| Quintais, J. AI decrypted: AI, copyright & text and data mining (TDM) 06.09.2023, (Video podcast at Information Labs.). @misc{nokey,
title = {AI decrypted: AI, copyright \& text and data mining (TDM)},
author = {Quintais, J.},
url = {https://informationlabs.org/podcasts/ai-lab/joaopedroquintais-06sept23/},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-09-06},
urldate = {2023-09-06},
publisher = {AI Lab by Information Labs},
note = {Video podcast at Information Labs.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {presentation}
}
|
| Appelman, N., Fahy, R., Quintais, J. Using Terms and Conditions to apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation In: German Law Journal, 2023. @article{nokey,
title = {Using Terms and Conditions to apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation},
author = {Quintais, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R.},
doi = {10.1017/glj.2023.53},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-07-11},
journal = {German Law Journal},
abstract = {Large online platforms provide an unprecedented means for exercising freedom of expression online and wield enormous power over public participation in the online democratic space. However, it is increasingly clear that their systems, where (automated) content moderation decisions are taken based on a platformʼs terms and conditions (T\&Cs), are fundamentally broken. Content moderation systems have been said to undermine freedom of expression, especially where important public interest speech ends up suppressed, such as speech by minority and marginalized groups. Indeed, these content moderation systems have been criticized for their overly vague rules of operation, inconsistent enforcement, and an overdependence on automation. Therefore, in order to better protect freedom of expression online, international human rights bodies and civil society organizations have argued that platforms “should incorporate directly” principles of fundamental rights law into their T\&Cs. Under EU law, and apart from a rule in the Terrorist Content Regulation, platforms had until recently no explicit obligation to incorporate fundamental rights into their T\&Cs. However, an important provision in the Digital Services Act (DSA) will change this. Crucially, Article 14 DSA lays down new rules on how platforms can enforce their T\&Cs, including that platforms must have “due regard” to the “fundamental rights” of users under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In this article, we critically examine the topic of enforceability of fundamental rights via T\&Cs through the prism of Article 14 DSA. We ask whether this provision requires platforms to apply EU fundamental rights law and to what extent this may curb the power of Big Tech over online speech. We conclude that Article 14 will make it possible, in principle, to establish the indirect horizontal effect of fundamental rights in the relationship between online platforms and their users. But in order for the application and enforcement of T\&Cs to take due regard of fundamental rights, Article 14 must be operationalized within the framework of the international and European fundamental rights standards. If this is possible Article 14 may fulfil its revolutionary potential.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Large online platforms provide an unprecedented means for exercising freedom of expression online and wield enormous power over public participation in the online democratic space. However, it is increasingly clear that their systems, where (automated) content moderation decisions are taken based on a platformʼs terms and conditions (T&Cs), are fundamentally broken. Content moderation systems have been said to undermine freedom of expression, especially where important public interest speech ends up suppressed, such as speech by minority and marginalized groups. Indeed, these content moderation systems have been criticized for their overly vague rules of operation, inconsistent enforcement, and an overdependence on automation. Therefore, in order to better protect freedom of expression online, international human rights bodies and civil society organizations have argued that platforms “should incorporate directly” principles of fundamental rights law into their T&Cs. Under EU law, and apart from a rule in the Terrorist Content Regulation, platforms had until recently no explicit obligation to incorporate fundamental rights into their T&Cs. However, an important provision in the Digital Services Act (DSA) will change this. Crucially, Article 14 DSA lays down new rules on how platforms can enforce their T&Cs, including that platforms must have “due regard” to the “fundamental rights” of users under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In this article, we critically examine the topic of enforceability of fundamental rights via T&Cs through the prism of Article 14 DSA. We ask whether this provision requires platforms to apply EU fundamental rights law and to what extent this may curb the power of Big Tech over online speech. We conclude that Article 14 will make it possible, in principle, to establish the indirect horizontal effect of fundamental rights in the relationship between online platforms and their users. But in order for the application and enforcement of T&Cs to take due regard of fundamental rights, Article 14 must be operationalized within the framework of the international and European fundamental rights standards. If this is possible Article 14 may fulfil its revolutionary potential.
|
| Quintais, J., Trapova, A. EU copyright law round up – second trimester of 2023 In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2023. @article{nokey,
title = {EU copyright law round up \textendash second trimester of 2023},
author = {Trapova, A. and Quintais, J.},
url = {https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2023/06/30/eu-copyright-law-round-up-second-trimester-of-2023/},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-06-30},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Dergacheva, D., Katzenbach, C., Quintais, J., Schwemer, S. Improving Data Access for Researchers in the Digital Services Act In: 2023. @article{nokey,
title = {Improving Data Access for Researchers in the Digital Services Act},
author = {Dergacheva, D. and Katzenbach, C. and Schwemer, S. and Quintais, J.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4465846},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-06-01},
abstract = {Joint submission in response to the Call for Evidence on the Delegated Regulation on data access provided for in the Digital Services Act (DSA). Article 40 DSA is a crucial provision to operationalize the regulation’s risk mitigation provisions vis-a-vis very large online platforms (VLOPs) and very large search engines (VLOSEs). In essence, Article 40 DSA enables data access to Digital Services Coordinators (DSCs) or the Commission, “vetted researchers” and other researchers, provided certain conditions are met. Our submission is predominantly concerned with the data access for vetted researchers and researchers in relation to VLOPs.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Joint submission in response to the Call for Evidence on the Delegated Regulation on data access provided for in the Digital Services Act (DSA). Article 40 DSA is a crucial provision to operationalize the regulation’s risk mitigation provisions vis-a-vis very large online platforms (VLOPs) and very large search engines (VLOSEs). In essence, Article 40 DSA enables data access to Digital Services Coordinators (DSCs) or the Commission, “vetted researchers” and other researchers, provided certain conditions are met. Our submission is predominantly concerned with the data access for vetted researchers and researchers in relation to VLOPs. |
| Quintais, J. Generative AI, Copyright and the AI Act In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2023. @article{nokey,
title = {Generative AI, Copyright and the AI Act},
author = {Quintais, J.},
url = {https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2023/05/09/generative-ai-copyright-and-the-ai-act/},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-05-09},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
abstract = {Generative AI is one of the hot topics in copyright law today. In the EU, a crucial legal issue is whether using in-copyright works to train generative AI models is copyright infringement or falls under existing text and data mining (TDM) exceptions in the Copyright in Digital Single Market (CDSM) Directive. In particular, Article 4 CDSM Directive contains a so-called “commercial” TDM exception, which provides an “opt-out” mechanism for rights holders. This opt-out can be exercised for instance via technological tools but relies significantly on the public availability of training datasets. This has led to increasing calls for transparency requirements. In response to these calls, the European Parliament is considering adding to its compromise version of the AI Act two specific obligations with copyright implications on providers of generative AI models: on (1) transparency and disclosure; and (2) on safeguards for AI-generated content moderation. There is room for improvement on both.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Generative AI is one of the hot topics in copyright law today. In the EU, a crucial legal issue is whether using in-copyright works to train generative AI models is copyright infringement or falls under existing text and data mining (TDM) exceptions in the Copyright in Digital Single Market (CDSM) Directive. In particular, Article 4 CDSM Directive contains a so-called “commercial” TDM exception, which provides an “opt-out” mechanism for rights holders. This opt-out can be exercised for instance via technological tools but relies significantly on the public availability of training datasets. This has led to increasing calls for transparency requirements. In response to these calls, the European Parliament is considering adding to its compromise version of the AI Act two specific obligations with copyright implications on providers of generative AI models: on (1) transparency and disclosure; and (2) on safeguards for AI-generated content moderation. There is room for improvement on both.
|
| Meiring, A., Quintais, J., Senftleben, M. Outsourcing Human Rights Obligations and Concealing Human Rights Deficits: The Example of Monetizing User-Generated Content Under the CDSM Directive and the Digital Services Act In: 2023. @article{nokey,
title = {Outsourcing Human Rights Obligations and Concealing Human Rights Deficits: The Example of Monetizing User-Generated Content Under the CDSM Directive and the Digital Services Act},
author = {Senftleben, M. and Quintais, J. and Meiring, A.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4421150},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-04-26},
abstract = {With the shift from the traditional safe harbor for hosting to statutory content filtering and licensing obligations, EU copyright law has substantially curtailed the freedom of users to upload and share their content creations. Seeking to avoid overbroad inroads into freedom of expression, EU law obliges online platforms and the creative industry to take into account human rights when coordinating their content filtering actions. Platforms must also establish complaint and redress procedures for users. The European Commission will initiate stakeholder dialogues to identify best practices. These “safety valves” in the legislative package, however, are mere fig leaves. Instead of safeguarding human rights, the EU legislator outsources human rights obligations to the platform industry. At the same time, the burden of policing content moderation systems is imposed on users who are unlikely to bring complaints in each individual case. The new legislative design in the EU will thus “conceal” human rights violations instead of bringing them to light. Nonetheless, the DSA rests on the same \textendash highly problematic \textendash approach.
Against this background, the paper discusses the weakening \textendash and potential loss \textendash of fundamental freedoms as a result of the departure from the traditional notice-and-takedown approach. Adding a new element to the ongoing debate on content licensing and filtering, the analysis will devote particular attention to the fact that EU law, for the most part, has left untouched the private power of platforms to determine the “house rules” governing the most popular copyright-owner reaction to detected matches between protected works and content uploads: the (algorithmic) monetization of that content. Addressing the “legal vacuum” in the field of content monetization, the analysis explores outsourcing and concealment risks in this unregulated space. Focusing on large-scale platforms for user-generated content, such as YouTube, Instagram and TikTok, two normative problems come to the fore: (1) the fact that rightholders, when opting for monetization, de facto monetize not only their own rights but also the creative input of users; (2) the fact that user creativity remains unremunerated as long as the monetization option is only available to rightholders. As a result of this configuration, the monetization mechanism disregards users’ right to (intellectual) property and discriminates against user creativity. Against this background, we discuss whether the DSA provisions that seek to ensure transparency of content moderation actions and terms and conditions offer useful sources of information that could empower users. Moreover, we raise the question whether the detailed regulation of platform actions in the DSA may resolve the described human rights dilemmas to some extent.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
With the shift from the traditional safe harbor for hosting to statutory content filtering and licensing obligations, EU copyright law has substantially curtailed the freedom of users to upload and share their content creations. Seeking to avoid overbroad inroads into freedom of expression, EU law obliges online platforms and the creative industry to take into account human rights when coordinating their content filtering actions. Platforms must also establish complaint and redress procedures for users. The European Commission will initiate stakeholder dialogues to identify best practices. These “safety valves” in the legislative package, however, are mere fig leaves. Instead of safeguarding human rights, the EU legislator outsources human rights obligations to the platform industry. At the same time, the burden of policing content moderation systems is imposed on users who are unlikely to bring complaints in each individual case. The new legislative design in the EU will thus “conceal” human rights violations instead of bringing them to light. Nonetheless, the DSA rests on the same – highly problematic – approach.
Against this background, the paper discusses the weakening – and potential loss – of fundamental freedoms as a result of the departure from the traditional notice-and-takedown approach. Adding a new element to the ongoing debate on content licensing and filtering, the analysis will devote particular attention to the fact that EU law, for the most part, has left untouched the private power of platforms to determine the “house rules” governing the most popular copyright-owner reaction to detected matches between protected works and content uploads: the (algorithmic) monetization of that content. Addressing the “legal vacuum” in the field of content monetization, the analysis explores outsourcing and concealment risks in this unregulated space. Focusing on large-scale platforms for user-generated content, such as YouTube, Instagram and TikTok, two normative problems come to the fore: (1) the fact that rightholders, when opting for monetization, de facto monetize not only their own rights but also the creative input of users; (2) the fact that user creativity remains unremunerated as long as the monetization option is only available to rightholders. As a result of this configuration, the monetization mechanism disregards users’ right to (intellectual) property and discriminates against user creativity. Against this background, we discuss whether the DSA provisions that seek to ensure transparency of content moderation actions and terms and conditions offer useful sources of information that could empower users. Moreover, we raise the question whether the detailed regulation of platform actions in the DSA may resolve the described human rights dilemmas to some extent. |
| Diakopoulos, N., Quintais, J. A Primer and FAQ on Copyright Law and Generative AI for News Media 2023. @online{nokey,
title = {A Primer and FAQ on Copyright Law and Generative AI for News Media},
author = {Quintais, J. and Diakopoulos, N.},
url = {https://generative-ai-newsroom.com/a-primer-and-faq-on-copyright-law-and-generative-ai-for-news-media-f1349f514883},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-04-26},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
|
| Quintais, J., Trapova, A. EU copyright law round up – first trimester of 2023 In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2023. @article{nokey,
title = {EU copyright law round up \textendash first trimester of 2023},
author = {Trapova, A. and Quintais, J.},
url = {https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2023/04/13/eu-copyright-law-round-up-first-trimester-of-2023/},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-04-13},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Dergacheva, D., Harkai, I., Katzenbach, C., Mezei, P., Quintais, J., Riis, T., Schwemer, S. Copyright Content Moderation in the EU: Conclusions and Recommendations 2023. @techreport{nokey,
title = {Copyright Content Moderation in the EU: Conclusions and Recommendations},
author = {Quintais, J. and Katzenbach, C. and Schwemer, S. and Dergacheva, D. and Riis, T. and Mezei, P. and Harkai, I.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/ssrn-id4403423/
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4403423\&s=09},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-03-30},
abstract = {This report is a deliverable in the reCreating Europe project. The report describes and summarizes the results of our research on the mapping of the EU legal framework and intermediaries’ practices on copyright content moderation and removal. In particular, this report summarizes the results of our previous deliverables and tasks, namely: (1) our Final Report on mapping of EU legal framework and intermediaries’ practices on copyright content moderation and removal; and (2) our Final Evaluation and Measuring Report - impact of moderation practices and technologies on access and diversity.
Our previous reports contain a detailed description of the legal and empirical methodology underpinning our research and findings. This report focuses on bringing together these findings in a concise format and advancing policy recommendations. },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
This report is a deliverable in the reCreating Europe project. The report describes and summarizes the results of our research on the mapping of the EU legal framework and intermediaries’ practices on copyright content moderation and removal. In particular, this report summarizes the results of our previous deliverables and tasks, namely: (1) our Final Report on mapping of EU legal framework and intermediaries’ practices on copyright content moderation and removal; and (2) our Final Evaluation and Measuring Report - impact of moderation practices and technologies on access and diversity.
