final_english1.pdf

McAloon, Ross: Comply or crumble: an analysis of Sec. 110(5) of the Copyright Act and a solution for its nonconformity. AIPLA Quarterly Journal, 40. (2012), 1. 167–195.

McBride, L. David: Same song, different verse – Parody as fair use after Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. Oklahoma Law Review, 48. (1995), 3. 627–649.

McCarthy, Kathleen E.: Free ride or free speech: predicting results and providing advice for trademark disputes involving parody. The Trademark Reporter, 109. (2019), 4. 691–778. McGeveran, William: The imaginary trademark parody crisis (and real one). Washington Law Review, 90. (2015), 2. 713–754.

McKenzie, Liz: Drawing lines: addressing cognitive bias in art appropriation cases. UCLA Entertainment Law Review, 20. (2013), 1. 83–106.

McLean, Willajeanne F.: All’s not fair in art and war: a look at the fair use defense after Rogers v. Koons. Brooklyn Law Review, 59. (1993), 2. 373–421.

Meale, Darren – Paul England: Barry Trotter and the infringement of copyright – Parody rules in the UK. Managing Intellectual Property, 178. (2008), 34.

Mee, Ben: Laughing matters: parody and satire in Australian copyright law. Journal of Law, Information and Science, 20. (2010), 1. 61–96.

Menell, Peter S.: Adapting copyright for the mashup generation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 164. (2016), 2. 441–512.

Merryman, John Henry: The refrigerator of Bernard Buffet. Hastings Law Journal, 27. (1976), 5. 1023–1049.

Merryman, John Henry: Thinking about the Elgin Marbles: critical essays on cultural property, art and law. Kluwer Law International, 2009.

Mezei, Péter: Fair use and culture: comments on the gowers review. University of Toledo Law Review, 39. (2008a), 3. 653–668.

Mezei Péter: Mitől fair a fair? Szerzői művek felhasználása a fair use-teszt fényében. Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle, (2008b), 6.

Mezei Péter: A szerzői jog jövője (is) a tét – Gondolatok a Google Books könyvdigitalizálási projektről. Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle, 116. (2011), 5. 5–47. Online: https://www.sztnh.gov.hu/sites/default/files/kiadv/ipsz/201105-pdf/1110-szemle.pdf

Mezei Péter: A technológia és a szerzői jog szimbiózisa. Jogtudományi Közlöny, 67. (2012), 5. 197–208.

Mezei Péter: Elképzeltem: nem lenne jó. In Pogácsás Anett (szerk.): Quærendo et creando. Ünnepi kötet Tattay Levente 70. születésnapja tiszteletére. Budapest, Szent István Társulat, 2014a.

Mezei Péter: Paródia az Európai Bíróságon. Copyright21 – Szerzői jog a XXI. században, 2014b. 06. 23. Online: https://goo.gl/2U762f

Mezei Péter: Vicces kedvében van az Európai Unió Bírósága. Copyright21 – Szerzői jog a XXI. században, 2014c. 09. 10. Online: https://goo.gl/EuEpxE

Mezei Péter: Paródia az Európai Bíróságon. In Homoki-Nagy Mária – Hajdú József (szerk.): Ünnepi kötet Dr. Czúcz Ottó egyetemi tanár 70. születésnapjára. Szeged, Szegedi Tudományegyetem Állam- és Jogtudományi Kar, 2016.

Mezei Péter: The development of Hungarian copyright law until the creation of the first copyright act. In Mira Sundara Rajan (szerk.): Cambridge handbook on intellectual property in Central and Eastern Europe. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2019.

Miller, Frank R.: A re-examination of literary piracy. University of Newark Law Review, 5. (1940), 4.

Modernising copyright. Dublin, Copyright Review Committee for the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, 2013. Online: https://goo.gl/nemvIR

Monseau, Susanna: Fit for purpose: why the European Union should not extend the term of related rights protection in Europe. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 19. (2009), 3. 1–63.

Moore, Schuyler: What’s so funny about parody? UCLA Entertainment Law Review, 11. (2004), 1. 21–25.

Mtima, Lateef: Copyright and social justice in the digital information society – Three steps toward intellectual property social justice. Houston Law Review, 53. (2015), 2. 459–504.

Munkácsi Péter – Kiss Zoltán: Magyarország csatalkozása a Berni Egyezményhez. In Pogácsás Anett (szerk.): Quærendo et creando. Ünnepi kötet Tattay Levente 70. születésnapja tiszteletére. Budapest, Szent István Társulat, 2014.

Munkácsi Péter: Félúton a rádió- és televízió-szervezetek szomszédos jogi védelmét érintő nemzetközi szerződéstervezet elfogadása felé – visszatekintés a 2002. évre. Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle, (2003), 1. Online: www.sztnh.gov.hu/hu/kiadv/ipsz/200302/02-munkacsi.html

Munkácsi Péter: Moral rights and the cultural aspects of Hungarian copyright law. In Mira Sundara Rajan (szerk.): Cambridge handbook on intellectual property in Central and Eastern Europe. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2019.

Murphy, Rachel D.: Tarzoon v. Tarzan: a new look at the legal status of parody. Art & The Law, 5. (1979).

Myers, Gary: Trademark parody: lessons from the copyright decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. Law and Contemporary Problems, 59. (1996), 2. 181–211.

