Juridica

A Work Becoming Available for Public Use. Problems in Determining the Term of Copyright Validity

Anna Emilie Ferschel — 2025-07-25 18:20:28

The transition of works into the public domain and the determination of copyright expiration dates can be a complex and multifaceted issue at the international level, influenced by different national legal frameworks, bilateral and multilateral trade agreements, and international conventions. While the European Union has largely harmonised copyright durations, certain discrepancies remain in non-EU countries, which can affect the determination of expiration dates beyond the country of origin and the cross-border use of works. This creates situations where a work is in the public domain in one country but remains protected in another.

At the international level, the rule of the shorter term plays a significant role, allowing countries to apply the copyright term valid in the work’s country of origin. However, the application of this principle depends on each country’s national legislation and international agreements, which may introduce exceptions.

Clarity concerning copyright expiration dates is crucial for achieving a balance between intellectual property protection and creative freedom. Uncertainty in copyright duration can also limit the use of works already in the public domain. Therefore, further research into the principles of copyright term determination and the clarification of legal frameworks is necessary to ensure that they serve both rights holders and the public interest, while simultaneously promoting access to and the development of cultural and scientific creativity.

Options for Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in the Context of Computer-Based Inventions

Ruth Kõvamees — 2025-07-25 18:25:32

The complementary components of digital technology are software and hardware. Hardware is a collection of devices and equipment, and software is everything needed to make the hardware work. Software includes both computer programs and their supporting materials (e.g., documentation, files, data). Computer programs consist of source code and object code. The source code is written by a programmer in a programming language and contains commands given to the computer. In order for the hardware to understand these commands, the source code is converted into machine-readable object code using a compiler or interpreter. The object code consists of bits and is not human-readable.

The different aspects of computer programs, the fact that they combine both written text and functional characteristics, raise the question of which intellectual property mechanism is appropriate to use in their case. On the one hand, there is written source code, which allows a computer program to be treated as a literary work. The programmer writes a computer program in a familiar programming language, using program commands. This can be compared to literature, where writers compose sentences from existing words. Programming languages, like all other languages, consist of vocabulary, semantics, and syntax, which help to compose text in that language. On the other hand, a computer program has a practical function when it gives commands to the hardware in the form of object code to perform certain operations, and on this basis, a computer program can be regarded as an application.

The Revised European Design Directive: An Overview of the Most Important Changes and Their Impact on Design Law in Estonia

Liina Puu — 2025-07-25 18:30:25

On 8 December 2024, Directive (EU) 2024/2823 (hereinafter referred to as the Directive) entered into force, updating design rights and renewing the first Design Directive (98/71/EC) adopted over 20 years ago. Member States have been given 36 months from the date of entry into force of the Directive to implement it, meaning that national law must be brought into line with the Directive by 9 December 2027, at the latest.

The Directive introduces several amendments that update the legal protection of designs, including the conditions for applying for it. The completed amendments expand the concept of design and product, harmonise the design registration process, and supplement the possibilities for enforcing the rights of design owners. A so-called ‘repair clause’ has also been added to the Directive, with the aim of harmonising the spare parts market in Member States. This article focuses primarily on the impact of the Directive on design law in Estonia, with an emphasis on procedural aspects.

Common Practices in Trademark Matters Within the European Union Intellectual Property Network

Tanel Kalmet — 2025-07-25 18:33:24

Since 2011, the European Union Intellectual Property Network (EUIPN) (or its predecessor) has developed and published several common practices for harmonising European Union trademark law. Since the 2015 trademark law reform, the harmonisation of European Union trademark law through common practices has gained a legal basis. The harmonisation of practices will take place in a participatory and consensus-oriented transparent process and will be based on existing European Union law, including case law. Although Member States’ intellectual property offices are free to participate in or refrain from harmonising their practices, all common practices have so far been widely accepted. As a rule, the offices have expressed their willingness to adopt common practices.

In introducing the EUIPN, it has been stated that the aim of this form of cooperation is to achieve a genuine system of trademarks and designs in Europe. This means that common practices, services, and tools are used in the interests of intellectual property specialists and rights holders. The article explains the results achieved through cooperation on common practices and analyses how these contribute to the achievement of a ‘genuine trademark system’ in the context of trademark law.

The article provides an overview of common practices in trademark law. In doing so, the numerical sequence of common practices (which does not correspond to their chronological sequence anyway) is disregarded, and practices that are similar in terms of subject matter are grouped together. To date, 15 common practice documents have been published. Also noteworthy is an unnumbered document on new types of trademarks, whose function is comparable to common practices.

Copyright Committee of the Estonian Patent Office: Competence, Proceedings, and Role as Conciliator

Kadri Kroodo — 2025-07-25 18:34:52

The Copyright Committee resolves disputes between parties in the field of copyright and related rights through conciliation. The Committee is an extrajudicial dispute resolution body whose purpose is to support the enforcement of rights provided for by copyright law more quickly, easily, and effectively than is possible through court proceedings. The Committee’s proceedings are based on the provisions of the Conciliation Act. Conciliation is an internationally recognised method of dispute resolution in the field of intellectual property, including copyright. If the parties reach a consensus without the help of the court, this promotes the development of a culture of conflict resolution among the parties themselves and in general, and out-of-court dispute resolution bodies are also seen more broadly as a solution to the overburdened court system.

