Proprietary rights (365,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Proprietary rights
Total judgments found: 5

• Judgment 842

  
  63rd Session, 1987
  European Southern Observatory
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  The organisation's "patent attorney may have made use of the papers but that is immaterial to the issue in dispute between it and the complainant. The fact remains that he retained the patent attorney on his own initiative and in his own interest, and without any authorisation from the ESO. That being so, the ESO is not under any legal obligation to reimburse to the complainant the amount of fees he contracted to pay the patent attorney."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 780, 840, 841
  

  Keywords:

  complainant; counsel; organisation's duties; proprietary rights; refund; request by a party;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 627

  
  54th Session, 1984
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  "As a general principle copyright in respect of work carried out on behalf of the employer within the scope of the official's duties at the request of his supervisors, during working hours and with the means provided by the employer vests in the employer."

  Keywords:

  organisation; proprietary rights;
  

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  The incorporation by the complainant of original material in the management training scheme does not confer ipso facto copyright on him. Although the complainant may have worked the scheme out at a time when he was not in the organisation's employ, "he did then use experience he had gained as an ILO official and later he went back to work with the ILO. There is nothing in the dossier which lends support to any entitlement on the part of the complainant to either exclusive or shared copyright in the [...] scheme".

  Keywords:

  proprietary rights;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 611

  
  53rd Session, 1984
  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  "Although [the applicable rule] states no restriction on Unesco's rights, that does not relieve the Organization of respect for the staff member's personal rights. First, as the Tribunal has held, where the Organization state the authorship of a publication, the principle of equal treatment requires them to name all of the authors. Secondly, they may not, where there are several authors, mislead as to the contribution each has made. They may not declare that someone has written the whole of a report when he has written only part of it."

  Keywords:

  organisation's duties; proprietary rights;
  

  Consideration 6

  Extract:

  "In two of its judgments the Tribunal has already ruled on a text akin to [the rule in question, which prescribes the organization's rights in work produced by its staff] and upheld it as valid. The precedents bear out Unesco's interpretation of that rule. [Furthermore], fairly similar provisions are to be found in legislation in several countries. Accordingly, even if the rule does not reflect any universally acknowledged concept it must be given some weight."

  Keywords:

  case law; domestic law; organisation; proprietary rights; publication;
  

  Summary

  Extract:

  Copyright in that portion of the technical report written by the complainant during his free time and containing data from outside his official area of knowledge is wholly vested in the organization. The provision on which the organization relies is a staff rule applicable even though not based on any provision of the Staff Regulations; whenever the report was drafted and whatever its content, it is part of the complainant's professional duties and its nature remains the same; the organization had discretion to alter the complainant's draft, as they were free to publish the report at all.

  Keywords:

  organisation; proprietary rights; publication; right;
  

  Consideration 1

  Extract:

  "The complainant submits that Unesco have infringed his copyright. Though not expressly alleging non-observance of a provision of the Staff Regulations or Staff Rules or a clause of his contract, he is objecting to the Organization's treatment of him as a staff member on the grounds that they have not respected his status as such. The Tribunal is therefore competent to hear the case under Article II(5) of its Statute".

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II, PARAGRAPH 5, OF THE STATUTE
  
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; organisation's duties; proprietary rights;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 471

  
  47th Session, 1982
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  According to the applicable provision, "when the organization employs staff to produce works of scholarship, it holds all author's rights, including copyright and reproduction rights. [...] The text was written for the [organization] and at its request. The complainant received no special remuneration for the other manuals which he wrote, and which have been published. From that it is clear that he did not hold copyright."

  Keywords:

  complainant; proprietary rights; publication;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 66

  
  11th Session, 1962
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  An international civil servant is not entitled to require that the publication of work carried out within the scope of his duties be done under his name. "However, where the organisation decides of its own volition that the publication shall bear the name of its authors, the organisation is bound to respect the principle of equality as between officials in the same position and, consequently, to mention the name of all those who can claim authorship."

  Keywords:

  equal treatment; proprietary rights; publication;
  

  Consideration 3

  Extract:

  "An official of an international organisation has no rights whatsoever in the results of such work as he performs and such studies as he carries out on behalf of the organisation within the scope of his duties, at the request of his supervisors, during hours of work and with the means provided by the administration. In particular, where the organisation decides to publish the work and studies he has conducted [...] the official is not entitled to require that they be published under his name."

  Keywords:

  condition; proprietary rights; publication; terms of appointment;
  

  Consideration 1

  Extract:

  While "the complainant does not rely on any specific provision of the Staff Regulations and Rules, which do not specifically refer to the matter in issue, his submissions, aimed at securing recognition of rights to which he lays claim by virtue of his position as an international civil servant and relying on a violation of these rights, appertain exclusively to his statutory position in regard to the organization. Hence the complaint is amongst those which it falls to the Administrative Tribunal to entertain by virtue of Article II, paragraph 5, [of the Statute of the Tribunal]."

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT reference: ARTICLE II, PARAGRAPH 5, OF THE STATUTE
  
  

  Keywords:

  competence of tribunal; no provision; proprietary rights;
  

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  Owing to illness, the complainant took no part in the drafting of the text. His contribution was limited to supplying documents which were used by the authors to study one of the aspects of the general problem which they were invited to consider. In these circumstances, "whatever the undisputed scientific value of the complainant's work and its usefulness for the substance and presentation of part of the paper, the complainant cannot be regarded as co-author of the said paper."

  Keywords:

  condition; proprietary rights;