Our previous reports contain a detailed description of the legal and empirical methodology underpinning our research and findings. This report focuses on bringing together these findings in a concise format and advancing policy recommendations. |
| Dergacheva, D., Katzenbach, C., Quintais, J., Riis, T., Schwemer, S. Impact of content moderation practices and technologies on access and diversity 2023, (D.6.3 Final Evaluation and Measuring Report). @techreport{nokey,
title = {Impact of content moderation practices and technologies on access and diversity},
author = {Schwemer, S. and Katzenbach, C. and Dergacheva, D. and Riis, T. and Quintais, J.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4380345},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-03-23},
abstract = {This Report presents the results of research carried out as part of Work Package 6 “Intermediaries: Copyright Content Moderation and Removal at Scale in the Digital Single Market: What Impact on Access to Culture?” of the project “ReCreating Europe”, particularly on Tasks 6.3 (Evaluating Legal Frameworks on the Different Levels (EU vs. national, public vs. private) and 6.4 (Measuring the impact of moderation practices and technologies on access and diversity). This work centers on a normative analysis of the existing public and private legal frameworks with regard to intermediaries and cultural diversity, and on the actual impact on intermediaries’ content moderation on diversity.},
note = {D.6.3 Final Evaluation and Measuring Report},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
This Report presents the results of research carried out as part of Work Package 6 “Intermediaries: Copyright Content Moderation and Removal at Scale in the Digital Single Market: What Impact on Access to Culture?” of the project “ReCreating Europe”, particularly on Tasks 6.3 (Evaluating Legal Frameworks on the Different Levels (EU vs. national, public vs. private) and 6.4 (Measuring the impact of moderation practices and technologies on access and diversity). This work centers on a normative analysis of the existing public and private legal frameworks with regard to intermediaries and cultural diversity, and on the actual impact on intermediaries’ content moderation on diversity. |
| De Gregorio, G., Magalhães, J.C., Quintais, J. How platforms govern users’ copyright-protected content: Exploring the power of private ordering and its implications In: Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 48, 2023. @article{nokey,
title = {How platforms govern users’ copyright-protected content: Exploring the power of private ordering and its implications},
author = {Quintais, J. and De Gregorio, G. and Magalh\~{a}es, J.C.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/computer_law_and_security_review_2023/},
doi = {10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105792},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-02-24},
journal = {Computer Law \& Security Review},
volume = {48},
abstract = {Online platforms provide primary points of access to information and other content in the digital age. They foster users’ ability to share ideas and opinions while offering opportunities for cultural and creative industries. In Europe, ownership and use of such expressions is partly governed by a complex web of legislation, sectoral self- and co-regulatory norms. To an important degree, it is also governed by private norms defined by contractual agreements and informal relationships between users and platforms. By adopting policies usually defined as Terms of Service and Community Guidelines, platforms almost unilaterally set use, moderation and enforcement rules, structures and practices (including through algorithmic systems) that govern the access and dissemination of protected content by their users. This private governance of essential means of access, dissemination and expression to (and through) creative content is hardly equitable, though. In fact, it is an expression of how platforms control what users \textendash including users-creators \textendash can say and disseminate online, and how they can monetise their content.
As platform power grows, EU law is adjusting by moving towards enhancing the responsibility of platforms for content they host. One crucial example of this is Article 17 of the new Copyright Directive (2019/790), which fundamentally changes the regime and liability of “online content-sharing service providers” (OCSSPs). This complex regime, complemented by rules in the Digital Services Act, sets out a new environment for OCSSPs to design and carry out content moderation, as well as to define their contractual relationship with users, including creators. The latter relationship is characterized by significant power imbalance in favour of platforms, calling into question whether the law can and should do more to protect users-creators.
This article addresses the power of large-scale platforms in EU law over their users’ copyright-protected content and its effects on the governance of that content, including on its exploitation and some of its implications for freedom of expression. Our analysis combines legal and empirical methods. We carry our doctrinal legal research to clarify the complex legal regime that governs platforms’ contractual obligations to users and content moderation activities, including the space available for private ordering, with a focus on EU law. From the empirical perspective, we conducted a thematic analysis of most versions of the Terms of Services published over time by the three largest social media platforms in number of users \textendash Facebook, Instagram and YouTube \textendash so as to identify and examine the rules these companies have established to regulate user-generated content, and the ways in which such provisions shifted in the past two decades. In so doing, we unveil how foundational this sort of regulation has always been to platforms’ functioning and how it contributes to defining a system of content exploitation.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Online platforms provide primary points of access to information and other content in the digital age. They foster users’ ability to share ideas and opinions while offering opportunities for cultural and creative industries. In Europe, ownership and use of such expressions is partly governed by a complex web of legislation, sectoral self- and co-regulatory norms. To an important degree, it is also governed by private norms defined by contractual agreements and informal relationships between users and platforms. By adopting policies usually defined as Terms of Service and Community Guidelines, platforms almost unilaterally set use, moderation and enforcement rules, structures and practices (including through algorithmic systems) that govern the access and dissemination of protected content by their users. This private governance of essential means of access, dissemination and expression to (and through) creative content is hardly equitable, though. In fact, it is an expression of how platforms control what users – including users-creators – can say and disseminate online, and how they can monetise their content.
As platform power grows, EU law is adjusting by moving towards enhancing the responsibility of platforms for content they host. One crucial example of this is Article 17 of the new Copyright Directive (2019/790), which fundamentally changes the regime and liability of “online content-sharing service providers” (OCSSPs). This complex regime, complemented by rules in the Digital Services Act, sets out a new environment for OCSSPs to design and carry out content moderation, as well as to define their contractual relationship with users, including creators. The latter relationship is characterized by significant power imbalance in favour of platforms, calling into question whether the law can and should do more to protect users-creators.
This article addresses the power of large-scale platforms in EU law over their users’ copyright-protected content and its effects on the governance of that content, including on its exploitation and some of its implications for freedom of expression. Our analysis combines legal and empirical methods. We carry our doctrinal legal research to clarify the complex legal regime that governs platforms’ contractual obligations to users and content moderation activities, including the space available for private ordering, with a focus on EU law. From the empirical perspective, we conducted a thematic analysis of most versions of the Terms of Services published over time by the three largest social media platforms in number of users – Facebook, Instagram and YouTube – so as to identify and examine the rules these companies have established to regulate user-generated content, and the ways in which such provisions shifted in the past two decades. In so doing, we unveil how foundational this sort of regulation has always been to platforms’ functioning and how it contributes to defining a system of content exploitation. |
| Appelman, N., Buri, I., Fahy, R., Quintais, J., Straub, M., van Hoboken, J. Putting the DSA into Practice: Enforcement, Access to Justice and Global Implications 2023, ISBN: 9783757517960. @techreport{nokey,
title = {Putting the DSA into Practice: Enforcement, Access to Justice and Global Implications},
author = {van Hoboken, J. and Quintais, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R. and Buri, I. and Straub, M.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/vhoboken-et-al_putting-the-dsa-into-practice/
https://verfassungsblog.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/vHoboken-et-al_Putting-the-DSA-into-Practice.pdf},
doi = {10.17176/20230208-093135-0},
isbn = {9783757517960},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-02-17},
urldate = {2023-02-17},
publisher = {Verfassungsbooks},
abstract = {The Digital Services Act was finally published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 27 October 2022. This publication marks the end of a years-long drafting and negotiation process, and opens a new chapter: that of its enforcement, practicable access to justice, and potential to set global precedents. The Act has been portrayed as Europe’s new „Digital Constitution“, which affirms the primacy of democratic rulemaking over the private transnational ordering mechanisms of Big Tech. With it, the European Union aims once again to set a global standard in the regulation of the digital environment. But will the Digital Services Act be able to live up to its expectations, and under what conditions?},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
The Digital Services Act was finally published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 27 October 2022. This publication marks the end of a years-long drafting and negotiation process, and opens a new chapter: that of its enforcement, practicable access to justice, and potential to set global precedents. The Act has been portrayed as Europe’s new „Digital Constitution“, which affirms the primacy of democratic rulemaking over the private transnational ordering mechanisms of Big Tech. With it, the European Union aims once again to set a global standard in the regulation of the digital environment. But will the Digital Services Act be able to live up to its expectations, and under what conditions? |
| Quintais, J., Trapova, A. EU copyright law round up – fourth trimester of 2022 In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2023. @article{nokey,
title = {EU copyright law round up \textendash fourth trimester of 2022},
author = {Trapova, A. and Quintais, J.},
url = {https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2023/01/13/eu-copyright-law-round-up-fourth-trimester-of-2022/},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-01-13},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Butler, B., Carroll, M., Cohen-Sasson, O., Contreras, J.L., Craig, C., Flynn, S., Guibault, L., Jaszi, P., Jütte, B.J., Katz, A., Margoni, T., Quintais, J., Rocha de Souza, A., Sag, M., Samberg, R., Schirru, L., Senftleben, M., Tur-Sinai, O. Legal reform to enhance global text and data mining research: Outdated copyright laws around the world hinder research In: Science, vol. 378, iss. 6623, pp. 951-953, 2022. @article{nokey,
title = {Legal reform to enhance global text and data mining research: Outdated copyright laws around the world hinder research},
author = {Flynn, S. and Butler, B. and Carroll, M. and Cohen-Sasson, O. and Craig, C. and Guibault, L. and Jaszi, P. and J\"{u}tte, B.J. and Katz, A. and Quintais, J. and Margoni, T. and Rocha de Souza, A. and Sag, M. and Samberg, R. and Schirru, L. and Senftleben, M. and Tur-Sinai, O. and Contreras, J.L.},
doi = {10.1126/science.add6124},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-12-08},
urldate = {2022-12-08},
journal = {Science},
volume = {378},
issue = {6623},
pages = {951-953},
abstract = {Researchers engaged in text and data mining (TDM) research collect vast amounts of digitized material and use software to analyze and extract information from it. TDM is a crucial first step to many machine learning, digital humanities, and social science applications, addressing some of the world’s greatest scientific and societal challenges, from predicting and tracking COVID-19 to battling hate speech and disinformation. Although applications of TDM often occur across borders, with researchers, subjects, and materials in more than one country, a patchwork of copyright laws across jurisdictions limits where and how TDM research can occur. With the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, and legislatures around the world, deliberating the harmonization of copyright exceptions for various research uses, we discuss policy measures that can ensure that TDM research is unambiguously authorized under copyright law.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Researchers engaged in text and data mining (TDM) research collect vast amounts of digitized material and use software to analyze and extract information from it. TDM is a crucial first step to many machine learning, digital humanities, and social science applications, addressing some of the world’s greatest scientific and societal challenges, from predicting and tracking COVID-19 to battling hate speech and disinformation. Although applications of TDM often occur across borders, with researchers, subjects, and materials in more than one country, a patchwork of copyright laws across jurisdictions limits where and how TDM research can occur. With the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, and legislatures around the world, deliberating the harmonization of copyright exceptions for various research uses, we discuss policy measures that can ensure that TDM research is unambiguously authorized under copyright law. |
| Appelman, N., Fahy, R., Quintais, J. Using Terms and Conditions to Apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation In: German Law Journal, Forthcoming. @article{nokey,
title = {Using Terms and Conditions to Apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation},
author = {Quintais, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4286147
https://osf.io/f2n7m/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-11-25},
journal = {German Law Journal},
abstract = {Large online platforms provide an unprecedented means for exercising freedom of expression online and wield enormous power over public participation in the online democratic space. However, it is increasingly clear that their systems, where (automated) content moderation decisions are taken based on a platform's terms and conditions (T\&Cs), are fundamentally broken. Content moderation systems have been said to undermine freedom of expression, especially where important public interest speech ends up suppressed, such as speech by minority and marginalized groups. Indeed, these content moderation systems have been criticized for their overly vague rules of operation, inconsistent enforcement, and an overdependence on automation. Therefore, in order to better protect freedom of expression online, international human rights bodies and civil society organizations have argued that platforms “should incorporate directly” principles of fundamental rights law into their T\&Cs. Under EU law, and apart from a rule in the Terrorist Content Regulation, platforms had until recently no explicit obligation to incorporate fundamental rights into their T\&Cs. However, an important provision in the Digital Services Act (DSA) will change this. Crucially, Article 14 DSA lays down new rules on how platforms can enforce their T\&Cs, including that platforms must have “due regard” to the “fundamental rights” of users under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In this article, we critically examine the topic of enforceability of fundamental rights via T\&Cs through the prism of Article 14 DSA. We ask whether this provision requires platforms to apply EU fundamental rights law and to what extent this may curb the power of Big Tech over online speech. We conclude that Article 14 will make it possible, in principle, to establish the indirect horizontal effect of fundamental rights in the relationship between online platforms and their users. But in order for the application and enforcement of T\&Cs to take due regard of fundamental rights, Article 14 must be operationalized within the framework of the international and European fundamental rights standards, and therefore allowing Article 14 to fulfil its revolutionary potential.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {forthcoming},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Large online platforms provide an unprecedented means for exercising freedom of expression online and wield enormous power over public participation in the online democratic space. However, it is increasingly clear that their systems, where (automated) content moderation decisions are taken based on a platform's terms and conditions (T&Cs), are fundamentally broken. Content moderation systems have been said to undermine freedom of expression, especially where important public interest speech ends up suppressed, such as speech by minority and marginalized groups. Indeed, these content moderation systems have been criticized for their overly vague rules of operation, inconsistent enforcement, and an overdependence on automation. Therefore, in order to better protect freedom of expression online, international human rights bodies and civil society organizations have argued that platforms “should incorporate directly” principles of fundamental rights law into their T&Cs. Under EU law, and apart from a rule in the Terrorist Content Regulation, platforms had until recently no explicit obligation to incorporate fundamental rights into their T&Cs. However, an important provision in the Digital Services Act (DSA) will change this. Crucially, Article 14 DSA lays down new rules on how platforms can enforce their T&Cs, including that platforms must have “due regard” to the “fundamental rights” of users under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In this article, we critically examine the topic of enforceability of fundamental rights via T&Cs through the prism of Article 14 DSA. We ask whether this provision requires platforms to apply EU fundamental rights law and to what extent this may curb the power of Big Tech over online speech. We conclude that Article 14 will make it possible, in principle, to establish the indirect horizontal effect of fundamental rights in the relationship between online platforms and their users. But in order for the application and enforcement of T&Cs to take due regard of fundamental rights, Article 14 must be operationalized within the framework of the international and European fundamental rights standards, and therefore allowing Article 14 to fulfil its revolutionary potential. |
| Appelman, N., Buri, I., Fahy, R., Quintais, J., Straub, M., van Hoboken, J. The DSA has been published – now the difficult bit begins In: Verfassungsblog, 2022. @article{nokey,
title = {The DSA has been published \textendash now the difficult bit begins},
author = {van Hoboken, J. and Buri, I. and Quintais, J. and Fahy, R. and Appelman, N. and Straub, M.},
url = {https://verfassungsblog.de/dsa-published/},
doi = {10.17176/20221031-095722-0},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-10-31},
urldate = {2022-10-31},
journal = {Verfassungsblog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Quintais, J., Trapova, A. EU copyright law round up – third trimester of 2022 In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022. @article{nokey,
title = {EU copyright law round up \textendash third trimester of 2022},
author = {Quintais, J. and Trapova, A.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/10/03/eu-copyright-law-round-up-third-trimester-of-2022/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-10-03},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Harkai, I., Katzenbach, C., Magalhães, J.C., Mezei, P., Quintais, J., Riis, T., Schwemer, S. Copyright Content Moderation in the EU: An Interdisciplinary Mapping Analysis 2022, (ReCreating Europe, August 2022). @techreport{nokey,
title = {Copyright Content Moderation in the EU: An Interdisciplinary Mapping Analysis},