Despite the advantages of conciliation proceedings, such as confidentiality and lower time and financial costs, the Copyright Committee has not become an effective alternative dispute resolution body for copyright and related rights disputes in Estonia that is well known to creative persons and content users and used by them in case of problems. According to the draft copyright law prepared by the Estonian Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs in early 2024, the Committee needs to be reformed, particularly in terms of its composition, rules of procedure, and legal policy function. Stakeholders see a need to make the Committee’s proceedings mandatory, considering it a key factor in improving the Committee’s efficiency.

Supervision Over Collective Management Organisations and Its Challenges

Rovin Raie — 2025-07-25 18:38:12

Overall, the adoption of Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and the Council has had a positive impact, facilitating the management of collective management organisations (CMOs) on the one hand and contributing to the establishment of an EU-wide supervisory framework on the other. This has helped harmonise supervisory practices across Member States and ensure the transparency of CMOs. However, the supervisory practices of Member States have not been without challenges.

For instance, supervisory authorities are not always certain whether their existing supervisory measures and their implementation are effective or whether their supervisory activities meet the minimum requirements set out in the Directive. On the other hand, the distinction between CMOs and independent management entities (IMEs) is not always clear in more complex cases, raising a central question as to whether a particular case falls within the scope of Directive 2014/26/EU.

Different interpretations of the scope of Directive 2014/26/EU also emerge in disputes between CMOs and IMEs. In a recent case, C-10/22, which concerned the freedom of a cross-border IME to operate in the territory of another Member State, (CJEU). According to the CJEU’s ruling, Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in conjunction with Directive 2014/26, must be interpreted as opposing national legal provisions that generally and entirely exclude an IME established in another Member State from providing copyright management services in the first-mentioned Member State.

Heinrich Schneider – His Time, Crossroads, and Research Legacy

Arno Almann — 2025-07-25 18:40:54

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of Heinrich Schneider, the Doctor of Laws and one of Estonia’s most respected lawyers, lecturers, researchers, advisers, and legal theory.

He was born on 11 June 2025 in Viru County and attended Neeruti Primary School and Rakvere Secondary School, and gained his first work experience on his family’s farm in Vandu Village. He lived through the loss of Estonian independence and took part in defending Finland’s freedom during World War II, to which the whirlwind of war had led him. When he returned to Estonia after the war, it was clear that the country had fallen under foreign rule for an indefinite period. This greatly affected the course of his life and limited his choices.

It was a stroke of luck, and perhaps coincidence, that his brief time in Finland during the war did not prevent him from finishing high school, enrolling at the University of Tartu, pursuing postgraduate studies, and beginning a research career at the Academy of Sciences. For several years, he worked at the Faculty of Law of Tartu State University, where he was a valued lecturer and colleague.

In 1974, he completed and defended an extensive doctoral dissertation. However, it was not until 16 years later that he found out about the confirmation of his doctorate in law and the decision why its proceedings had been paused. Like many decisions in a totalitarian regime, this one was shrouded in secrecy. Only later, as the Soviet empire began to crumble, did those hidden details begin to emerge. One institution worth acknowledging here is the Estonian Scientific Research Institute of Agriculture and Land Improvement in Saku. From 1974–1993, when Heinrich Schneider, the Doctor of Law, was expelled from the Faculty of Law and effectively erased from the academic scene, this institute welcomed him as part of its community.

In the second half of the 1980s, major changes began. Cracks appeared in the once ‘unbreakable’ Soviet system, and Estonian played an important role in pushing for change. The decisions adopted by the Supreme Council of the Estonian SSR, in particular the amendments to the Constitution of the Estonian SSR and the Declaration of Sovereignty adopted on 16 November 1988, have a central significance here.

In the following years, however, Estonia faced enormous challenges. On the one hand, it had to endure a serious confrontation with the central power of the Soviet Union and, on the other hand, it was necessary to start creating a legal order for an independent state. This was a difficult and historic task for all involved in the legal field. During this period, Heinrich Schneider was invited to apply his knowledge in these new and demanding circumstances.

In August 1993, as a logical continuation of this effective and versatile work, he was appointed as an adviser to the Constitutional Review Chamber of the Supreme Court. This was a position he held until his death on 4 June 2013. During the restoration of Estonia’s independence and beyond, he played a key role in drafting many important legal acts that formed the basis of the independent legal order of Estonia, including the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Estonia. His contributions were not limited to legal drafting: he also offered deep analysis and solutions to complex issues in state and legal theory. He continued this work until the last days of his life.

Considering that the research legacy he created between 1990 and 2013 is extensive and diverse, this article focuses only on selected aspects. The main criterion for selection was whether and to what extent the ideas written down nearly three decades ago resonate with us today and whether they can also be used to find solutions to contemporary problems.

The topics covered in this article are listed as questions extracted from the relevant articles by Schneider and to which Schneider offers either answers or its own solutions. Such an approach is deliberate in order to explain the historical background of the research problem and the development of legal thought.

The topics included in the selection are the following: ‘What is the law capable of?’, ‘What is local self-government?’, ‘Does the foundation hold?’, ‘Why the system approach?’, ‘Is inherited legal theory the reason for the emergence of problems in state theory?’, and ‘Are the fundamental principles of the Constitution national-cultural values?’

In conclusion, many of the problems raised by Schneider still remain unresolved, and the questions posed at that time are still waiting to be answered. It is possible that when finding answers to some of them, it is worth returning to the historical heritage and past experience, and uncovering the root causes of the problems. In this regard, Schneider’s research legacy remains a valuable resource.