Nash, Alaina: Does the parasitic nature of parody justify special protection under New Zealand’s copyright regime? Otago Law Review, 11. (2008), 4. 703–716.

Nathon, Natalie: The case of silk sandals and Jeff Koons: appropriation in art, copyright infringement and fair use. Studia Iuridica Auctoritate Universitatis Pecs Publicata, 151. (2013).

Netanel, Neil W.: Why has copyright expanded? Analysis and critique. UCLA School of Law Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series, (2007), No. 07-34. Online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1066241

Netterville, Victor S.: Copyright and tort aspects of parody, mimicry and humorous commentary. Southern California Law Review, 35. (1962), 3.

Ng’ambi, Sangwani Patrick: Parody: a defence for the defenceless satirist. Zambia Law Journal, 41. (2010). 1–22.

Nimmer, Raymond T.: The law of parody – Infringement. Valparaiso Universtiy Law Review, 3. (1968), 1. 34–55.

Nordemann, Axel: Berne and beyond: understanding international conventions relating to copyright law. Copyright Society of the U.S.A. Journal, 59. (2012).

Nordemann, Jan Bernd – Viktoria Kraetzig: The German Bundesgerichtshof changes its concept of parody following CJEU Deckmyn v. Vrijheidsfonds/Vandersteen. Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2016. 11. 03. Online: https://tinyurl.com/yasnut5x

Nótári Tamás: Remarks on early Hungarian copyright regulation. In Geistiges Eigentum und Urheberrecht aus der historischen Perspektive. Lectiones Iuridicae. Szeged, Pólay Elemér Alapítvány, 2014. Online: www.juris.u-szeged.hu/download.php?docID=30110

Nugent, William C.: A copyright quandary: parody, burlesque and the fair use doctrine. Albany Law Review, 29. (1965), 2.

Nunnenkamp, Kenneth J.: Musical parody: derivative use or fair use? Loyola Entertainment Law Journal, 7. (1987), 2. 299–320.

Ochoa, Tyler T.: Dr. Seuss, the Juice and fair use – How the Grinch silenced parody. Copyright Society of U.S.A. Journal, 45. (2014). Online: https://goo.gl/r1R7g2

Ochoa, Tyler T.: Dr. Seuss, the Juice and fair use revisited: two decades of parody and satire in copyright law. IDEA: The Law Review of the Franklin Pierce Center for Intellectual Property, 59. (2018), 1.

O’Connor, Robert B.: Rap parodies? An in-depth look at Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. v. Campbell. Fordham Entertainment, Media & Intellectual Property Law Forum, 2. (1992), 2. 239–251.

Okediji, Ruth: Toward an international fair use doctrine. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 39. (2000), 1. 75–175.

Okediji, Ruth: TRIPs dispute settlement and the sources of (international) copyright law. Copyright Society of the U.S.A. Journal, 49. (2001), 2. 585–648.

Oliver, Jo: Copyright in the WTO: the panel decision on the three-step test. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 25. (2002), 2–3. 1–16.

Olsson, A. Henry: New media and international copyright law. Journal of Media Law and Practice, 1. (1980), 1.

O’Malley, Brian S.: Fair use and audiovisual criticism. A Journal of Communications and Entertainment Law, 4. (1981), 3. 419–443.

Ortutay Gyula (szerk.): Magyar néprajzi lexikon. Budapest, Akadémiai, 1977–1982. Online: https://goo.gl/ndOZX3

Osorio, Gabrielle: Does literal Bohemian Rhapsody infringe copyright. Perth International Law Journal, 3. (2018). 58–72.

Paku Dorottya Irén: Digitális sampling a magyar és német szerzői jogban – I. rész. Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle, 124. (2019), 4. 74–108. Online: www.sztnh.gov.hu/sites/default/files/files/kiadv/szkv/szemle-2019-4/04.pdf.

Papadopoulou, Frantzeska: Copyright infringement in the „iron pipes film” case. IPKat blog, 2019. 08. 13. Online: https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/08/copyright-infringe-ment-in-iron-pipes.html

Part Krisztina Katalin: A szerzői jogi szabályozás kialakulása Angliában, Németországban és az Egyesült Államokban. Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle, (2006), 4. Online: www.sztnh.gov.hu/sites/default/files/kiadv/ipsz/200608-pdf/06_08_SZEMLE.pdf

Patry, William F. – Shira Perlmutter: Fair use misconstrued: profit, presumptions, and parody. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 11. (1993), 3. 667–719.

Peeler, Calvin D.: From the providence of kings to copyrighted things (and French moral rights). Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, 9. (1999). Online: https://doi.org/10.18060/17468

Pelz-Steel, Richard J.: Global warming trend? The creeping indulgence of fair use in international copyright law. Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal, 17. (2009). 267–288. Online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1669448

Perlmutter, Shira: Future directions in international copyright. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 16. (1998), 2–3.

Perraki, Marina: Moral rights: Could there be a European harmonisation – A comparative study of the common law and civil law approach. Revue hellénique de droit international, 53. (2000).

Pessach, Guy: Toward a new jurisprudence of copyright exemptions. IDEA – The Intellectual Property Law Review, 55. (2015), 2. 287–317.