author = {Quintais, J. and Mezei, P. and Harkai, I. and Magalh\~{a}es, J.C. and Katzenbach, C. and Schwemer, S. and Riis, T.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/nl/copyright_content_moderation_in_the_eu/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-09-09},
urldate = {2022-09-09},
abstract = {This report is part of the reCreating Europe project and describes the results of the research carried out in the context of Work Package 6 on the mapping of the EU legal framework and intermediaries’ practices on copyright content moderation. The Report addresses the following main research question: how can we map the impact on access to culture in the Digital Single Market of content moderation of copyright-protected content on online platforms? },
note = {ReCreating Europe, August 2022},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
This report is part of the reCreating Europe project and describes the results of the research carried out in the context of Work Package 6 on the mapping of the EU legal framework and intermediaries’ practices on copyright content moderation. The Report addresses the following main research question: how can we map the impact on access to culture in the Digital Single Market of content moderation of copyright-protected content on online platforms? |
| Harkai, I., Katzenbach, C., Magalhães, J.C., Mezei, P., Quintais, J., Riis, T., Schwemer, S. Copyright Content Moderation in the EU: An Interdisciplinary Mapping Analysis In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022. @article{nokey,
title = {Copyright Content Moderation in the EU: An Interdisciplinary Mapping Analysis},
author = {Quintais, J. and Mezei, P. and Harkai, I. and Magalh\~{a}es, J.C. and Katzenbach, C. and Schwemer, S. and Riis, T.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/09/07/copyright-content-moderation-in-the-eu-an-interdisciplinary-mapping-analysis/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-09-08},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Quintais, J., Trapova, A. The UK government moves forward with a text and data mining exception for all purposes In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022. @article{nokey,
title = {The UK government moves forward with a text and data mining exception for all purposes},
author = {Trapova, A. and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/08/24/the-uk-government-moves-forward-with-a-text-and-data-mining-exception-for-all-purposes/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-08-24},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Quintais, J., Trapova, A. EU copyright law round up – second trimester of 2022 In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022. @article{nokey,
title = {EU copyright law round up \textendash second trimester of 2022},
author = {Trapova, A. and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/07/07/eu-copyright-law-round-up-second-trimester-of-2022/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-07-08},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Mil, J. van, Quintais, J. A Matter of (Joint) control? Virtual assistants and the general data protection regulation In: Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 45, 2022. @article{nokey,
title = {A Matter of (Joint) control? Virtual assistants and the general data protection regulation},
author = {Mil, J. van and Quintais, J.},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105689},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-06-16},
journal = {Computer Law \& Security Review},
volume = {45},
abstract = {This article provides an overview and critical examination of the rules for determining who qualifies as controller or joint controller under the General Data Protection Regulation. Using Google Assistant \textendash an artificial intelligence-driven virtual assistant \textendash as a case study, we argue that these rules are overreaching and difficult to apply in the present-day information society and Internet of Things environments. First, as a consequence of recent developments in case law and supervisory guidance, these rules lead to a complex and ambiguous test to determine (joint) control. Second, due to advances in technological applications and business models, it is increasingly challenging to apply such rules to contemporary processing operations. In particular, as illustrated by the Google Assistant, individuals will likely be qualified as joint controllers, together with Google and also third-party developers, for at least the collection and possible transmission of other individuals’ personal data via the virtual assistant. Third, we identify follow-on issues relating to the apportionment of responsibilities between joint controllers and the effective and complete protection of data subjects. We conclude by questioning whether the framework for determining who qualifies as controller or joint controller is future-proof and normatively desirable.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This article provides an overview and critical examination of the rules for determining who qualifies as controller or joint controller under the General Data Protection Regulation. Using Google Assistant – an artificial intelligence-driven virtual assistant – as a case study, we argue that these rules are overreaching and difficult to apply in the present-day information society and Internet of Things environments. First, as a consequence of recent developments in case law and supervisory guidance, these rules lead to a complex and ambiguous test to determine (joint) control. Second, due to advances in technological applications and business models, it is increasingly challenging to apply such rules to contemporary processing operations. In particular, as illustrated by the Google Assistant, individuals will likely be qualified as joint controllers, together with Google and also third-party developers, for at least the collection and possible transmission of other individuals’ personal data via the virtual assistant. Third, we identify follow-on issues relating to the apportionment of responsibilities between joint controllers and the effective and complete protection of data subjects. We conclude by questioning whether the framework for determining who qualifies as controller or joint controller is future-proof and normatively desirable. |
| Margoni, T., Quintais, J., Schwemer, S. Algorithmic propagation: do property rights in data increase bias in content moderation? – Part II In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022. @article{nokey,
title = {Algorithmic propagation: do property rights in data increase bias in content moderation? \textendash Part II},
author = {Margoni, T. and Quintais, J. and Schwemer, S.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/06/09/algorithmic-propagation-do-property-rights-in-data-increase-bias-in-content-moderation-part-ii/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-06-09},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Margoni, T., Quintais, J., Schwemer, S. Algorithmic propagation: do property rights in data increase bias in content moderation? Part I In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022. @article{nokey,
title = {Algorithmic propagation: do property rights in data increase bias in content moderation? Part I},
author = {Margoni, T. and Quintais, J. and Schwemer, S.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/06/08/algorithmic-propagation-do-property-rights-in-data-increase-bias-in-content-moderation-part-i/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-06-08},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Quintais, J. Between Filters and Fundamental Rights: How the Court of Justice saved Article 17 in C-401/19 - Poland v. Parliament and Council In: Verfassungsblog, 2022. @article{nokey,
title = {Between Filters and Fundamental Rights: How the Court of Justice saved Article 17 in C-401/19 - Poland v. Parliament and Council},
author = {Quintais, J.},
url = {https://verfassungsblog.de/filters-poland/?s=09},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-05-16},
journal = {Verfassungsblog},
abstract = {On 26 April 2022, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU or Court) delivered its much awaited judgement in Case C-401/19 \textendash Poland v Parliament and Council. The case focuses on the validity of Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (CDSMD) in light of fundamental rights. The judgment marks the climax of a turbulent journey in the area of copyright law, with potential implications for the future of platform regulation and content moderation in EU law.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
On 26 April 2022, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU or Court) delivered its much awaited judgement in Case C-401/19 – Poland v Parliament and Council. The case focuses on the validity of Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (CDSMD) in light of fundamental rights. The judgment marks the climax of a turbulent journey in the area of copyright law, with potential implications for the future of platform regulation and content moderation in EU law. |
| Giorello, M., Keller, P., Quintais, J., Reda, F. Video recording of the COMMUNIA Salon on the CJEU decision on Article 17 (Case C-401/19) 04.05.2022. @misc{nokey,
title = {Video recording of the COMMUNIA Salon on the CJEU decision on Article 17 (Case C-401/19)},
author = {Keller, P. and Reda, F. and Quintais, J. and Giorello, M.},
url = {https://www.communia-association.org/2022/05/04/video-recording-of-the-communia-salon-on-the-cjeu-decision-on-article-17/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-05-04},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {presentation}
}
|
| Bulayenko, O., Gervais, D.J., Poort, J., Quintais, J. AI Music Outputs: Challenges to the Copyright Legal Framework – Part II In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022. @article{nokey,
title = {AI Music Outputs: Challenges to the Copyright Legal Framework \textendash Part II},
author = {Bulayenko, O. and Poort, J. and Quintais, J. and Gervais, D.J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/04/25/ai-music-outputs-challenges-to-the-copyright-legal-framework-part-ii/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-05-02},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Quintais, J. Article 17 survives, but freedom of expression safeguards are key: C-401/19 – Poland v Parliament and Council In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022. @article{nokey,
title = {Article 17 survives, but freedom of expression safeguards are key: C-401/19 \textendash Poland v Parliament and Council},
author = {Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/04/26/article-17-survives-but-freedom-of-expression-safeguards-are-key-c-401-19-poland-v-parliament-and-council/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-05-02},
urldate = {2022-05-02},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Bulayenko, O., Gervais, D.J., Poort, J., Quintais, J. AI Music Outputs: Challenges to the Copyright Legal Framework – Part I In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022. @article{nokey,
title = {AI Music Outputs: Challenges to the Copyright Legal Framework \textendash Part I},
author = {Bulayenko, O. and Quintais, J. and Poort, J. and Gervais, D.J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/04/22/ai-music-outputs-challenges-to-the-copyright-legal-framework-part-i/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-04-22},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Antal, D., Bodó, B., Handke, C.W., Kretschmer, M., Margoni, T., Poort, J., Quintais, J., Schwemer, S., Senftleben, M., van Gompel, S. Ensuring the Visibility and Accessibility of European Creative Content on the World Market: The Need for Copyright Data Improvement in the Light of New Technologies In: JIPITEC, vol. 13, iss. 1, pp. 67-86, 2022. @article{Senftleben2021,
title = {Ensuring the Visibility and Accessibility of European Creative Content on the World Market: The Need for Copyright Data Improvement in the Light of New Technologies},
author = {Senftleben, M. and Margoni, T. and Antal, D. and Bod\'{o}, B. and van Gompel, S. and Handke, C.W. and Kretschmer, M. and Poort, J. and Quintais, J. and Schwemer, S.},
url = {https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-13-1-2022/5515
https://www.ivir.nl/jipitec_2022/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-04-12},
urldate = {2021-03-23},
journal = {JIPITEC},
volume = {13},
issue = {1},
pages = {67-86},
abstract = {In the European Strategy for Data, the European Commission highlighted the EU’s ambition to acquire a leading role in the data economy. At the same time, the Commission conceded that the EU would have to increase its pools of quality data available for use and re-use. In the creative industries, this need for enhanced data quality and interoperability is particularly strong. Without data improvement, unprecedented opportunities for monetising the wide variety of EU creative and making this content available for new technologies, such as artificial intelligence training systems, will most probably be lost. The problem has a worldwide dimension. While the US have already taken steps to provide an integrated data space for music as of 1 January 2021, the EU is facing major obstacles not only in the field of music but also in other creative industry sectors. Weighing costs and benefits, there can be little doubt that new data improvement initiatives and sufficient investment in a better copyright data infrastructure should play a central role in EU copyright policy. A trade-off between data harmonisation and interoperability on the one hand, and transparency and accountability of content recommender systems on the other, could pave the way for successful new initiatives.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
In the European Strategy for Data, the European Commission highlighted the EU’s ambition to acquire a leading role in the data economy. At the same time, the Commission conceded that the EU would have to increase its pools of quality data available for use and re-use. In the creative industries, this need for enhanced data quality and interoperability is particularly strong. Without data improvement, unprecedented opportunities for monetising the wide variety of EU creative and making this content available for new technologies, such as artificial intelligence training systems, will most probably be lost. The problem has a worldwide dimension. While the US have already taken steps to provide an integrated data space for music as of 1 January 2021, the EU is facing major obstacles not only in the field of music but also in other creative industry sectors. Weighing costs and benefits, there can be little doubt that new data improvement initiatives and sufficient investment in a better copyright data infrastructure should play a central role in EU copyright policy. A trade-off between data harmonisation and interoperability on the one hand, and transparency and accountability of content recommender systems on the other, could pave the way for successful new initiatives. |
| Quintais, J., Trapova, A. EU copyright law round up – first trimester of 2022 In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022. @article{nokey,
title = {EU copyright law round up \textendash first trimester of 2022},
author = {Quintais, J. and Trapova, A.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/04/06/eu-copyright-law-round-up-first-trimester-of-2022/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-04-07},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Bulayenko, O., Gervais, D.J., Poort, J., Quintais, J. AI Music Outputs: Challenges to the Copyright Legal Framework 2022, (reCreating Europe report, D3.5). @techreport{nokey,
title = {AI Music Outputs: Challenges to the Copyright Legal Framework},
author = {Bulayenko, O. and Quintais, J. and Gervais, D.J. and Poort, J.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4072806
https://www.ivir.nl/870626_d3-5-final-report-on-the-impact-of-ia-authorship_formatted-1/},
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.6405796},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-04-01},
urldate = {2022-04-07},
abstract = {This report examines the application of EU copyright and related rights law to outputs generated by or with the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) systems, tools or techniques (AI outputs), with a focus on outputs in the musical domain. The Report examines the question: How can and should EU copyright and related rights law protect AI musical outputs? The interdisciplinary (legal and empirical) research involves: (i) analyzing of the protection of AI outputs under EU copyright and related rights law; (ii) examining the attribution of authorship and ownership to (natural and legal) persons involved in the creation or production of AI outputs; (iii) proposing interpretative guidelines and policy recommendations on increasing legal certainty regarding the protection, authorship, and ownership of copyright and related rights over AI outputs, especially music outputs.},
note = {reCreating Europe report, D3.5},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
This report examines the application of EU copyright and related rights law to outputs generated by or with the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) systems, tools or techniques (AI outputs), with a focus on outputs in the musical domain. The Report examines the question: How can and should EU copyright and related rights law protect AI musical outputs? The interdisciplinary (legal and empirical) research involves: (i) analyzing of the protection of AI outputs under EU copyright and related rights law; (ii) examining the attribution of authorship and ownership to (natural and legal) persons involved in the creation or production of AI outputs; (iii) proposing interpretative guidelines and policy recommendations on increasing legal certainty regarding the protection, authorship, and ownership of copyright and related rights over AI outputs, especially music outputs. |
| Husovec, M., Kretschmer, M., Mezei, P., Peukert, A., Quintais, J. European Copyright Society – Comment on Copyright and the Digital Services Act Proposal In: IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , vol. 53, iss. 3, pp. 358-376, 2022, (Opinion). @article{nokey,
title = {European Copyright Society \textendash Comment on Copyright and the Digital Services Act Proposal},
author = {Peukert, A. and Husovec, M. and Kretschmer, M. and Mezei, P. and Quintais, J.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/iic_2022/},
doi = {10.1007/s40319-022-01154-1},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-03-14},
urldate = {2022-03-14},
journal = {IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law },
volume = {53},
issue = {3},
pages = {358-376},
note = {Opinion},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Quintais, J., Schwemer, S. The Interplay between the Digital Services Act and Sector Regulation: How Special is Copyright? In: European Journal of Risk Regulation, vol. 13, iss. 2, pp. 191-217, 2022. @article{Quintais2021e,
title = {The Interplay between the Digital Services Act and Sector Regulation: How Special is Copyright?},
author = {Quintais, J. and Schwemer, S. },
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/ejrr_2022/},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2022.1},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-03-14},
urldate = {2022-03-14},
journal = {European Journal of Risk Regulation},
volume = {13},
issue = {2},
pages = {191-217},
abstract = {On 15 December 2020, the European Commission published its proposal for a Regulation on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act). It carries out a regulatory overhaul of the 21-year- old horizontal rules on intermediary liability in the Directive and introduces new due diligence obligations for intermediary services.
Our analysis illuminates an important point that has so far received little attention: how would the Digital Services Act’s rules interact with existing sector-specific lex specialis rules? In this paper, we look specifically at the intersection of the Digital Services Act with the regime for online content sharing service providers (OCSSPs) set forth in art. 17 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive). At first glance, these regimes do not appear to overlap as the rules on copyright are lex specialis to the Digital Services Act. A closer look shows a more complex and nuanced picture. Our analysis concludes that the DSA will apply to OCSSPs insofar as it contains rules that regulate matters not covered by art. 17 CDSM Directive, as well as specific rules on matters where art. 17 leaves margin of discretion to Member States. This includes, to varying degrees, rules in the DSA relating to the liability of intermediary providers and to due diligence obligations for online platforms of different sizes. Importantly, we consider that such rules apply even where art. 17 CDSM Directive contains specific (but less precise) regulation on the matter.
