SCOPE expressionとは 意味・読み方・使い方

According to this High Court judgment, although due criticism of, comments on, and introduction of activities for public entertainment performed by a personality should be respected in light of the freedom of expression, the act of selling, under the pretext of the freedom of expression, a publication for commercial purposes that includes a photograph (an image etc.) of or comments on such personality without his/her consent thereto should be beyond the scope of his/her due activities involving the matters pertaining to the freedom of expression. The judgment further argues that the object matter of the expression (a magazine with photos) should be much less valued than that (a published book) in the King Crimson Case and concluded that such magazine is not worthy of being protected on the ground of the freedom of expression. It would appear that this judgment has led to a slightly different approach that does not necessarily place emphasis on the protection of the freedom of expression.発音を聞く 例文帳に追加

同高裁判決は、芸能活動への正当な批判や批評、紹介については、表現の自由として尊重されなければならないとする一方、表現の自由の名のもとに、当該芸能人に無断で商業的な利用目的でその芸能人の写真（肖像等）や記述を掲載した出版物を販売することは、正当な表現活動の範囲を逸脱するものと述べており、対象とされた表現行為（写真掲載雑誌）の価値をキングクリムゾン高裁判決（出版書籍）に比べ著しく低く、表現の自由の保護に値しないとしており、この判断が（表現の自由の保護に比重を大きく置かない）上記判示につながったものと考えられる。 - 経済産業省

The High Court judgment of the King Crimson Case emphasizes the freedom of expression as a legally protected interest conflicting with the value of publicity rights, and argues that a person should be considered as having infringed the publicity rights only if he/she "solely utilized" the celebrity's power to attract customers. On the other hand, the appeals trial judgment for the Bubka Idol case ruled that the publicity rights had been infringed by employing the criteria considering broader range of circumstances (not limited to cases where (the celebrity's power to attract customers) had been "solely utilized" by arguing that the photo magazine deviates from the scope of being protected on the ground of the freedom of expression.発音を聞く 例文帳に追加

キングクリムゾン高裁判決は、パブリシティ価値に対置される表現の自由という法的利益を重視し、「専ら利用した」と言える場合にパブリシティ権侵害を肯定し、他方、ブブカアイドル事件控訴審判決は、写真掲載誌は表現の自由の保護の範囲を逸脱するものだとして、より一般的な（「専ら利用した」場合に限定しない）基準により、パブリシティ権の侵害を認めた。 - 経済産業省

The originally attached description mentions the expression "amusement media" as a generic concept and exemplifies coins and balls as amusement media but does not exemplify "using amusement cards." There is no basis for reasoning that it is obvious to a person skilled in the art who contacts the originally attached description that the "amusement media" represents "amusement cards in which the amount of coins or a sum of money is stored." Consequently, the amendment is not within the scope of the matters stated in the originally attached description, etc.発音を聞く 例文帳に追加

出願当初の明細書には、「遊技媒体」と上位概念で記載されており、遊技媒体の例示として、コイン、球については記載されているものの、「遊技カード」を用いる点については記載されておらず、当初明細書に接した当業者にとって、「遊技媒体」が「コイン数または金額が記憶された遊技カード」を意味することが明らかであると言える根拠はないから、補正は、当初明細書等に記載した事項の範囲内においてするものとはいえない。 - 特許庁

In case that the statement in the claim does not express a specific medicinal use but a general medicinal use, where the claim directed to a medicinal invention (for example, in case where the statement expresses not a "pharmaceutical agent for disease X consisting of..." but a "pharmaceutical agent consisting of..."), it should not be deemed a violation of Article 36(6)(ii) merely because the statement expresses a general use (i.e., merely because the scope of the claim is relatively broad) unless the expression makes unclear the invention for which a patent is sought. (Refer to Examination Guidelines, Part I, Chapter 1, 2.2.2.2(3)).発音を聞く 例文帳に追加

なお、請求項中に医薬用途を意味する記載のある医薬発明において、医薬用途を具体的なものに限定せずに一般的に表現した請求項の場合(例えば、「～からなる疾病 X 用の医薬」ではなく、単に「～からなる医薬」等のように表現した場合)については、その一般的表現の用語の存在が特許を受けようとする発明を不明確にしないときは、単に一般的な表現であることのみ(すなわち概念が広いということのみ)を根拠として第 36 条第 6 項第2号違反とはしない。 - 特許庁

Therefore, whether or not the dissemination of such photograph is unlawful should be determined by comprehensive consideration of circumstances such as the extent his/her portrait rights or privacy are infringed. Circumstances which may be considered include; the relevancy between the object matter appearing therein, his/her activities in society, the place and method of photographing, and whether or not such photograph is an indispensable means for the photographer to express his/her intention. In other words the court, in considering whether the photograph is lawful will consider, whether or not the level of infringement is within the scope reasonably tolerated in our lives, in light of the balancing the need for protection of portrait and privacy rights with the need for protection of freedom of expression."発音を聞く 例文帳に追加

そこで、写真の撮影・頒布が違法となるかどうかは、それによる肖像権ないしプライバシーの侵害の程度がどの位か、撮影対象事項とその者の社会的活動との関係がどの程度か、その写真撮影の場所・態様がどのようなものであるか、その写真が当該表現行為に必要不可欠なものかどうか等を併せ考慮し、肖像権及びプライバシー保護の必要性と表現の自由保護の必要性とを比較衡量して、その侵害が社会生活上受忍の限度を超えるものかどうかを判断してこれを決すべきである。」とする。 - 経済産業省