Petridis, Sotiris: Postmodern cinema and copyright law: the legal difference between parody and pastiche. Quarterly Review of Film and Video, 32. (2015), 8. 728–736. Online: https://doi.org/10.1080/10509208.2015.1078273

Peukert, Alexander: A bipolar copyright system for the digital network environment. Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal, 28. (2005), 1. 1–56. Online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=801124

Peukert, Alexander: Territoriality and extraterritoriality in intellectual property law. In Günther Handl – Joachim Zekoll – Peer Zumbansen (szerk.): Beyond territoriality: transnational legal authority in an age of globalization. Leiden–Boston, Brill Academic Publishing, 2012.

Pogácsás Anett: Szerzői jog újratöltve. Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle, (2010), 6. Online: www.sztnh.gov.hu/sites/default/files/kiadv/ipsz/201012-pdf/02.pdf

Pogácsás Anett: A szerző jelentősége és művével való kapcsolata. Iustum Aequum Salutare, 10. (2014a), 1. 146–162. Online: http://ias.jak.ppke.hu/hir/ias/20141sz/11.pdf

Pogácsás Anett: A szerző fogalmának és jelentőségének alakulása napjainkban. In Pogácsás Anett (szerk.): Quærendo et creando. Ünnepi kötet Tattay Levente 70. születésnapja tiszteletére. Budapest, Szent István Társulat, 2014b.

Pogácsás Anett: Érték és szabadság. Iustum Aequum Salutare, 12. (2016), 1. 69–76. Online: http://ias.jak.ppke.hu/hir/ias/20161sz/07.pdf

Pogácsás Anett: Különbözőség az egységben – A szerzői jogi szabályozás differenciálódásának hatása a jogterület szerepére és hatékonyságára. Doktori értekezés. Budapest, Pázmány Péter Katolikus Egyetem Jog- és Államtudományi Doktori Iskola, 2017a. Onilne: https://goo.gl/Uusjdb

Pogácsás Anett: Tartalomáramlás és hozzáférés a szerzői jog „fogyasztói korszakában”. In Medias Res, 6. (2017b), 1. 146–169. Online: https://bit.ly/335Sgn4

Pogácsás Anett: A közkincs és a szerzői személyhez fűződő jogok. In Koltay András – Darák Péter (szerk.): Ad Astra Per Aspera. Ünnepi kötet Solt Pál 80. születésnapja alkalmából. Budapest, Pázmány Press, 2017c.

Pogácsás Anett: Garancia vagy akadály? A szerzői jogról való lemondás tilalmának helye egy rugalmas szerzői jogi rendszerben. Infokommunikáció és Jog, 14. (2017d), 1. 38–45. Online: https://infojog.hu/wp-content/uploads/pdf/201768_38_45_PogacsasAnett.pdf

Pogácsás Anett: A digitális mű integritásvédelmének aktuális kérdései. In Grad-Gyenge Anikó – Kabai Eszter – Menyhárd Attila (szerk.): Liber Amicorum – Studia G. Faludi Dedicata. Ünnepi tanulmányok Faludi Gábor 65. születésnapja tiszteletére. Budapest, ELTE Eötvös, 2018.

Pogácsás Anett: Contemporary problems of integrity protection of copyrighted works – In the light of Article 6bis of the Berne Convention and the recent practice of CJEU. In Szabó Marcell – Láncos Petra – Varga Réka (szerk.): Hungarian yearbook of international law and European Law. The Hague, Eleven International Publishing, 2019.

Posner, Richard A.: When is parody fair use? The Journal of Legal Studies, 21. (1992), 1. 67–78.

Prowda, Judith B.: Parody and fair use in copyright law: setting a fairer standard in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. Communications and the Law, 17. (1995).

Pusztai Ferenc: Magyar értelmező kéziszótár. Budapest, Akadémiai, 2003.

Quentel, Debra L.: Bad artists copy – good artists steal: The ugly conflict between copyright law and appropriationism. UCLA Entertainment Law Review, 4. (1996), 1. 39–80.

Quesenberry, LeGene: Copyright infringement in the wake of Rogers v. Koons. Atlantic Law Journal, 3. (2000). 61–71.

Quintais, Joho Pedro – Giancarlo Frosio – Stef van Gompel – P. Bernt Hugenholtz – Martin Husovec – Bernd Justin Jutte – Martin Senftleben: Safeguarding user freedoms in implementing Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 10. (2019), 3. 277–282.

Quintilianus, Marcus Fabius: Szónoklattan (Institutio oratoria). Budapest, Pesti Kalligram, 2009.

Rademacher, Jörg W.: Moderne und besondere Begabung. Münster, LIT Verlag, 2002. Ramalho, Ana: Parody in trademarks and copyright: has humour gone too far. Cambridge Student Law Review, 5. (2009), 1. 58.

Ramalho, Ana: The competence of the European Union in copyright lawmaking – A normative perspective of EU powers for copyright harmonization. Springer, 2016.

Ramsey, Lisa P.: Using failure to function doctrine to protect free speech and competition in trademark law. Iowa Law Review Bulletin, 104. (2019). 70–104.

Ranschburg Viktor: A szerzői jog nemzetközi védelmére alkotott berni egyezmény vonatkozással Magyarországra. Budapest, Eggenberger, 1901. Online: https://mek.oszk. hu/13000/13028/pdf/13028ocr.pdf

Reiser, Benjamin: Anything you can use, I can use better: examining the contours of fair use as an affirmative defense for theatre artists, creators, and producers. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 30. (2020), 3. 873–934.