From a normative perspective, this might be a desirable outcome, to the extent that the DSA aims to establish “uniform rules for a safe, predictable and trusted online environment, where fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter are effectively protected”. Based on our analysis, we suggest a number of clarifications that might be help achieve that goal. },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
On 15 December 2020, the European Commission published its proposal for a Regulation on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act). It carries out a regulatory overhaul of the 21-year- old horizontal rules on intermediary liability in the Directive and introduces new due diligence obligations for intermediary services.
Our analysis illuminates an important point that has so far received little attention: how would the Digital Services Act’s rules interact with existing sector-specific lex specialis rules? In this paper, we look specifically at the intersection of the Digital Services Act with the regime for online content sharing service providers (OCSSPs) set forth in art. 17 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive). At first glance, these regimes do not appear to overlap as the rules on copyright are lex specialis to the Digital Services Act. A closer look shows a more complex and nuanced picture. Our analysis concludes that the DSA will apply to OCSSPs insofar as it contains rules that regulate matters not covered by art. 17 CDSM Directive, as well as specific rules on matters where art. 17 leaves margin of discretion to Member States. This includes, to varying degrees, rules in the DSA relating to the liability of intermediary providers and to due diligence obligations for online platforms of different sizes. Importantly, we consider that such rules apply even where art. 17 CDSM Directive contains specific (but less precise) regulation on the matter.
From a normative perspective, this might be a desirable outcome, to the extent that the DSA aims to establish “uniform rules for a safe, predictable and trusted online environment, where fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter are effectively protected”. Based on our analysis, we suggest a number of clarifications that might be help achieve that goal. |
| Angelopoulos, C., Quintais, J. Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 22 juni 2021 Frank Peterson / Google & YouTube (C 682/18) & Elsevier / Cyando AG (C 683/18) In: Auteursrecht, iss. 1, no. 1, pp. 46-51, 2022. @article{nokey,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 22 juni 2021 Frank Peterson / Google \& YouTube (C 682/18) \& Elsevier / Cyando AG (C 683/18)},
author = {Quintais, J. and Angelopoulos, C.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/annotatie_auteursrecht_2022_1/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-03-03},
journal = {Auteursrecht},
number = {1},
issue = {1},
pages = {46-51},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Husovec, M., Kretschmer, M., Mezei, P., Peukert, A., Quintais, J. European Copyright Society (ECS): Comment on Copyright and the Digital Services Act Proposal In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022. @article{nokey,
title = {European Copyright Society (ECS): Comment on Copyright and the Digital Services Act Proposal},
author = {Peukert, A. and Husovec, M. and Kretschmer, M. and Mezei, P. and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/01/18/european-copyright-society-ecs-comment-on-copyright-and-the-digital-services-act-proposal/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-01-18},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Bodó, B., Giannopoulou, A., Mezei, P., Quintais, J. The rise of NFTs: These aren't the droids you're looking for In: European Intellectual Property Review, 2022. @article{nokey,
title = {The rise of NFTs: These aren't the droids you're looking for},
author = {Bod\'{o}, B. and Giannopoulou, A. and Quintais, J. and Mezei, P.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4000423},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-01-04},
journal = {European Intellectual Property Review},
abstract = {Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are hailed as revolutionary tools that will empower artists and revolutionize copyright management and remuneration. This article explores their copyright relevance, and it describes how copyright might apply in relation to NFT creation and trading. In doing so, it provides an overview of the ecosystem of actors built around NFTs, and it analyzes the role of these actors according to the European copyright normative framework.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are hailed as revolutionary tools that will empower artists and revolutionize copyright management and remuneration. This article explores their copyright relevance, and it describes how copyright might apply in relation to NFT creation and trading. In doing so, it provides an overview of the ecosystem of actors built around NFTs, and it analyzes the role of these actors according to the European copyright normative framework. |
| Quintais, J., Trapova, A. EU copyright law round up – fourth trimester of 2021 In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021. @article{nokey,
title = {EU copyright law round up \textendash fourth trimester of 2021},
author = {Trapova, A. and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/12/27/eu-copyright-law-round-up-fourth-trimester-of-2021/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-12-27},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Quintais, J. Do We Need More Copyright Protection for Sports Events? In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 143-156, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337. @inbook{nokey,
title = {Do We Need More Copyright Protection for Sports Events?},
author = {Quintais, J.},
isbn = {9789403537337},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-11-30},
booktitle = {Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz},
pages = {143-156},
publisher = {Wolters Kluwer},
series = {Information Law Series},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
|
| Bulayenko, O., and Handke, C., Peeters, R., Poort, J., Quintais, J., Regeczi, D., van Gompel, S. Study on emerging issues on collective licensing practices in the digital environment 2021, ISBN: 978-92-76-39981-0, (Study written by Ecorys, IViR and Erasmus University Rotterdam, commissioned by the European Commission.). @techreport{nokey,
title = {Study on emerging issues on collective licensing practices in the digital environment},
author = {Bulayenko, O. and van Gompel, S. and and Handke, C. and Peeters, R. and Poort, J. and Quintais, J. and Regeczi, D.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Study_on_collective_practices_in_the_digital_environment.pdf
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/reports-collective-management-and-extended-licensing},
doi = {10.2759/611658},
isbn = {978-92-76-39981-0},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-11-25},
abstract = {Collective management of copyright and related rights is an important element of the copyright system. First and foremost, it can ensure that rightholders reap greater rewards. By exploiting economies of scale and network effects, collective management can also make markets for copyright licences more efficient, to benefit users and other stakeholders. This study examines two central aspects of collective management of copyright and related rights in Europe.
Part I documents the development of multi-territorial licensing of online rights in musical works in the European Economic Area (EEA) under Title III of Directive 2014/26/EU on Collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market (CRM Directive). It highlights the consequences of legal and regulatory reform, based on pervasive quantitative and qualitative data \textendash produced in surveys, interviews and a workshop with stakeholders \textendash and collected among collective management organisations (CMOs), rightholders, online music service providers, and national competent authorities.
Part II examines national mechanisms of collective licensing with an extended effect and comprehensive network of national experts, complemented by surveys of CMOs, as well as interviews with national competent authorities.
The present study provides a legal and economic analysis that can serve as input for the European Commission to draft the reports required by Article 40 of the CRM Directive and Article 12(6) of the Directive 2019/790/EU on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (DSM Directive).
},
note = {Study written by Ecorys, IViR and Erasmus University Rotterdam, commissioned by the European Commission.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
Collective management of copyright and related rights is an important element of the copyright system. First and foremost, it can ensure that rightholders reap greater rewards. By exploiting economies of scale and network effects, collective management can also make markets for copyright licences more efficient, to benefit users and other stakeholders. This study examines two central aspects of collective management of copyright and related rights in Europe.
Part I documents the development of multi-territorial licensing of online rights in musical works in the European Economic Area (EEA) under Title III of Directive 2014/26/EU on Collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market (CRM Directive). It highlights the consequences of legal and regulatory reform, based on pervasive quantitative and qualitative data – produced in surveys, interviews and a workshop with stakeholders – and collected among collective management organisations (CMOs), rightholders, online music service providers, and national competent authorities.
Part II examines national mechanisms of collective licensing with an extended effect and comprehensive network of national experts, complemented by surveys of CMOs, as well as interviews with national competent authorities.
The present study provides a legal and economic analysis that can serve as input for the European Commission to draft the reports required by Article 40 of the CRM Directive and Article 12(6) of the Directive 2019/790/EU on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (DSM Directive).
|
| Ausloos, J., Helmond, A., Quintais, J., Schumacher, L.D., Senftleben, M., van Gompel, S., van Hoboken, J. Webharvesting 2021, (Onderzoek in opdracht van het Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC), 20 september 2021, WODC rapport 3142.). @techreport{nokey,
title = {Webharvesting},
author = {Senftleben, M. and van Gompel, S. and Helmond, A. and Schumacher, L.D. and Ausloos, J. and van Hoboken, J. and Quintais, J.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Webharvesting_WODC.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-11-25},
urldate = {2021-11-25},
abstract = {Aan het volgende onderzoeksrapport ligt de doelstelling ten grondslag om te inventariseren wat juridisch, beleidsmatig en technisch nodig is om webharvesting mogelijk te maken, onder meer in de vorm van een zogenaamde nationale “domeincrawl”: het systematische kopi\"{e}ren en archiveren van webpagina’s die een afspiegeling vormen van de Nederlandse sociale, culturele, economische, juridische, politieke en wetenschappelijke geschiedenis online.},
note = {Onderzoek in opdracht van het Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC), 20 september 2021, WODC rapport 3142.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
Aan het volgende onderzoeksrapport ligt de doelstelling ten grondslag om te inventariseren wat juridisch, beleidsmatig en technisch nodig is om webharvesting mogelijk te maken, onder meer in de vorm van een zogenaamde nationale “domeincrawl”: het systematische kopiëren en archiveren van webpagina’s die een afspiegeling vormen van de Nederlandse sociale, culturele, economische, juridische, politieke en wetenschappelijke geschiedenis online. |
| Kowalewska Jahromi, H., Mezei, P., Priora, G., Quintais, J., Reda, J., Riis, T., Schwemer, S., Szkalej, K. The Regulatory Landscape for Copyright Content Moderation: Evaluation and Future Trajectories 2021, (Webinar ReCreating Europe 16 November 2021). @online{nokey,
title = {The Regulatory Landscape for Copyright Content Moderation: Evaluation and Future Trajectories},
author = {Quintais, J. and Kowalewska Jahromi, H. and Mezei, P. and Priora, G. and Reda, J. and Riis, T. and Schwemer, S. and Szkalej, K.},
url = {https://www.recreating.eu/2021/10/19/webinar-16-november-the-regulatory-landscape-for-copyright-content-moderation-evaluation-and-future-trajectories/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HketusMjEFk},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-11-25},
abstract = {This webinar took place on 16 November 2021 and addressed the current status and future avenues for copyright content moderation in EU law, including a discussion on the rules on liability for online content-sharing service providers.},
note = {Webinar ReCreating Europe 16 November 2021},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
This webinar took place on 16 November 2021 and addressed the current status and future avenues for copyright content moderation in EU law, including a discussion on the rules on liability for online content-sharing service providers. |
| Quintais, J., Trapova, A. EU copyright law round up – third trimester of 2021 2021. @online{Trapova2021c,
title = {EU copyright law round up \textendash third trimester of 2021},
author = {Trapova, A. and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/10/07/eu-copyright-law-round-up-third-trimester-of-2021/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-10-07},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
|
| Hugenholtz, P., Quintais, J. Copyright and Artificial Creation: Does EU Copyright Law Protect AI-Assisted Output? In: IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 1190-1216, 2021. @article{Hugenholtz2021d,
title = {Copyright and Artificial Creation: Does EU Copyright Law Protect AI-Assisted Output?},
author = {Hugenholtz, P. and Quintais, J.},
url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-021-01115-0},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01115-0},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-10-07},
urldate = {2021-10-07},
journal = {IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law },
volume = {52},
number = {9},
pages = {1190-1216},
abstract = {This article queries whether and to what extent works produced with the aid of AI systems \textendash AI-assisted output \textendash are protected under EU copyright standards. We carry out a doctrinal legal analysis to scrutinise the concepts of “work”, “originality” and “creative freedom”, as well as the notion of authorship, as set forth in the EU copyright acquis and developed in the case-law of the Court of Justice. On this basis, we develop a four-step test to assess whether AI-assisted output qualifies as an original work of authorship under EU law, and how the existing rules on authorship may apply. Our conclusion is that current EU copyright rules are generally suitable and sufficiently flexible to deal with the challenges posed by AI-assisted output.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This article queries whether and to what extent works produced with the aid of AI systems – AI-assisted output – are protected under EU copyright standards. We carry out a doctrinal legal analysis to scrutinise the concepts of “work”, “originality” and “creative freedom”, as well as the notion of authorship, as set forth in the EU copyright acquis and developed in the case-law of the Court of Justice. On this basis, we develop a four-step test to assess whether AI-assisted output qualifies as an original work of authorship under EU law, and how the existing rules on authorship may apply. Our conclusion is that current EU copyright rules are generally suitable and sufficiently flexible to deal with the challenges posed by AI-assisted output. |
| Appelman, N., Fahy, R., Quintais, J. Using Terms and Conditions to apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation: Is Article 12 DSA a Paper Tiger? Verfassungsblog, (Ed.): Verfassungsblog 2021. @online{Appelman2021,
title = {Using Terms and Conditions to apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation: Is Article 12 DSA a Paper Tiger?},
author = {Appelman, N. and Quintais, J. and Fahy, R.},
editor = {Verfassungsblog},
url = {https://verfassungsblog.de/power-dsa-dma-06/},
doi = {10.17176/20210901-233103-0.},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-09-01},
organization = {Verfassungsblog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
|
| Quintais, J., Trapova, A. EU copyright law round up – second trimester of 2021 Blog, Kluwer Copyright (Ed.): Kluwer Copyright Blog 2021. @online{Trapova2021,
title = {EU copyright law round up \textendash second trimester of 2021},
author = {Trapova, A. and Quintais, J.},
editor = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/08/16/eu-copyright-law-round-up-second-trimester-of-2021/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-08-16},
organization = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
|
| Hugenholtz, P., Quintais, J. Auteursrecht en artificiële creatie In: Auteursrecht, no. 2, pp. 47-52, 2021. @article{Hugenholtz2021b,
title = {Auteursrecht en artifici\"{e}le creatie},
author = {Hugenholtz, P. and Quintais, J.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Auteursrecht-2021-2.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-06-17},
journal = {Auteursrecht},
number = {2},
pages = {47-52},
abstract = {In dit artikel wordt de vraag gesteld of voortbrengselen die met behulp van AI-systemen tot stand zijn gebracht auteursrechtelijk beschermd kunnen zijn. Centraal in deze analyse staat niet de machine, maar de rol van de mens in het door het AI-systeem ondersteunde creatieve proces. Is deze rol voldoende om het resultaat als auteursrechtelijke beschermd werk te kwalificeren? En wie heeft in dat geval te gelden als maker(s)? Deze vragen worden aan de hand van het Unierecht en de jurisprudentie van het HvJ EU beantwoord. Dit artikel is gebaseerd op een studie die in opdracht van de Europese Commissie is verricht en aan de basis ligt van het door de Commissie in het Actieplan IE geformuleerde
beleidsstandpunt over AI-creaties.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
In dit artikel wordt de vraag gesteld of voortbrengselen die met behulp van AI-systemen tot stand zijn gebracht auteursrechtelijk beschermd kunnen zijn. Centraal in deze analyse staat niet de machine, maar de rol van de mens in het door het AI-systeem ondersteunde creatieve proces. Is deze rol voldoende om het resultaat als auteursrechtelijke beschermd werk te kwalificeren? En wie heeft in dat geval te gelden als maker(s)? Deze vragen worden aan de hand van het Unierecht en de jurisprudentie van het HvJ EU beantwoord. Dit artikel is gebaseerd op een studie die in opdracht van de Europese Commissie is verricht en aan de basis ligt van het door de Commissie in het Actieplan IE geformuleerde
beleidsstandpunt over AI-creaties. |
| Quintais, J. Commission’s Guidance on Art. 17 CDSM Directive: the authorisation dimension Kluwer Copyright Blog 2021. @online{Quintais2021-Guidance,
title = {Commission’s Guidance on Art. 17 CDSM Directive: the authorisation dimension},
author = {Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/06/10/commissions-guidance-on-art-17-cdsm-directive-the-authorisation-dimension/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-06-10},
organization = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
|
| Quintais, J. Commission’s Guidance on Art. 17 CDSM Directive: the authorisation dimension In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021. @article{Quintais2021,
title = {Commission’s Guidance on Art. 17 CDSM Directive: the authorisation dimension},
author = {Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/06/10/commissions-guidance-on-art-17-cdsm-directive-the-authorisation-dimension/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-06-10},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Quintais, J. Book review: European Libraries and the Internet: Copyright and Extended Collective Licences, by Ran Tryggvadottir. In: Common Market Law Review, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 961 – 964, 2021. @article{Quintais2021-COLA,
title = {Book review: European Libraries and the Internet: Copyright and Extended Collective Licences, by Ran Tryggvadottir. },
author = {Quintais, J.},
url = {https://kluwerlawonline.com/JournalArticle/Common+Market+Law+Review/58.3/COLA2021061},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-06-01},
journal = {Common Market Law Review},
volume = {58},
number = {3},
pages = {961 \textendash 964},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Appelman, N., Fahy, R., Quintais, J. Article 12 DSA: Will platforms be required to apply EU fundamental rights in content moderation decisions? DSA Observatory 2021. @online{Quintais2021f,
title = {Article 12 DSA: Will platforms be required to apply EU fundamental rights in content moderation decisions? },
author = {Quintais, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R.},
url = {https://dsa-observatory.eu/2021/05/31/article-12-dsa-will-platforms-be-required-to-apply-eu-fundamental-rights-in-content-moderation-decisions/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-05-31},
organization = {DSA Observatory},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
|
| Husovec, M., Quintais, J. Too Small to Matter? On the Copyright Directive’s bias in favour of big right-holders In: Mylly, Tuomas; Griffiths, Jonathan (Ed.): Oxford University Press, 2021. @inbook{HusovecQuintais2021-2,
title = {Too Small to Matter? On the Copyright Directive’s bias in favour of big right-holders},
author = {Husovec, M. and Quintais, J.},
editor = {Tuomas Mylly and Jonathan Griffiths},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3835930},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-04-29},
publisher = {Oxford University Press},
abstract = {Copyright law is about recognising the author’s material and non-material interests and setting the incentives for creativity right. The legislative changes in this area increasingly look as if simple linearity governs the world: what we take away from some, we automatically give away in equal part to others. The idea of redistribution is noticeable in recent legislative developments. Art. 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (DSM Directive) is the latest policy intervention to prove this point. According to its logic, imposing stricter liability on some online gatekeepers will automatically improve the position and revenues for all right-holders. This chapter explores the flaws in such an approach by highlighting how the excessive focus of Art. 17 on big right-holders neglects and harms smaller creators.
EU copyright law often uses a technical term of ‘right-holders’ to refer to a wide range of players with legal entitlements in the copyright ecosystem: authors, performers, phonogram producers, film producers, broadcasting organisations and (most recently) press publishers. Obviously, not all right-holders are created equal nor do their legal entitlements flow from identical normative justifications. We argue in this chapter that even the use of this seemingly neutral term can, due to the design of underlying legal solutions, lead to stark inequality between right-holders. Our broader goal is to demonstrate that maximising enforcement by means of Art. 17 of the DSM Directive does not simply maximise the position of every right-holder at the expense of platforms but does so disproportionality for big right-holders. Besides, we show that blind use of ‘right-holder’ and ‘user’ distinction harms the very creators that provision is supposed to protect. },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Copyright law is about recognising the author’s material and non-material interests and setting the incentives for creativity right. The legislative changes in this area increasingly look as if simple linearity governs the world: what we take away from some, we automatically give away in equal part to others. The idea of redistribution is noticeable in recent legislative developments. Art. 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (DSM Directive) is the latest policy intervention to prove this point. According to its logic, imposing stricter liability on some online gatekeepers will automatically improve the position and revenues for all right-holders. This chapter explores the flaws in such an approach by highlighting how the excessive focus of Art. 17 on big right-holders neglects and harms smaller creators.
EU copyright law often uses a technical term of ‘right-holders’ to refer to a wide range of players with legal entitlements in the copyright ecosystem: authors, performers, phonogram producers, film producers, broadcasting organisations and (most recently) press publishers. Obviously, not all right-holders are created equal nor do their legal entitlements flow from identical normative justifications. We argue in this chapter that even the use of this seemingly neutral term can, due to the design of underlying legal solutions, lead to stark inequality between right-holders. Our broader goal is to demonstrate that maximising enforcement by means of Art. 17 of the DSM Directive does not simply maximise the position of every right-holder at the expense of platforms but does so disproportionality for big right-holders. Besides, we show that blind use of ‘right-holder’ and ‘user’ distinction harms the very creators that provision is supposed to protect. |
| Bodó, B., Giannopoulou, A., Mezei, P., Quintais, J. The Rise of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and the Role of Copyright Law – Part II Kluwer Copyright Blog 2021. @online{Quintais2021c,
title = {The Rise of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and the Role of Copyright Law \textendash Part II},
author = {Quintais, J. and Bod\'{o}, B. and Giannopoulou, A. and Mezei, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/04/22/the-rise-of-non-fungible-tokens-nfts-and-the-role-of-copyright-law-part-ii/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-04-22},
organization = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
|
| Bodó, B., Giannopoulou, A., Mezei, P., Quintais, J. The Rise of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and the Role of Copyright Law – Part I Kluwer Copyright Blog 2021. @online{QuintaisetalNFTPartI,
title = {The Rise of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and the Role of Copyright Law \textendash Part I},
author = {Quintais, J. and Bod\'{o}, B. and Giannopoulou, A. and Mezei, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/04/14/the-rise-of-non-fungible-tokens-nfts-and-the-role-of-copyright-law-part-i/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-04-14},
organization = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
|
| Quintais, J., Trapova, A. EU copyright law round up – first trimester of 2021 In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021. @article{Trapova2021b,
title = {EU copyright law round up \textendash first trimester of 2021},
author = {Trapova, A. and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/04/06/eu-copyright-law-round-up-first-trimester-of-2021/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-04-07},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Jütte, B.J., Quintais, J. The Pelham Chronicles: Sampling, Copyright and Fundamental Rights In: Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 213-225, 2021. @article{QuintaisJutte2021,
title = {The Pelham Chronicles: Sampling, Copyright and Fundamental Rights},
author = {Quintais, J. and Jutte, B.J.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3775599},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpab040},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-02-18},
journal = {Journal of Intellectual Property Law \& Practice},
volume = {16},
number = {3},
pages = {213-225},
abstract = {On 29 July 2019 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) rendered its long-awaited judgment in Pelham. This judgement was published together, but not jointly, with those on Spiegel Online and Funke Medien. A bit less than a year later, on 30 April 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof or BGH), which had referred the cases to Luxembourg, rendered its judgments in all three cases. There are obvious parallels between these judgments, and their combined relevance for the interpretation of European copyright law in the light of EU fundamental rights cannot be understated.
This article focuses on Pelham, or the “Metall auf Metall” saga, as it is known in Germany. It analyses the relevant aspects and impact of Pelham in EU copyright law and examines how the BGH implemented the guidance provided by the CJEU. Where relevant, we draw the parallels to Funke Medien and Spiegel Online. Pelham gave the Court the opportunity to define the scope of the related right of reproduction of phonogram producers in art. 2(c) of Directive 2001/29/EC (InfoSoc Directive). The question whether such right enjoys the same scope of protection as the reproduction right for authorial works had made its way through the German courts for a remarkable two decades. This saga included a constitutional complaint, which in 2016 answered the question in the affirmative. The BGH’s preliminary reference to the CJEU was particularly important because on the back of the reproduction question it sought to clarify issues with fundamental rights implications, in particular the scope of the quotation right or defence and its application to musical creativity in the form of sampling.
This article proceeds as follows. After this introduction, we briefly revisit the Pelham saga in its journey through the German and European courts, providing he context to the underlying legal issues (2). We then turn to the interpretation of the scope of the reproduction and distribution rights for phonograms (3) before examining the CJEU’s assessment of the systematic nature of exceptions and limitations (E\&Ls) (4). We then discuss the wider implications of Pelham on the role of fundamental right in copyright law (5). We conclude with some doctrinal and practical observations on the wider implications of the “Metall auf Metall”-saga (6). },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
On 29 July 2019 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) rendered its long-awaited judgment in Pelham. This judgement was published together, but not jointly, with those on Spiegel Online and Funke Medien. A bit less than a year later, on 30 April 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof or BGH), which had referred the cases to Luxembourg, rendered its judgments in all three cases. There are obvious parallels between these judgments, and their combined relevance for the interpretation of European copyright law in the light of EU fundamental rights cannot be understated.
This article focuses on Pelham, or the “Metall auf Metall” saga, as it is known in Germany. It analyses the relevant aspects and impact of Pelham in EU copyright law and examines how the BGH implemented the guidance provided by the CJEU. Where relevant, we draw the parallels to Funke Medien and Spiegel Online. Pelham gave the Court the opportunity to define the scope of the related right of reproduction of phonogram producers in art. 2(c) of Directive 2001/29/EC (InfoSoc Directive). The question whether such right enjoys the same scope of protection as the reproduction right for authorial works had made its way through the German courts for a remarkable two decades. This saga included a constitutional complaint, which in 2016 answered the question in the affirmative. The BGH’s preliminary reference to the CJEU was particularly important because on the back of the reproduction question it sought to clarify issues with fundamental rights implications, in particular the scope of the quotation right or defence and its application to musical creativity in the form of sampling.
This article proceeds as follows. After this introduction, we briefly revisit the Pelham saga in its journey through the German and European courts, providing he context to the underlying legal issues (2). We then turn to the interpretation of the scope of the reproduction and distribution rights for phonograms (3) before examining the CJEU’s assessment of the systematic nature of exceptions and limitations (E&Ls) (4). We then discuss the wider implications of Pelham on the role of fundamental right in copyright law (5). We conclude with some doctrinal and practical observations on the wider implications of the “Metall auf Metall”-saga (6). |
| Husovec, M., Quintais, J. How to License Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms under the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive In: GRUR International - Journal of European and International IP Law, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 325-348, 2021. @article{Quintais2021GRURInt,
title = {How to License Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms under the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive},
author = {Quintais, J. and Husovec, M.},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikaa200
},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikaa200},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-02-18},
journal = {GRUR International - Journal of European and International IP Law},
volume = {70},
number = {4},
pages = {325-348},
abstract = {Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive is a major internet policy experiment of our decade. The provision fundamentally changes copyright regulation of certain digital platforms. However, the precise nature of Article 17 is far from clear. How does it fit the existing structure of EU copyright law and doctrine? How can the Member States implement it? These are the questions at the heart of this article. To answer them, we start by examining the nature and structure of the right prescribed in Article 17. The exact qualification brings important legal consequences. Among others, it determines the conditions imposed by EU and international law on national implementations. After reviewing different interpretation options, we conclude that Article 17 introduces either a ‘special’ or a ‘new’ sui generis right, both of which allow significant margin of discretion for Member States, especially as regards licensing mechanisms and exceptions.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive is a major internet policy experiment of our decade. The provision fundamentally changes copyright regulation of certain digital platforms. However, the precise nature of Article 17 is far from clear. How does it fit the existing structure of EU copyright law and doctrine? How can the Member States implement it? These are the questions at the heart of this article. To answer them, we start by examining the nature and structure of the right prescribed in Article 17. The exact qualification brings important legal consequences. Among others, it determines the conditions imposed by EU and international law on national implementations. After reviewing different interpretation options, we conclude that Article 17 introduces either a ‘special’ or a ‘new’ sui generis right, both of which allow significant margin of discretion for Member States, especially as regards licensing mechanisms and exceptions. |
| Gervais, D.J., P.B. Hugenholtz, Quintais, J. Trends And Developments In Artificial Intelligence: Challenges To Patent Law Kluwer Patent Blog 2021. @online{Quintais2021KPB,
title = {Trends And Developments In Artificial Intelligence: Challenges To Patent Law},
author = {Quintais, J. and Gervais, D.J. and P.B. Hugenholtz},
url = {http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/01/27/trends-and-developments-in-artificial-intelligence-challenges-to-patent-law/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-01-27},
organization = {Kluwer Patent Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
|
| Gervais, D.J., Hugenholtz, P., Quintais, J. Trends and Developments in Artificial Intelligence: Challenges to Copyright In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020. @article{Hugenholtz2020g,
title = {Trends and Developments in Artificial Intelligence: Challenges to Copyright},
author = {Hugenholtz, P. and Quintais, J. and Gervais, D.J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/12/16/trends-and-developments-in-artificial-intelligence-challenges-to-copyright/},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-12-17},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Allan, J., Gervais, D.J., Hartmann, C., Hugenholtz, P., Quintais, J. Trends and Developments in Artificial Intelligence: Challenges to the Intellectual Property Rights Framework: Final Report 2020, (Report written for the European Commission by P.B. Hugenholtz, D. Gervais, J.P. Quintais, C. Hartmann & J. Allan, completed September 2020. ISBN: 97892762244488). @techreport{Hugenholtz2020f,
title = {Trends and Developments in Artificial Intelligence: Challenges to the Intellectual Property Rights Framework: Final Report},
author = {Hugenholtz, P. and Quintais, J. and Gervais, D.J. and Hartmann, C. and Allan, J.},
url = {https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/394345a1-2ecf-11eb-b27b-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Trends_and_Developments_in_Artificial_Intelligence-1.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-11-27},
abstract = {This report examines copyright and patent protection in Europe for AI-assisted outputs in general and in three priority domains: science (in particular, meteorology), media (journalism), and pharmaceutical research. It comprises an assessment of the state of the art of uses of AI in the three focus areas, and a legal analysis of how IP laws currently apply to AI-assisted creative and innovative outputs. The report concludes that the current state of the art in AI does not require or justify immediate substantive changes in copyright and patent law in Europe. The existing concepts of copyright and patent law are sufficiently abstract and flexible to meet the current challenges from AI. In addition, related rights regimes potentially extend to ‘authorless’ AI productions in a variety of sectors, and the sui generis database right may offer protection to AI-produced databases resulting from substantial investment. However, taking into account the practical implications of AI technologies, the report identifies specific avenues for future legal reform (if justified by empirical evidence), offers recommendations for improvements in the application of existing rules (e.g. via guidelines), and highlights the need to study the role of alternative IP regimes to protect AI-assisted outputs, such as trade secret protection, unfair competition and contract law.},
note = {Report written for the European Commission by P.B. Hugenholtz, D. Gervais, J.P. Quintais, C. Hartmann \& J. Allan, completed September 2020. ISBN: 97892762244488},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
This report examines copyright and patent protection in Europe for AI-assisted outputs in general and in three priority domains: science (in particular, meteorology), media (journalism), and pharmaceutical research. It comprises an assessment of the state of the art of uses of AI in the three focus areas, and a legal analysis of how IP laws currently apply to AI-assisted creative and innovative outputs. The report concludes that the current state of the art in AI does not require or justify immediate substantive changes in copyright and patent law in Europe. The existing concepts of copyright and patent law are sufficiently abstract and flexible to meet the current challenges from AI. In addition, related rights regimes potentially extend to ‘authorless’ AI productions in a variety of sectors, and the sui generis database right may offer protection to AI-produced databases resulting from substantial investment. However, taking into account the practical implications of AI technologies, the report identifies specific avenues for future legal reform (if justified by empirical evidence), offers recommendations for improvements in the application of existing rules (e.g. via guidelines), and highlights the need to study the role of alternative IP regimes to protect AI-assisted outputs, such as trade secret protection, unfair competition and contract law. |
| Quintais, J. CIPIL Evening Webinar: 'Article 17 and the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms' 2020. @online{Quintais2020d,
title = {CIPIL Evening Webinar: 'Article 17 and the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms' },
author = {Quintais, J.},
url = {https://youtu.be/f1tGV_IdueQ },
year = {2020},
date = {2020-11-17},
abstract = {This presentation addresses the hottest topic in EU copyright law and policy: Article 17 of the new Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM) Directive (2019/790). The CDSM Directive is the culmination of a controversial political and legislative process at EU level. None of its provisions has caused greater debate than Article 17, which introduces a new liability regime for "online content-sharing service providers". These include most user-generated content platforms hosting copyright-protected content accessed daily by millions of individuals in the EU and across the globe. Even before the CDSM Directive is implemented into national law, the issues surrounding Article 17 have already spilled out to the policy and judicial arenas. At the policy level, the debates taking place in a number of Commission-led Stakeholder Dialogues have laid bare many of the unresolved challenges ahead for national legislators and courts. At the judicial level, the Polish government has filed an action for annulment with the CJEU under Article 263 TFEU, focusing on the most problematic aspects of Article 17. This presentation will first place Article 17 into its broader EU policy context of the discussion on the responsibilities of online platforms \textendash from the agenda on "Tackling Illegal Content Online" to the Digital Services Act \textendash and the narrow copyright context regarding the liability of intermediary platforms for third-party content they host. This will be followed by an explanation of the complex mechanics of Article 17 and an identification of some of its fundamental problems. Finally, some tentative proposals will be advanced for how to begin to address such problems, focusing on the core issues of licensing mechanisms and fundamental rights safeguards.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
This presentation addresses the hottest topic in EU copyright law and policy: Article 17 of the new Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM) Directive (2019/790). The CDSM Directive is the culmination of a controversial political and legislative process at EU level. None of its provisions has caused greater debate than Article 17, which introduces a new liability regime for "online content-sharing service providers". These include most user-generated content platforms hosting copyright-protected content accessed daily by millions of individuals in the EU and across the globe. Even before the CDSM Directive is implemented into national law, the issues surrounding Article 17 have already spilled out to the policy and judicial arenas. At the policy level, the debates taking place in a number of Commission-led Stakeholder Dialogues have laid bare many of the unresolved challenges ahead for national legislators and courts. At the judicial level, the Polish government has filed an action for annulment with the CJEU under Article 263 TFEU, focusing on the most problematic aspects of Article 17. This presentation will first place Article 17 into its broader EU policy context of the discussion on the responsibilities of online platforms – from the agenda on "Tackling Illegal Content Online" to the Digital Services Act – and the narrow copyright context regarding the liability of intermediary platforms for third-party content they host. This will be followed by an explanation of the complex mechanics of Article 17 and an identification of some of its fundamental problems. Finally, some tentative proposals will be advanced for how to begin to address such problems, focusing on the core issues of licensing mechanisms and fundamental rights safeguards. |
| Husovec, M., Quintais, J. How to License Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms In: 2020. @article{Husovec2020c,
title = {How to License Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms},
author = {Husovec, M. and Quintais, J.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3463011},
doi = {10.2139/ssrn.3463011},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-09-29},
abstract = {Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive is a major Internet policy experiment of our decade. The provision fundamentally changes copyright regulation of certain digital platforms. However, the precise nature of art. 17 is far from clear. How does it fit the existing structure of EU copyright law and doctrine? How can the Member States implement it? These are the questions at the heart of this article. To answer them, we start by examining the nature and structure of the right prescribed in art. 17. The exact qualification brings important legal consequences. Among others, it determines the conditions imposed by EU law and international law on national implementations. After reviewing different interpretation options, we conclude that art. 17 introduces either a special or a new sui generis right, both of which allow significant margin of discretion for Member States, especially as regards licensing mechanisms and exceptions.