Reuter, Markus: Protests against Copyright Directive: all cities, dates and numbers of parti- cipants across Europe. Netzpolitik.org, 2019. 03. 25. Online: https://netzpolitik.org/2019/ protests-against-copyright-directive-all-cities-dates-and-numbers-of-participants-acro-ss-europe/

Reynolds, Graham J.: Necessarily critical? The adoption of a parody defence to copyright infringement in Canada. Manitoba Law Journal, 33. (2009a), 2. 243–261.

Reynolds, Graham J.: A stroke of genius or copyright infringement: mashups and copyright in Canada. SCRIPTed: A Journal of Law, Technology and Society, 6. (2009b), 3. 639–668.

Rich, Bruce – Benjamin E. Marks (szerk.): The Media and Entertainment Law Review. London, Law Business Research Ltd., 2019.

Ricketson, Sam: WIPO study on limitations and exceptions of copyright and related rights in the digital environment. WIPO, SCCR/9/7, 2003. Online: www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/copyright/en/sccr_9/sccr_9_7.pdf

Rietjens, Bob: Copyright and the three-step test: are broadband levies too good to be true? International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 20. (2006), 3. 323–336.Online: https://doi.org/10.1080/13600860600852242

Ringnalda, Allard: National and international dimensions of copyright law in the internet age – Harmonizing exemptions: the case of Orphan Works. European Review of Private Law, 17. (2009), 5. 895–923.

Rimmer, Matthew: Digital copyright and the consumer revolution: hands off my iPod. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2007.

Ringer, Barbara A.: A new horizon for international copyright. Copyright Society of the U.S.A. Bulletin, 17. (1969), 2.

Rodin, Rita A.: Parody protection under the Fair Use Doctrine – The eveready standard: It keeps going, and going, and going. St. John’s Law Review, 66. (1993), 4. 1169–1192.

Rodin, Sinisa: Constitutional relevance of foreign court decisions. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 64. (2016), 4. 815–840. Online: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avw014

Rogers, Alexander H. – Cathy Ann Bencivengo: Dr. Seuss v. Penguin Books: Would-be parody fails to meet the targeting requirement. IPL Newsletter, 15. (1997), 3.

Romalho, Ana: Parody in trademarks and copyright – Has humour gone too far? Cambridge Student Law Review, 58. (2009), 5. 58–74.

Romero-Moreno, Felipe: Notice and staydown and social media: amending Article 13 of the Proposed Directive on Copyright. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 33. (2019), 2. 187–210. Online: https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2018.1475906

Rosati, Eleonora: Originality in EU copyright: full harmonization through case law. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2013.

Rosati, Eleonora: Is UK parody exception a parody of a parody exception? IPKat, 2014. 03. 29. Online: https://goo.gl/bEC3vA

Rosati, Eleonora: Just a laughing matter? Why the decision in Deckmyn is broader than parody. Common Market Law Review, 52. (2015), 2. 511–529.

Rosati, Eleonora: Parody and free use in Germany: Federal Court of Justice decides first parody case after Deckmyn. IPKat, 2016. 11. 06. Online: https://goo.gl/iKHkZD

Rosati, Eleonora: Non-commercial quotation and freedom of panorama. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 8. (2017), 4. 311–321.

Rosati, Eleonora: Copyright and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2019a.

Rosati, Eleonora: Paris Court of Appeal confirms that Koons’s ’Naked’ sculpture infringes copyright in ’Enfants’ photograph, rejecting freedom of the arts and parody defences. IPKat Blog, 2019b. 12. 23. Online: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/12/paris-court-of-appeal-confirms-that.html

Rose, Margaret A.: Parody: ancient, modern and post-modern. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Rossett, Arthur: Burlesque as copyright infringement. Copyright Law Symposium (ASCAP), 9. (1956).

Rowden, Cynthia – Tamara Céline Winegust: Untied tied up… United Airlines takes aim at complaint website (Part I). Bereskin & Parr, 2017. 09. 01. Online: www.bereskinparr.com/doc/untied-tied-up-united-airlines-takes-aim-at-complaint-website-part-i

Rozenfeldova, Laura – Pavol Sokol: Liability regime of online platforms’ new approaches and perspectives. EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series, (2019), 3. 866–887.

Saha, Rahul – Syron Mukherjee: Not so funny now is it: the serious issue of parody in intellectual property law. Indian Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 1. (2008).

Said, Zahr K.: Fair use in the digital age, and Campbell v. Acuff-Rose at 21. Washington Law Review, 90. (2015), 2. 579–596. Online: https://goo.gl/YNEs9q

Salazar, Pedro G.: The Acuff-Rose parody case: give unto the Congress what is the Congress’ and to the the States what is the States’. Revista Juridica de La Universidad Interamericana De Puerto Rico, 29. (1994), 1. 159–171.

Salokannel, Marjut– Alain Strowel – Estelle Derclaye: Study contract concerning moral rights in the context of the exploitation of works through digital technology. ETD/99/B5-3000/E/28, 2000. Online: http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=60475

Samuels, Edward: The importance of preserving copyright. Media Law & Policy, 10. (2002), 2. 21–22.