[This is a revised and updated version of a working paper first published in October 2019]},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive is a major Internet policy experiment of our decade. The provision fundamentally changes copyright regulation of certain digital platforms. However, the precise nature of art. 17 is far from clear. How does it fit the existing structure of EU copyright law and doctrine? How can the Member States implement it? These are the questions at the heart of this article. To answer them, we start by examining the nature and structure of the right prescribed in art. 17. The exact qualification brings important legal consequences. Among others, it determines the conditions imposed by EU law and international law on national implementations. After reviewing different interpretation options, we conclude that art. 17 introduces either a special or a new sui generis right, both of which allow significant margin of discretion for Member States, especially as regards licensing mechanisms and exceptions.
[This is a revised and updated version of a working paper first published in October 2019] |
| Husovec, M., Quintais, J. Article 17 of the Copyright Directive: Why the German implementation proposal is compatible with EU law – Part 2 In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020. @article{Husovec2020b,
title = {Article 17 of the Copyright Directive: Why the German implementation proposal is compatible with EU law \textendash Part 2},
author = {Husovec, M. and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/08/28/article-17-of-the-copyright-directive-why-the-german-implementation-proposal-is-compatible-with-eu-law-part-2/?doing_wp_cron=1598609159.3323481082916259765625},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-08-28},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Husovec, M., Quintais, J. Article 17 of the Copyright Directive: Why the German implementation proposal is compatible with EU law – Part 1 In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020. @article{Husovec2020,
title = {Article 17 of the Copyright Directive: Why the German implementation proposal is compatible with EU law \textendash Part 1},
author = {Husovec, M. and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/08/26/article-17-of-the-copyright-directive-why-the-german-implementation-proposal-is-compatible-with-eu-law-part-1/},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-08-27},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Harkai, I., Katzenbach, C., Magalhães, J.C., Mezei, P., Quintais, J., Riis, T., Schwemer, S. Webinar on Public and Regulatory Framework of Online Intermediaries 2020. @online{Quintais2020c,
title = {Webinar on Public and Regulatory Framework of Online Intermediaries},
author = {Quintais, J. and Mezei, P. and Harkai, I. and Katzenbach, C. and Magalh\~{a}es, J.C. and Schwemer, S. and Riis, T. },
url = {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9RccSMBSjE\&t=5s
https://www.recreating.eu/public-and-regulatory-framework-of-online-intermediaries-workshop/
https://zenodo.org/record/3833714#.XseaZGgzbIW},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-05-22},
abstract = {Recording of the reCreating Europe Online Workshop on Public and Private Regulatory Framework of Online Intermediaries organized on 5 May 2020.
Slides and report of the event also available at the links below.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
Recording of the reCreating Europe Online Workshop on Public and Private Regulatory Framework of Online Intermediaries organized on 5 May 2020.
Slides and report of the event also available at the links below. |
| Carroll, M., Flynn, S., Geiger, C., Guibault, L., Margoni, T., Quintais, J., Sag, M. Implementing User Rights for Research in the Field of Artificial Intelligence: A Call for International Action In: European Intellectual Property Review, vol. 2020, no. 7, Forthcoming. @article{Flynn2020b,
title = {Implementing User Rights for Research in the Field of Artificial Intelligence: A Call for International Action},
author = {Flynn, S. and Geiger, C. and Quintais, J. and Margoni, T. and Sag, M. and Guibault, L. and Carroll, M.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3578819},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-04-21},
journal = {European Intellectual Property Review},
volume = {2020},
number = {7},
abstract = {Last year, before the onset of a global pandemic highlighted the critical and urgent need for technology-enabled scientific research, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) launched an inquiry into issues at the intersection of intellectual property (IP) and artificial intelligence (AI). We contributed comments to that inquiry, with a focus on the application of copyright to the use of text and data mining (TDM) technology. This article describes some of the most salient points of our submission and concludes by stressing the need for international leadership on this important topic. WIPO could help fill the current gap on international leadership, including by providing guidance on the diverse mechanisms that countries may use to authorize TDM research and serving as a forum for the adoption of rules permitting cross-border TDM projects.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {forthcoming},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Last year, before the onset of a global pandemic highlighted the critical and urgent need for technology-enabled scientific research, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) launched an inquiry into issues at the intersection of intellectual property (IP) and artificial intelligence (AI). We contributed comments to that inquiry, with a focus on the application of copyright to the use of text and data mining (TDM) technology. This article describes some of the most salient points of our submission and concludes by stressing the need for international leadership on this important topic. WIPO could help fill the current gap on international leadership, including by providing guidance on the diverse mechanisms that countries may use to authorize TDM research and serving as a forum for the adoption of rules permitting cross-border TDM projects. |
| Flynn, S., Geiger, C., Quintais, J. Implementing User Rights for Research in the Field of Artificial Intelligence: A Call for Action at International Level In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020. @article{Flynn2020c,
title = {Implementing User Rights for Research in the Field of Artificial Intelligence: A Call for Action at International Level},
author = {Flynn, S. and Geiger, C. and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/04/21/implementing-user-rights-for-research-in-the-field-of-artificial-intelligence-a-call-for-action-at-international-level/
http://infojustice.org/archives/42260},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-04-21},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
abstract = {A version of this post was also published on the InfoJustice website: http://infojustice.org/archives/42260},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
A version of this post was also published on the InfoJustice website: http://infojustice.org/archives/42260 |
| Bogataj Jancic, M., Botero, C., Butler, B., Carroll, M., Craig, C., Flynn, S., Geiger, C., Guibault, L., Jaszi, P., Margoni, T., Ncube, C., Quintais, J., Rocha de Souza, A., Sag, M., Scaria, A.G., White, B. Joint Comment to WIPO on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence In: 2020. @article{Flynn2020,
title = {Joint Comment to WIPO on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence},
author = {Flynn, S. and Carroll, M. and Sag, M. and Guibault, L. and Margoni, T. and Butler, B. and Rocha de Souza, A. and Bogataj Jancic, M. and Jaszi, P. and Quintais, J. and Geiger, C. and Ncube, C. and White, B. and Scaria, A.G. and Botero, C. and Craig, C.},
url = {http://infojustice.org/archives/42009},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-02-25},
abstract = {On December 13, 2019, WIPO invited member states and all other interested parties to provide comments and suggestions to help define the issues related to intellectual property (IP) and artificial intelligence (AI) based on a Draft Issues Paper on IP Policy and AI. These comments will be used to prepare a revised issues paper for discussion at the second session of the WIPO Conversation on IP and AI. This Joint Comment is made in response to WIPO’s Public Consultation on AI and IP Policy and is endorsed by 16 members of the Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights. },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
On December 13, 2019, WIPO invited member states and all other interested parties to provide comments and suggestions to help define the issues related to intellectual property (IP) and artificial intelligence (AI) based on a Draft Issues Paper on IP Policy and AI. These comments will be used to prepare a revised issues paper for discussion at the second session of the WIPO Conversation on IP and AI. This Joint Comment is made in response to WIPO’s Public Consultation on AI and IP Policy and is endorsed by 16 members of the Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights. |
| Frosio, G., Hugenholtz, P., Husovec, M., Jütte, B.J., Quintais, J., Senftleben, M., van Gompel, S. Safeguarding User Freedoms in Implementing Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: Recommendations from European Academics In: JIPITEC, vol. vol. 10, no. nr. 3 - 2019, 2020. @article{Quintais2020b,
title = {Safeguarding User Freedoms in Implementing Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: Recommendations from European Academics},
author = {Quintais, J. and Frosio, G. and van Gompel, S. and Hugenholtz, P. and Husovec, M. and J\"{u}tte, B.J. and Senftleben, M.},
url = {https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-10-3-2019/5042},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-02-25},
journal = {JIPITEC},
volume = {vol. 10},
number = {nr. 3 - 2019},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Ducato, R., Hegladóttir, A., Mazgal, A., Quintais, J., Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. Panel discussion at CPDP 2020: We need to talk about filters: algorithmic copyright enforcement vs data protection. 06.02.2020. @misc{Quintais2020,
title = {Panel discussion at CPDP 2020: We need to talk about filters: algorithmic copyright enforcement vs data protection. },
author = {Quintais, J. and Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. and Mazgal, A. and Ducato, R. and Heglad\'{o}ttir, A. },
url = {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SstHA1ALZoI},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-02-06},
abstract = {The new Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSM) Directive was published in May 2019. Its most controversial provision is Article 17 (ex 13), which creates a new liability regime for user-generated content platforms, like YouTube and Facebook. The new regime makes these platforms directly liable for their users’ uploads, without the possibility of benefiting from the hosting safe-harbour. This forces platforms to either license all or most of the content uploaded by users (which is near impossible) or to adopt preventive measures like filters. The likely outcome is that covered platforms will engage in general monitoring of the content uploaded by their users. This panel will discuss the issues raised by Article 17 DSM Directive and the model of algorithmic enforcement it incentivizes, with a focus on the freedom of expression and data protection risks it entails.
• Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive creates a new liability regime for user-generated content platforms.
• Does this provision introduce de facto the controversial upload filtering systems and, as a result, general monitoring of information in content-sharing platforms?
• Is Article 17 essentially in conflict with the GDPR and, in particular, the principle of minimisation and the right not to be subject to automated decision-making processes? What are the potential consequences of this provision on users’ freedom of expression?
• If Article 17 can negatively affect data protection and freedom of expression what are the possible legal and extra-legal responses to neutralise the risk?
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {presentation}
}
The new Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSM) Directive was published in May 2019. Its most controversial provision is Article 17 (ex 13), which creates a new liability regime for user-generated content platforms, like YouTube and Facebook. The new regime makes these platforms directly liable for their users’ uploads, without the possibility of benefiting from the hosting safe-harbour. This forces platforms to either license all or most of the content uploaded by users (which is near impossible) or to adopt preventive measures like filters. The likely outcome is that covered platforms will engage in general monitoring of the content uploaded by their users. This panel will discuss the issues raised by Article 17 DSM Directive and the model of algorithmic enforcement it incentivizes, with a focus on the freedom of expression and data protection risks it entails.
• Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive creates a new liability regime for user-generated content platforms.
• Does this provision introduce de facto the controversial upload filtering systems and, as a result, general monitoring of information in content-sharing platforms?
• Is Article 17 essentially in conflict with the GDPR and, in particular, the principle of minimisation and the right not to be subject to automated decision-making processes? What are the potential consequences of this provision on users’ freedom of expression?