Samuelson, Pamela – Kathryn Hashimoto: Is the U.S. fair use doctrine compatible with Berne and TRIPS obligations? UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper, 2018. Online: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3228052

Sanders, Charles J. – Steven R. Gordon: Stranger in parodies: Weird Al and the law of musical satire. Fordham Entertainment Media & Intellectual Property Law Forum, 1. (1990), 1. 11–46.

Sanderson, Paul: Musicians’ legal problems: a select and annotated bibliography of Canadian and comparative law-related materials. Queen’s Law Journal, 11. (1985), 1.

Sápi Edit: A hazai szerzői jogi jogalkotás fontosabb állomásai. Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle, 124. (2019a), 6. 59–71.

Sápi Edit: A színpadi művek szerzői joga. Budapest, Patrocinium, 2019b. Online: http://patroci- nium.hu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/S%C3%A1pi-Edit-A-sz%C3%ADnpadi-m%C5%B-1vek-szerz%C5%91i-joga.pdf

Scassa, Teresa – Michael Eugene Deturbide: Electronic commerce and internet law in canada. Toronto, CCH Canadian Limited, 2004.

Scassa, Teresa: Intellectual property on the cyber-picket line: a comment on British Columbia Automobile Assn. v. Office and Professional Employees’ International Union, Local 378. Alberta Law Review, 39. (2002), 4. 934–962. Online: https://doi.org/10.29173/alr1391

Schmidt-Kessen, Maria Jose: EU digital single market strategy, digital content and geo-blocking: costs and benefits of partitioning EU’s internal market. Columbia Journal of European Law, 24. (2018), 3. 561–576.

Schooner, Steven L.: Obscene parody: the judicial exception to fair use analysis. Journal of Arts Management and Law, 14. (1984), 3. 69–94. Online: https://doi.org/10.1080/07335113.1984.9942133

Schuler, Anna: Insta-appropriation – Finding boundaries for the second circuit’s fair use doctrine after Campbell. Fordham Law Review, 85. (2016), 1. 367–397.

Schwabach, Aaron: Reclaiming copyright from the outside in – What the downfall Hitler meme means for the transformative works, fair use and parody. Buffalo Intellectual Property Law Journal, 8. (2012), 1. 1–25.

Schwartz, Eric J.: An overview of the international treatment of exceptions. Copyright Society of the U.S.A. Journal, 57. (2010), 3.

Schwertner Nikolett Beatix: A zeneművek szerzői jogi szabályozása egy zeneszerző szemszögéből. Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle, 119. (2014), 3. 66–87. Online: www.sztnh.gov.hu/sites/default/files/kiadv/ipsz/201403-pdf/03.pdf

Scialabba, Elena Elmerinda: A copy of a copy of a copy: internet mimesis and the copyrigh- tability of memes. Duke Law & Technology Review, 18. (2020), 1. 332–352.

Selvin, Herman F.: Parody and burlesque of copyrighted works as infringement. Copyright Society of the U.S.A. Bulletin, 6. (1958).

Senftleben, Martin: Towards a horizontal standard for limiting intellectual property rights? – WTO panel reports shed light on the three-step test in copyright law and related tests in patent and trademark law. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 37. (2006), 4. 407–438. Online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1723871

Senftleben, Martin: The international three-step test – A model provision for EC fair use legislation. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 1. (2010a), 2. 67–82.

Senftleben, Martin: Bridging the differences between copyright’s legal traditions – The emerging EC fair use doctrine. Copyright Society of the U.S.A. Journal, 57. (2010b), 3. 521–552.

Senftleben, Martin: Quotations, parody and fair use. In Bernt P. Hugenholtz – Antoon Quaedvlieg – Dirk Visser (szerk.): 1912–2012 – A century of Dutch copyright law. Amstelveen, deLex, 2012. Online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2125021 Seucan, Andreea: The concept of parody. Juridical Tribune, 5. (2015), 1. 99–105.

Seville, Catherine: The space needed for parody within copyright law – Reflections following Deckmyn. National Law School of India Review, 27. (2015).

Shakespeare, William: Troilus és Cressida. Budapest, Európa, 1983.

Sheinblatt, Julie S.: The WIPO Copyright Treaty. Berkeley Techonlogy Law Journal, 13. (1998), 1. 535–550. Online: http://dx.doi.org/10.15779/Z383X1Q

Shikhiashvili, Lia: The same problem, different outcome: online copyright infringement and intermediary liability under US and EU laws. Intellectual Property and Technology Law Journal, 24. (2019), 1. 128–154. Online: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3431704

Shipley, David E.: A dangerous undertaking indeed: juvenile humor, raunchy jokes, obscene materials and bad taste in copyright. Kentucky Law Journal, 98. (2010), 3. 517–572.

Shipley, David E.: A transformative use taxonomy: making sense of the transformative use standard. Wayne Law Review, 63. (2018), 2. 267–336.

Sider, David: Hellenistic poetry: a selection. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 2017.

Silverman, Iona: The parody exception analysed. Managing Intellectual Property, 254. (2015).

Simon, David A.: Reasonable perception and parody in copyright law. Utah Law Review, 3. (2010), 7. 779–858.

Sirabella, Nicholas D.: Separating the sheep from the goats: celebrity satire as fair use. Cardozo Law Review, 33. (2011), 2.

Sites, Brian: Fair use and the new transformative. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 39. (2016), 4. 539–550. Online: https://doi.org/10.7916/jla.v39i4.2069

Smith, Marlin H.: The limits of copyright: property, parody, and the public domain. The Duke Law Journal, 42. (1993), 6. 1233–1272.

Somervill, Cynthia B.: The use of an altered song in amateur musical productions as copyright infringement. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 3. (1984), 2. 319–342.

Spies, Anna: Revering irreverence – A fair dealing exception for both weapon and target parodies. UNSW Law Journal, 34. (2011), 3. 1122–1144.

Spilsbury, Sallie: Rewriting the rule book: the latest on the draft copyright directive. Entertainment and Sports Law Journal, 17. (2019), 1. Online: https://doi.org/10.16997/eslj.224

Spindler, Gerald: The liability system of Art. 17 DSMD and national implementation: contravening prohibition of general monitoring duties. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 10. (2019), 3.

Spoerri, Thomas: On upload-filters and other competitive advantages for big tech companies under Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 10. (2019), 2. 173–186.

Spoo, Robert: Injuries, remedies, moral rights, and the public domain. James Joyce Quarterly, 37. (2000), 3–4. 333–366.

Suhl, Natalie C.: Moral rights protection in the United States under the Berne Convention: A fictional work? Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, 12. (2002), 4. 1203–1228.

Sun, Haochen: Overcoming the Achilles heel of copyright law. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 5. (2007), 2. 264–331. Online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1021027

Swift, Jonathan: Gulliver utazásai. Budapest, Aquila, [1726] 1999.

Szabó Sarolta: Alapvető jogok védelme és az Európai Unió nemzetközi magánjoga. Iustum Aequum Salutare, 10. (2014), 2. 49–60. Online: http://ias.jak.ppke.hu/hir/ias/20142sz/06.pdf

Szigeti Krisztina: A bírói jogértelmezés és a hetedik Alaptörvény-módosítás. Eljárásjogi Szemle, (2018), 4. 9–17.

Tan, Corinne: Regulating content on social media – Copyright, terms of service and technological features. London, UCL Press, 2018.

Tasker, Tyrone: Parody or satire as a defense to trademark infringement. The Trademark Reporter, 77. (1987), 3. 216–247.

Tattay Levente: Változások a szellemi alkotások nemzetközi jogában. Külgazdaság, jogi melléklet, 46. (2002), 2. 17–32.

Tattay Levente: A szellemi alkotások teljes körű újraszabályozása Magyarországon. Iustum Aequum Salutare, 5. (2009), 2. 149–164. Online: http://ias.jak.ppke.hu/hir/ias/20092sz/11.pdf

Tattay Levente: A szellemi tulajdonjogok fejlődéstörténete az Európai Unióban (1958– 2010). In Jakab Éva (szerk.): Geistiges Eigentum und Urheberrecht aus der historischen Perspektive. Szeged, Pólay Elemér Alapítvány, 2013. Online: http://juris.oldportal.u-sze-ged.hu/download.php?docID=30113

Tattay Levente: Versenyképesség és szellemi alkotások az Európai Unióban. Budapest, Wolters Kluwer, 2017a.

Tattay Levente: A szellemi alkotások területén bekövetkezett jogfejlődés dimenziói Magyarországon (1990–2016). In Darák Péter – Koltay András (szerk.): Ad astra per aspera. Ünnepi kötet Solt Pál 80. születésnapja alkalmából. Budapest, Pázmány Press, 2017b. 635–664. Online: https://jak.ppke.hu/uploads/collection/207/file/SoltPal_kotet_2017.pdf

Tehranian, John: The new censorship. Iowa Law Review, 101. (2015), 1. 245–295.

Thau, Stephen B.: Copyright, privacy, and fair use. Hofstra Law Review, 24. (1995), 1. 179–221.

Thornton, Patrick K.: Cultural behemoths collide – Carol Burnett v. Family Guy. Entertainment & Sports Law, 25. (2007), 3. 8–9.

Timkovich, Elizabeth Troup: The new significance of the four fair use factors as applied to parody: interpreting the court’s analysis in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 5. (2003). 63–75.

Todd, Jeff: Satire in defamation law: toward a critical understanding. The Review of Litigation, 35. (2016), 1. 45–69.

Torremas, Paul C. (szerk.): Copyright and human rights – Freedom of expression, intellectual property, privacy. Kluwer Law International, 2004.

Torsen, Molly: Authorial rights and artistic works: an analysis of the international calibration. eLaw Journal, 15. (2008a), 2. 230–245.

Torsen, Molly: The artist, the muse and the audience: international calibrations for authorial rights in visual works. Art Antiquity and Law, 13. (2008b), 2. 115–132.

Totah, Suheil Joseph: Copyright law in defense of parody. Golden Gate University Law Review, 17. (1987). 57–75.