• If Article 17 can negatively affect data protection and freedom of expression what are the possible legal and extra-legal responses to neutralise the risk?
|
| Quintais, J. The New Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: A Critical Look In: European Intellectual Property Review, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 28-41, 2020. @article{Quintais2019e,
title = {The New Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: A Critical Look},
author = {Quintais, J.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3424770},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-07},
journal = {European Intellectual Property Review},
volume = {42},
number = {1},
pages = {28-41},
abstract = {This article provides an overview and critical examination of the new Directive on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market. Despite some positive aspects, the Directive includes multiple problematic provisions, including the controversial new right for press publishers and the new liability regime for content-sharing platforms. On balance, the Directive denotes a normative preference for private ordering over public choice in EU copyright law, and lacks adequate safeguards for users. It is also a complex text with multiple ambiguities, which will likely fail promote the desired harmonization and legal certainty in this area.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This article provides an overview and critical examination of the new Directive on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market. Despite some positive aspects, the Directive includes multiple problematic provisions, including the controversial new right for press publishers and the new liability regime for content-sharing platforms. On balance, the Directive denotes a normative preference for private ordering over public choice in EU copyright law, and lacks adequate safeguards for users. It is also a complex text with multiple ambiguities, which will likely fail promote the desired harmonization and legal certainty in this area. |
| Jütte, B.J., Quintais, J. Sample, sample in my song, can they tell where you are from? The Pelham judgment – Part II In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2019. @article{Quintais2019i,
title = {Sample, sample in my song, can they tell where you are from? The Pelham judgment \textendash Part II},
author = {Quintais, J. and J\"{u}tte, B.J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/11/19/sample-sample-in-my-song-can-they-tell-where-you-are-from-the-pelham-judgment-part-ii/},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-11-19},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Frosio, G., Hugenholtz, P., Husovec, M., Jütte, B.J., Quintais, J., Senftleben, M., van Gompel, S. Safeguarding User Freedoms in Implementing Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: Recommendations from European Academics In: 2019. @article{Quintais2019g,
title = {Safeguarding User Freedoms in Implementing Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: Recommendations from European Academics},
author = {Quintais, J. and Frosio, G. and van Gompel, S. and Hugenholtz, P. and Husovec, M. and J\"{u}tte, B.J. and Senftleben, M.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3484968},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-11-12},
abstract = {On 17 May 2019 the new Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market was officially published (DSM Directive). Article 17 (ex-Article 13) is one of its most controversial provisions. Article 17(10) tasks the Commission with organising stakeholder dialogues to ensure uniform application of the obligation of cooperation between online content-sharing service providers (OCSSPs) and rightholders, and to establish best practices with regard to appropriate industry standards of professional diligence.
This document offers recommendations on user freedoms and safeguards included in Article 17 of the DSM Directive \textendash namely in its paragraphs (7) and (9) \textendash and should be read in the context of the stakeholder dialogue mentioned in paragraph (10).},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
On 17 May 2019 the new Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market was officially published (DSM Directive). Article 17 (ex-Article 13) is one of its most controversial provisions. Article 17(10) tasks the Commission with organising stakeholder dialogues to ensure uniform application of the obligation of cooperation between online content-sharing service providers (OCSSPs) and rightholders, and to establish best practices with regard to appropriate industry standards of professional diligence.
This document offers recommendations on user freedoms and safeguards included in Article 17 of the DSM Directive – namely in its paragraphs (7) and (9) – and should be read in the context of the stakeholder dialogue mentioned in paragraph (10). |
| Quintais, J. Safeguarding User Freedoms in Implementing Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: Recommendations from European Academics In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2019. @article{Quintais2019h,
title = {Safeguarding User Freedoms in Implementing Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: Recommendations from European Academics},
author = {Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/11/12/safeguarding-user-freedoms-in-implementing-article-17-of-the-copyright-in-the-digital-single-market-directive-recommendations-from-european-academics/},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-11-12},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Jütte, B.J., Quintais, J. Sample, sample in my song, can they tell where you are from? The Pelham judgment – Part I In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2019. @article{J\"{u}tte2019c,
title = {Sample, sample in my song, can they tell where you are from? The Pelham judgment \textendash Part I},
author = {J\"{u}tte, B.J. and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/11/06/sample-sample-in-my-song-can-they-tell-where-you-are-from-the-pelham-judgment-part-i/},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-11-07},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Angelopoulos, C., Quintais, J. Fixing Copyright Reform: A Better Solution to Online Infringement In: JIPITEC, vol. 10, no. 2, 2019. @article{Angelopoulos2019,
title = {Fixing Copyright Reform: A Better Solution to Online Infringement},
author = {Angelopoulos, C. and Quintais, J.},
url = {https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-10-2-2019/4913},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-10-11},
journal = {JIPITEC},
volume = {10},
number = {2},
abstract = {The newly-adopted Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSMD) will fundamentally reshape EU copyright law. Among its most controversial offerings is Article 17, the so-called “value gap” provision, aimed at solving the alleged mismatch between the value that online content-sharing platforms extract from creative content and the revenue returned to the copyright-holders. This article argues that the new rules are misguided, misconceiving the real problems afflicting modern copyright. These are the proliferation of copyright infringement online in general \textendash not only through content-sharing platforms \textendash and the current piecemeal harmonisation of the rules on the liability of the intermediaries whose services are used to access and disseminate copyright-protected content. The current outdated and fragmented EU legal framework is ill-equipped to address these problems. Instead, it creates legal uncertainty for users and intermediaries in the online environment, while also failing to compensate creators fairly. The new rules will not change this. This article examines the pre-DSMD acquis and proposes a better solution than Article 17, consisting of two key changes: (a) the introduction of a harmonised EU framework for accessory liability for third party copyright infringement; and (b) the adoption of an alternative compensation system for right-holders covering non-commercial direct copyright use by the end-users of certain online platforms.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The newly-adopted Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSMD) will fundamentally reshape EU copyright law. Among its most controversial offerings is Article 17, the so-called “value gap” provision, aimed at solving the alleged mismatch between the value that online content-sharing platforms extract from creative content and the revenue returned to the copyright-holders. This article argues that the new rules are misguided, misconceiving the real problems afflicting modern copyright. These are the proliferation of copyright infringement online in general – not only through content-sharing platforms – and the current piecemeal harmonisation of the rules on the liability of the intermediaries whose services are used to access and disseminate copyright-protected content. The current outdated and fragmented EU legal framework is ill-equipped to address these problems. Instead, it creates legal uncertainty for users and intermediaries in the online environment, while also failing to compensate creators fairly. The new rules will not change this. This article examines the pre-DSMD acquis and proposes a better solution than Article 17, consisting of two key changes: (a) the introduction of a harmonised EU framework for accessory liability for third party copyright infringement; and (b) the adoption of an alternative compensation system for right-holders covering non-commercial direct copyright use by the end-users of certain online platforms. |
| Husovec, M., Quintais, J. How to license Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms In: 2019, (Working paper). @article{Husovec2019,
title = {How to license Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms},
author = {Husovec, M. and Quintais, J.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3463011},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-10-03},
abstract = {How can the EU Member States license Article 17 of the new Directive on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market? This is the central question that this paper addresses. To answer it, we first analyse the nature of the right included in Article 17. We argue that the nature of the right has a number of serious consequences for its licensing. First, it determines whether the right is mandated by public international law, and hence what licensing modalities are allowed under the 1994 WTO TRIPS Agreement and 1996 WIPO treaties. Second, it clarifies what other conditions European Union law itself imposes on the newly established right and its implementation into national law. These restraints shape the margin of discretion of EU Member States. Third, it may imply changes to existing licensing practices, including the need for collective rights management organisations to obtain new mandates. Fourth, it influences how Member States can incorporate users’ rights into the legal framework. We argue that Article 17 is a special or sui generis right. We identify how this right fits the existing international and EU law, and explain why the Member States have a broad margin of discretion when implementing the corresponding licensing regimes. Perhaps most importantly, and counter-intuitively, we show that the legal arguments against Article 17 licensing via modalities of statutory licensing and mandatory collective management schemes are weaker than one might initially think.},
note = {Working paper},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
How can the EU Member States license Article 17 of the new Directive on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market? This is the central question that this paper addresses. To answer it, we first analyse the nature of the right included in Article 17. We argue that the nature of the right has a number of serious consequences for its licensing. First, it determines whether the right is mandated by public international law, and hence what licensing modalities are allowed under the 1994 WTO TRIPS Agreement and 1996 WIPO treaties. Second, it clarifies what other conditions European Union law itself imposes on the newly established right and its implementation into national law. These restraints shape the margin of discretion of EU Member States. Third, it may imply changes to existing licensing practices, including the need for collective rights management organisations to obtain new mandates. Fourth, it influences how Member States can incorporate users’ rights into the legal framework. We argue that Article 17 is a special or sui generis right. We identify how this right fits the existing international and EU law, and explain why the Member States have a broad margin of discretion when implementing the corresponding licensing regimes. Perhaps most importantly, and counter-intuitively, we show that the legal arguments against Article 17 licensing via modalities of statutory licensing and mandatory collective management schemes are weaker than one might initially think. |
| Jütte, B.J., Quintais, J. Conference on Freedom of Expression and Copyright: Luxembourg, 7 November 2019 In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2019. @article{J\"{u}tte2019b,
title = {Conference on Freedom of Expression and Copyright: Luxembourg, 7 November 2019},
author = {J\"{u}tte, B.J. and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/09/24/conference-on-freedom-of-expression-and-copyright-luxembourg-7-november-2019/},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-09-26},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Poort, J., Quintais, J. The Decline of Online Piracy: How Markets - Not Enforcement - Drive Down Copyright Infringement In: American University International Law Review, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 807-876, 2019. @article{Quintais2019f,
title = {The Decline of Online Piracy: How Markets - Not Enforcement - Drive Down Copyright Infringement},
author = {Quintais, J. and Poort, J.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3437239},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-08-20},
journal = {American University International Law Review},
volume = {34},
number = {4},
pages = {807-876},
abstract = {This article deals with the acquisition and consumption of music, films, series, books, and games through the various legal and illegal channels that exist nowadays, in a set of thirteen countries across the globe. The article has four aims. First, it provides an overview of the rules on liability for and enforcement of online copyright infringement in the countries studied. Second, it gives factual information about the state of authorized and unauthorized acquisition and consumption of these types of content. The third aim is to evaluate the underlying mechanisms and the link with enforcement measures and legal supply. Lastly, the article assesses the effect of online piracy on consumption from legal sources. To further these aims, the article combines different sources and empirical methods, including consumer surveys among nearly 35.000 respondents and comparative legal research. Our main conclusion is that online piracy is declining. The key driver for this decline is the increasing availability of affordable legal content, rather than enforcement measures. Where the legal supply of copyright-protected content is affordable, convenient and diverse, consumers are willing to pay for it and abandon piracy. Policymakers should therefore shift their focus from repressive approaches to tackle online infringement towards policies and measures that foster lawful remunerated access to copyright-protected content.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This article deals with the acquisition and consumption of music, films, series, books, and games through the various legal and illegal channels that exist nowadays, in a set of thirteen countries across the globe. The article has four aims. First, it provides an overview of the rules on liability for and enforcement of online copyright infringement in the countries studied. Second, it gives factual information about the state of authorized and unauthorized acquisition and consumption of these types of content. The third aim is to evaluate the underlying mechanisms and the link with enforcement measures and legal supply. Lastly, the article assesses the effect of online piracy on consumption from legal sources. To further these aims, the article combines different sources and empirical methods, including consumer surveys among nearly 35.000 respondents and comparative legal research. Our main conclusion is that online piracy is declining. The key driver for this decline is the increasing availability of affordable legal content, rather than enforcement measures. Where the legal supply of copyright-protected content is affordable, convenient and diverse, consumers are willing to pay for it and abandon piracy. Policymakers should therefore shift their focus from repressive approaches to tackle online infringement towards policies and measures that foster lawful remunerated access to copyright-protected content. |
| Poort, J., Quintais, J., van Eijk, N., van Hoboken, J. Hosting intermediary services and illegal content online: An analysis of the scope of article 14 ECD in light of developments in the online service landscape 2019, ISBN: 9789279930027, (A study prepared for the European Commission DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology, European Union, 2018, 47 p.). @techreport{vanHoboken2019b,
title = {Hosting intermediary services and illegal content online: An analysis of the scope of article 14 ECD in light of developments in the online service landscape},
author = {van Hoboken, J. and Quintais, J. and Poort, J. and van Eijk, N.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/hosting_intermediary_services.pdf},
doi = {10.2759/284542},
isbn = {9789279930027},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-08-06},
volume = {2018},
publisher = {European Union},
abstract = {This short study looks at the scope of the hosting safe harbour, in view of policies with respect to illegal content online and questions about the scope of Article 14 of the Electronic Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) from a legal and practical perspective. Specifically, the study addresses the question of what are the kinds of services that could invoke Article 14 ECD and develops an updated typology of hosting intermediaries for policy experts. It outlines the different potential revenue streams of different hosting intermediaries and discusses how these revenue streams may influence the incentives of services to address unlawful or infringing third-party activity. Finally, the study discusses the most important legal issues with respect to the scope of Article 14 ECD, focusing on the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU and other legal developments.
},
note = {A study prepared for the European Commission DG Communications Networks, Content \& Technology, European Union, 2018, 47 p.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
This short study looks at the scope of the hosting safe harbour, in view of policies with respect to illegal content online and questions about the scope of Article 14 of the Electronic Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) from a legal and practical perspective. Specifically, the study addresses the question of what are the kinds of services that could invoke Article 14 ECD and develops an updated typology of hosting intermediaries for policy experts. It outlines the different potential revenue streams of different hosting intermediaries and discusses how these revenue streams may influence the incentives of services to address unlawful or infringing third-party activity. Finally, the study discusses the most important legal issues with respect to the scope of Article 14 ECD, focusing on the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU and other legal developments.