Tóth Andrea Katalin: A linkelés jelene és jövője az Egyesült Államok és az Európai Unió jog- gyakorlata alapján. Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle, 121. (2016a), 1. 62–84. Online: www.sztnh.gov.hu/sites/default/files/files/kiadv/szkv/szemle-2016-01/03-t-thandrea.pdf

Tóth Andrea Katalin: Az európai szerzői jogi harmonizáció és a territorialitás kérdése. Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle, 121. (2016b), 4. 9–43. Online: www.sztnh.gov.hu/sites/default/files/files/kiadv/szkv/szemle-2016-04/02.pdf

Tóth Andrea Katalin: Szerzői jogi reform az Európai Unióban. Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle, 122. (2017), 4. 7–30. Online: www.sztnh.gov.hu/sites/default/files/files/kiadv/szkv/szemle-2017-04/01-tothandrea.pdf

Treiger-Bar-Am, Kim: Kant on copyright: rights of transformative authorship. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment, 25. (2008), 3. 1059–1103.

Triaille, Jean-Paul (szerk.): Study on the application of Directive 2001/29/EC on copyright and related rights in the information society. London, De Wolf & Partners, 2013. Online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9ebb5084-ea89-4b3e-bda2-33816f11425b

Tune, Cydney A. – Jenna F. Leavitt: Family Guy creators’ fair use wish comes true. Entertainment and Sport Lawyer, 27. (2009), 2.

Tushnet, Rebecca: Judges as bad reviewers: fair use and epistemological humility. Law & Literature, 25. (2013), 1. 20–32.

Tushnet, Rebecca: Content, purpose, or both. Washington Law Review, 90. (2015), 2. 869–892. Tyler, Duane: Copyright – Fair use doctrine defense to copyright infringement claim available to parodists only if copyrighted material is at least in part, an object of the parody. Temple Law Quarterly, 55. (1982), 4.

Ujhelyi Dávid: A szerzői jog célja és emberképe a szellemi alkotásokat megalapozó elméletek tükrében. Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle, 119. (2014), 5. 34–52. Online: https://goo.gl/IPYzaG

Ujhelyi Dávid: Az IP Clause értelmezési lehetőségei az Egyesült Államok szerzői jogában. Iustum Aequum Salutare, 11. (2015), 4. 111–118.

Ujhelyi Dávid: Paródiával kapcsolatos döntés született Németországban. Copyright21 – Szerzői jog a XXI. században, 2016. 09. 07. Online: https://goo.gl/xzf4Mm

Ujhelyi Dávid: A Kanadai Szövetségi Bíróság átvette a Deckmyn-döntés paródiafogalmát. Copyright21 – Szerzői jog a XXI. században, 2017a. 07. 07. Online: http://copy21.com/2017/07/dontesfigyelo-1-5-a-kanadai-szovetsegi-birosag-atvette-a-deckmyn-dont-es-parodia-fogalmat/

Ujhelyi Dávid: Értem a viccet, csak nem szeretem, avagy van-e szükség paródiakivételre a magyar szerzői jogban? Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzői Jogi Szemle, 122. (2017b), 3. 45–95. Online: www.sztnh.gov.hu/sites/default/files/files/kiadv/szkv/szemle-2017-03/03-ujhe-lyidavid.pdf

Ujhelyi Dávid: Paródiával kapcsolatos döntés született Magyarországon. Copyright21 – Szerzői jog a XXI. században, 2020. 05. 03. Online: http://copy21.com/2020/05/parodiaval-kapcsolatos-dontes-szuletett-magyarorszagon/

Van Coppenhagen, Vanessa: Copyright and the WIPO Copyright Treaty, with specific reference to the rights applicable in a digital environment and the protection of technological measures. The South African Law Journal, 119. (2002).

van der Walt, A. J. – Richard Michael Shay: Parody as a means to advance the objectives of copyright law. South African Mercantile Law Journal, 25. (2013). Online: https://goo.gl/qla6ay

van Eechoud, Mireille: The work of authorship. Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press, 2014.

Van Hecke, Beth Warnken: But seriously, Folks: toward a coherent standard of parody as fair use. Minnesota Law Review, 77. (1992), 2. 465–494.

Villalón, Pedro Cruz főtanácsnoki indítványa a C-201/13. sz. ügyben. 2014. május 22. Online: http://goo.gl/VmKS9g

Visser, Coenraad: The location of the parody defence in copyright law: some comparative perspectives. Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa, 38. (2005), 3. 321–343.

Visszakerült Pamkutyáék Despacito-paródiája YouTube-ra. Szeretlekmagyarorszag.hu, 2017. 08. 31. Online: www.szeretlekmagyarorszag.hu/visszakerult-pamkutyaek-despacito-parodiaja-youtube-ra/

Vogel, Jason M.: The Cat in the Hat’s latest bad trick: the ninth circuit’s narrowing of the parody defense to copyright infringement in Dr. Seuss Enterprises v. Penguin Books USA, Inc. Cardozo Law Review, 20. (1998), 1. 287–320.

Voltaire: Candide vagy az optimizmus. Budapest, Európa, [1759] 2011.

von Lewinski, Silke: International copyright over the last 50 years – A foreign perspective. Copyright Society of the U.S.A. Journal, 50. (2003). 581–607.

Walton, L. Richard.: Heartbreak Hotel in B-Flat Broke: music, money and (un)fair use. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 21. (2003), 2–3. 423–432.

Wang, Leonard W.: The first amendment exception to copyright: a proposed test. Wisconsin Law Review, (1977), 4. 1158–1192.

Warnecke, A. Michael: The art of applying the fair use doctrine: the postmodern-art challenge to the copyright law. Review of Litigation, 13. (1994), 3.

Warrington, Tara M.: Harry Potter and the doctrine of fair use – Conjuring a new copyright complaint. Florida Coastal Law Review, 10. (2009).

Warshaw, Robert G.: Copyright infringement: all is fair as Falwell hustles Flynt. Loyola Entertainment Law Journal, 7. (1987), 2. 439–451.

Watson, Margaret E.: Unauthorized digital sampling in musical parody: a haven in the fair use doctrine. Western New England Law Review, 21. (1999), 2. 469–512.

Watt, Andrew: Parody and post-modernism: the story of Negativland. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 25. (2002), 2.

Weir, Moana: Making sense of copyright law relating to parody – A moral rights perspective. Monash University Law Review, 18. (1992), 2. 194–206.

Westkamp, Guido: The implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC in the member states. London, Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute, 2007. Online: https://goo.gl/Iea1EJ

Westkamp, Guido: The three-step test and copyright limitations in Europe: European copyright law between approximation and national decision making. Copyright Society of the U.S.A. Journal, 56. (2008), 1. 1–66.

Wheelwright, Kevin W.: Parody, copyrights and the first amendment. University of San Francisco Law Review, 10. (1976), 3. 564–586.

WIPO: Records of the Intellectual Property Conference of Stockholm, Volume I. Geneva, 1971a. Online: www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_311_vol_i.pdf

WIPO: Records of the Intellectual Property Conference of Stockholm, Volume II. Geneva, 1971b. Online: www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_311_vol_ii.pdf

WIPO: Guide to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Geneva, 1978. Online: www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/copyright/615/wipo_pub_615.pdf

WIPO: Records of the Diplomatic Conference on Certain Copyright and Neighboring Rights Questions – Volume 1. Geneva, 1996a. Online: www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_348_vol_i.pdf

WIPO: Records of the Diplomatic Conference on Certain Copyright and Neighboring Rights Questions – Volume 2. Geneva, 1996b. Online: www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/ wipo_pub_348_vol_ii.pdf

WIPO: WIPO’s Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances set to enter into force with Indonesia’s ratification; aims to improve livelihoods of actors and other audiovisual per- formers. Press release, PR/2020/845. WIPO.int, 2020. 01. 28. Online: https://bit.ly/3tQazsC

Wise, William J.: Copyright: infringement: parody of dramatic production held not to be fair use. Michigan Law Review, 56. (1958), 8.

Wright, Robin: The three-step test and the wider public interest: towards a more inclusive interpretation. Journal of World Intellectual Property, 12. (2009), 6. 600–621. Online: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1796.2009.00378.x

WTO: United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act – Report of the panel. WT/DS160/R, 2000a. Online: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds160_e.htm

WTO: Canada – Patent protection of pharmaceutical products. WT/DS114/R, 2000b. Online: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/7428d.pdf

Xalabarder, Raquel: Google Books and fair use: a tale of two copyrights. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Law, 5. (2015), 1. 53–59.

Xalabarder, Raquel: The role of the CJEU in harmonizing EU copyright law. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 47. (2016). 635–639.

Yankwich, Leon R.: Parody and burlesque in the law of copyright. The Canadian Bar Review, 33. (1955), 10. 1130–1154.

Yen, Alfred C.: When authors won’t sell – Parody, fair use and efficiency in copyright law. University of Colorado Law Review, 62. (1991). 79–108.

Yonover, Geri J.: The „dissing” of Da Vinci: the imaginary case of Leonardo v. Duchamp: moral rights, parody, and fair use. Valparaiso University Law Review, 29. (1995), 2. 935–1004. Yonover, Geri J.: The precarious balance, moral rights, parody, and fair use. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 14. (1996), 1. 79–126.

YouTube: Fair use guidelines. 2020. Online: www.youtube.com/intl/hu/about/copyright/fair-use/

Yu, Peter K.: TRIPS enforcement and developing countries. American University International Law Review, 26. (2011), 3. 727–782.

Yu, Peter K.: Can the Canadian UGC exception be transplanted abroad? Intellectual Property Journal, 26. (2014a). 177–205. Online: https://goo.gl/ZVynTB

Yu, Peter K.: Moral rights 2.0. Texas A&M Law Review, 1. (2014b), 4. 873–900. Online: https://doi.org/10.37419/LR.V1.I4.3

Yu, Peter K.: Digital copyright and the parody exception in Hong Kong. Media Asia, 41. (2014c), 2. 119–123. Online: https://doi.org/10.1080/01296612.2014.11690005

Yu, Peter K.: Fair use and its global paradigm evolution. University of Illinois Law Review, 1. (2019). 111–169.

Zekos, Georgios I.: Copyrights and trademarks in cyberspace – A legal and economic analysis. Chicago–Kent Journal of Intellectual Property, 15. (2016), 1. 313–363.

Zissu, Roger L.: Funny is fair – The case for according increased value to humor in copyright fair use analysis. Copyright Society of the U.S.A. Journal, 55. (2008).

Zissu, Roger L.: Expanding fair use: the trouble with parody, the case for satire. Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A., 64. (2017). 1–18.

A paródiakivétel szükségessége és lehetséges keretrendszere a hazai szerzői jogban

Szerzők

Absztrakt

Információk a szerzőről

Hivatkozások

Letöltések

Megjelenés

Kategóriák

License

Részletek a kiadványról

ISBN-13 (15)

Nyelv