|
| Bodó, B., Handke, C.W., Quintais, J., Vallbé, J. Knocking on Heaven’s Door: User preferences on digital cultural distribution In: Internet Policy Review, vol. 8, no. 2, 2019. @article{Vallb\'{e}2019,
title = {Knocking on Heaven’s Door: User preferences on digital cultural distribution},
author = {Vallb\'{e}, J. and Bod\'{o}, B. and Quintais, J. and Handke, C.W.},
url = {https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/knocking-heavens-door-user-preferences-digital-cultural-distribution},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-06-20},
journal = {Internet Policy Review},
volume = {8},
number = {2},
abstract = {This paper explores the social, demographic and attitudinal basis of consumer support of a Copyright Compensation System (CCS), which, for a small monthly fee would legalise currently infringing online social practices such as private copying from illegal sources and online sharing of copyrighted works. We do this by first identifying how different online and offline, legal and illegal, free and paying content acquisition channels are used in the media market using a cluster-based classification of respondents. Second, we assess the effect of cultural consumption on the support for a shift from the status quo towards alternative, CCS-based forms of digital cultural content distribution. Finally, we link these two analyses to identify the factors that drive the dynamics of change in digital cultural consumption habits. Our study shows significant support to a CCS compared to the status quo by both occasional and frequent buyers of cultural goods, despite the widespread adoption of legal free and paying online services by consumers. The nature of these preferences are also explored with the inclusion of consumer preference intensities regarding certain CCS attributes. Our results have relevant policy implications, for they outline CCS as a reform option. In particular, they point evidence-based copyright reform away from its current direction in the EU of stronger enforcement measures, additional exclusive rights, and increased liability and duties of care for online platforms. This work shows that CCS may be an apt policy tool to hinder piracy and potentially increase right holder revenues, while respecting fundamental rights and promoting technological development.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This paper explores the social, demographic and attitudinal basis of consumer support of a Copyright Compensation System (CCS), which, for a small monthly fee would legalise currently infringing online social practices such as private copying from illegal sources and online sharing of copyrighted works. We do this by first identifying how different online and offline, legal and illegal, free and paying content acquisition channels are used in the media market using a cluster-based classification of respondents. Second, we assess the effect of cultural consumption on the support for a shift from the status quo towards alternative, CCS-based forms of digital cultural content distribution. Finally, we link these two analyses to identify the factors that drive the dynamics of change in digital cultural consumption habits. Our study shows significant support to a CCS compared to the status quo by both occasional and frequent buyers of cultural goods, despite the widespread adoption of legal free and paying online services by consumers. The nature of these preferences are also explored with the inclusion of consumer preference intensities regarding certain CCS attributes. Our results have relevant policy implications, for they outline CCS as a reform option. In particular, they point evidence-based copyright reform away from its current direction in the EU of stronger enforcement measures, additional exclusive rights, and increased liability and duties of care for online platforms. This work shows that CCS may be an apt policy tool to hinder piracy and potentially increase right holder revenues, while respecting fundamental rights and promoting technological development. |
| Quintais, J. The New Copyright Directive: A tour d’horizon – Part II (of press publishers, upload filters and the real value gap) In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2019. @article{Quintais2019d,
title = {The New Copyright Directive: A tour d’horizon \textendash Part II (of press publishers, upload filters and the real value gap)},
author = {Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/06/17/the-new-copyright-directive-a-tour-dhorizon-part-ii-of-press-publishers-upload-filters-and-the-real-value-gap/},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-06-18},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Quintais, J. The New Copyright Directive: A tour d’horizon – Part I In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2019. @article{Quintais2019c,
title = {The New Copyright Directive: A tour d’horizon \textendash Part I},
author = {Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/06/07/the-new-copyright-directive-a-tour-dhorizon-part-i/},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-06-07},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Jütte, B., Quintais, J. Advocate General Turns down the Music - Sampling Is Not a Fundamental Right under EU Copyright Law In: European Intellectual Property Review , vol. 41, no. 10, pp. 654-657, 2019. @article{J\"{u}tte2019,
title = { Advocate General Turns down the Music - Sampling Is Not a Fundamental Right under EU Copyright Law},
author = {J\"{u}tte, B. and Quintais, J.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3377205},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-05-09},
journal = {European Intellectual Property Review },
volume = {41},
number = {10},
pages = {654-657},
abstract = {In his Opinion in Pelham (C-467/17) Advocate General Szpunar suggests that the use of samples from sound recordings is not permitted under the European copyright rules. While applying an extensive interpretation of the scope of the rights of phonogram producers, he rejects an extensive interpretation of the quotation exception and limits the role of fundamental rights as external checks to copyright law. Despite its merits, there are key aspects of the Opinion that raise concerns: a too broad interpretation of the reproduction right; and an unduly strict view of copyright exceptions \textendash especially quotation \textendash and the role of fundamental rights in shaping the scope of copyright protection. On those points, we suggest that the Court does not follow the Opinion.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
In his Opinion in Pelham (C-467/17) Advocate General Szpunar suggests that the use of samples from sound recordings is not permitted under the European copyright rules. While applying an extensive interpretation of the scope of the rights of phonogram producers, he rejects an extensive interpretation of the quotation exception and limits the role of fundamental rights as external checks to copyright law. Despite its merits, there are key aspects of the Opinion that raise concerns: a too broad interpretation of the reproduction right; and an unduly strict view of copyright exceptions – especially quotation – and the role of fundamental rights in shaping the scope of copyright protection. On those points, we suggest that the Court does not follow the Opinion. |
| Bodó, B., Ferrari, V., Giannopoulou, A., Quintais, J. Blockchain and the Law: A Critical Evaluation In: Stanford Journal of Blockchain Law & Policy, vol. 2, no. 1, 2019. @article{Quintais2019b,
title = {Blockchain and the Law: A Critical Evaluation},
author = {Quintais, J. and Bod\'{o}, B. and Giannopoulou, A. and Ferrari, V.},
url = {https://stanford-jblp.pubpub.org/pub/blockchain-and-law-evaluation},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-01-16},
journal = {Stanford Journal of Blockchain Law \& Policy},
volume = {2},
number = {1},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Bodó, B., Handke, Christian W., Quintais, J. Truce in the Copyright War? The Pros and Cons of Copyright Compensation Systems for Digital Use In: Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 23-56, 2019. @article{HandkeBodoQuintais2018,
title = {Truce in the Copyright War? The Pros and Cons of Copyright Compensation Systems for Digital Use },
author = {Handke, Christian W. and Quintais, J. and Bod\'{o}, B. },
url = {https://ssrn.com/abstract=3311019 },
year = {2019},
date = {2019-01-16},
journal = {Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues},
volume = {15},
number = {2},
pages = {23-56},
abstract = {This paper discusses copyright compensation systems (CCS) -- that provide licenses for downloading and non-commercial use of copyright works in return for a fee -- in the light of welfare economics and transaction cost economics. Recent empirical studies suggest that CCS could improve social welfare at least for recorded music. The general theme of the theoretical discussion in this paper is a simplicity-flexibility trade-off. On the one hand, CCS seek to reduce the costs of administering and trading copyrights online. On the other hand, standard copyright licenses distort the market mechanism. This paper discusses the costs and benefits of various CCS proposals compared to alternative ways of managing copyright online. },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This paper discusses copyright compensation systems (CCS) -- that provide licenses for downloading and non-commercial use of copyright works in return for a fee -- in the light of welfare economics and transaction cost economics. Recent empirical studies suggest that CCS could improve social welfare at least for recorded music. The general theme of the theoretical discussion in this paper is a simplicity-flexibility trade-off. On the one hand, CCS seek to reduce the costs of administering and trading copyrights online. On the other hand, standard copyright licenses distort the market mechanism. This paper discusses the costs and benefits of various CCS proposals compared to alternative ways of managing copyright online. |
| Jütte, B.J., Quintais, J. Thou shalt not sample...without permission! In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, vol. 2019, 2019. @article{Quintais2019,
title = {Thou shalt not sample...without permission!},
author = {Quintais, J. and J\"{u}tte, B.J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/01/02/thou-shalt-not-sample-without-permission/},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-01-10},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
volume = {2019},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| González Otero, B.,, Quintais, J. Before the Singularity: Copyright and the Challenges of Artificial Intelligence In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, vol. 2018, 2018. @article{Otero2018,
title = {Before the Singularity: Copyright and the Challenges of Artificial Intelligence},
author = {Gonz\'{a}lez Otero, B., and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2018/09/25/singularity-copyright-challenges-artificial-intelligence/},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-09-27},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
volume = {2018},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Bodó, B., Gervais, D.J., Quintais, J. Blockchain and smart contracts: the missing link in copyright licensing? In: International Journal of Law and Information Technology, vol. 2018, no. 4, pp. 311-336, 2018. @article{Bod\'{o}2018d,
title = {Blockchain and smart contracts: the missing link in copyright licensing? },
author = {Bod\'{o}, B. and Gervais, D.J. and Quintais, J.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IJLIT_2018.pdf
https://academic.oup.com/ijlit/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijlit/eay014/5106727},
doi = {10.1093/ijlit/eay014},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-09-27},
journal = {International Journal of Law and Information Technology},
volume = {2018},
number = {4},
pages = {311-336},
abstract = {This article offers a normative analysis of key blockchain technology concepts from the perspective of copyright law. Some features of blockchain technologies\textemdashscarcity, trust, transparency, decentralized public records and smart contracts\textemdashseem to make this technology compatible with the fundamentals of copyright. Authors can publish works on blockchain creating a quasi-immutable record of initial ownership, and encode ‘smart’ contracts to license the use of works. Remuneration may happen on online distribution platforms where the smart contracts reside. In theory, such an automated setup allows for the private ordering of copyright. Blockchain technology, like Digital Rights Management 20 years ago, is thus presented as an opportunity to reduce market friction, and increase both licensing efficiency and the autonomy of creators. Yet, some of the old problems remain. The article examines the differences between new, smart-contract-based private ordering regime and the fundamental components of copyright law, such as exceptions and limitations, the doctrine of exhaustion, restrictions on formalities, the public domain and fair remuneration.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This article offers a normative analysis of key blockchain technology concepts from the perspective of copyright law. Some features of blockchain technologies—scarcity, trust, transparency, decentralized public records and smart contracts—seem to make this technology compatible with the fundamentals of copyright. Authors can publish works on blockchain creating a quasi-immutable record of initial ownership, and encode ‘smart’ contracts to license the use of works. Remuneration may happen on online distribution platforms where the smart contracts reside. In theory, such an automated setup allows for the private ordering of copyright. Blockchain technology, like Digital Rights Management 20 years ago, is thus presented as an opportunity to reduce market friction, and increase both licensing efficiency and the autonomy of creators. Yet, some of the old problems remain. The article examines the differences between new, smart-contract-based private ordering regime and the fundamental components of copyright law, such as exceptions and limitations, the doctrine of exhaustion, restrictions on formalities, the public domain and fair remuneration. |
| Angelopoulos, C., Quintais, J. Fixing Copyright Reform: How to Address Online Infringement and Bridge the Value Gap In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2018. @article{Angelopoulos2018,
title = {Fixing Copyright Reform: How to Address Online Infringement and Bridge the Value Gap},
author = {Angelopoulos, C. and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2018/08/30/fixing-copyright-reform-address-online-infringement-bridge-value-gap/},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-09-04},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Poort, J., Quintais, J. Global Online Piracy Study In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, vol. 2018, 2018. @article{Quintais2018e,
title = {Global Online Piracy Study},
author = {Quintais, J. and Poort, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2018/07/31/global-online-piracy-study/},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-08-03},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
volume = {2018},
abstract = {The percentage of Internet users in Europe that occasionally download or stream music, films, series, books or games illegally has decreased between 2014 and 2017. The decrease is greatest for music, films and series. Meanwhile, expenditure on legal content has increased since 2014. This follows from the Global Online Piracy Study that the Institute for Information Law (IViR) of the University of Amsterdam published today.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The percentage of Internet users in Europe that occasionally download or stream music, films, series, books or games illegally has decreased between 2014 and 2017. The decrease is greatest for music, films and series. Meanwhile, expenditure on legal content has increased since 2014. This follows from the Global Online Piracy Study that the Institute for Information Law (IViR) of the University of Amsterdam published today. |
| Ende, M. van der, Hageraats, M., Poort, J., Quintais, J., Yagafarova, A. Global Online Piracy Study In: 2018. @article{Poort2018,
title = {Global Online Piracy Study},
author = {Poort, J. and Quintais, J. and Ende, M. van der and Yagafarova, A. and Hageraats, M.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Global-Online-Piracy-Study.pdf},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-07-31},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Ende, M. van der, Hageraats, M., Poort, J., Quintais, J., Yagafarova, A. Global Online Piracy Study - Annexes In: 2018. @article{Poort2018b,
title = {Global Online Piracy Study - Annexes},
author = {Poort, J. and Quintais, J. and Ende, M. van der and Yagafarova, A. and Hageraats, M.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Global-Online-Piracy-Study-Annexes-.pdf},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-07-31},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Quintais, J. Global Online Piracy Study: Legal Background Report In: 2018. @article{Quintais2018d,
title = {Global Online Piracy Study: Legal Background Report},
author = {Quintais, J.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Global-Online-Piracy-Study-Legal-Background-Report.pdf},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-07-31},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Quintais, J. Untangling the Hyperlinking Web: In Search of the Online Right of Communication to the Public In: Journal of World Intellectual Property (forthcoming), vol. 2018, pp. 1-36, Forthcoming, (The article is also available on SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3199733.An earlier version of this paper was awarded the 1st Prize in the 2017 ATRIP Essay Competition.). @article{Quintais2018c,
title = {Untangling the Hyperlinking Web: In Search of the Online Right of Communication to the Public},
author = {Quintais, J.},
url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jwip.12107},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-06-21},
journal = {Journal of World Intellectual Property (forthcoming)},
volume = {2018},
pages = {1-36},
abstract = {This article examines the online right of communication to the public under EUlaw and its interpretation by the Court of Justice of the EU. The focus of the analysis is on the controversial application of the right to hyperlinking, and its implications for the online activities of users and intermediaries. After outlining the international and EU legal framework on the right of communication to the public, the article advances a conceptual framework for the interpretation of the exclusive right in the online environment, which is both based on, and attempts to bring coherence to, the Court's complex case law. On this basis, the article then explores and critically assesses the main areas of legal uncertainty for the online application of the right and the normative considerations at stake\textemdashespecially fundamental rights and the promotion of technological development\textemdashoffering interpretative and legislative solutions for their resolution. The article argues for abandoning the legislative proposals for a new right for press publishers and the so-called value gap, as both are fundamentally flawed. Instead, reform should focus on redefining the right of communication to the public and preserving safe harbors, especially for hosting providers.},
note = {The article is also available on SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3199733.An earlier version of this paper was awarded the 1st Prize in the 2017 ATRIP Essay Competition.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {forthcoming},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This article examines the online right of communication to the public under EUlaw and its interpretation by the Court of Justice of the EU. The focus of the analysis is on the controversial application of the right to hyperlinking, and its implications for the online activities of users and intermediaries. After outlining the international and EU legal framework on the right of communication to the public, the article advances a conceptual framework for the interpretation of the exclusive right in the online environment, which is both based on, and attempts to bring coherence to, the Court's complex case law. On this basis, the article then explores and critically assesses the main areas of legal uncertainty for the online application of the right and the normative considerations at stake—especially fundamental rights and the promotion of technological development—offering interpretative and legislative solutions for their resolution. The article argues for abandoning the legislative proposals for a new right for press publishers and the so-called value gap, as both are fundamentally flawed. Instead, reform should focus on redefining the right of communication to the public and preserving safe harbors, especially for hosting providers. |
| Poort, J., Quintais, J. A Brief History of Value Gaps: Pre-Internet Copyright Protection and Exploitation Models In: vol. 2018, Chapter 2, pp. 11-58, Wolters Kluwer, 2018, (Chapter in: Copyright Reconstructed: Rethinking Copyright's Economic Rights in a Time of Highly Dynamic Technological and Economic Change, Hugenholtz, P.B. ed., Information Law Series, no. 41, Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer, 2018. ISBN: 9789041191038). @inbook{Quintais2018f,
title = {A Brief History of Value Gaps: Pre-Internet Copyright Protection and Exploitation Models},
author = {Quintais, J. and Poort, J.},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-05-03},
volume = {2018},
pages = {11-58},
publisher = {Wolters Kluwer},
chapter = {2},
series = {Information Law Series},
note = {Chapter in: Copyright Reconstructed: Rethinking Copyright's Economic Rights in a Time of Highly Dynamic Technological and Economic Change, Hugenholtz, P.B. ed., Information Law Series, no. 41, Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer, 2018. ISBN: 9789041191038},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
|
| Hugenholtz, P., Quintais, J. Towards a Universal Rights of Remuneration: Legalizing the Non-commercial Online Use of Works In: 2018, (Chapter in: Copyright Reconstructed: Rethinking Copyright's Economic Rights in a Time of Highly Dynamic Technological and Economic Change, Hugenholtz, P.B. ed., Information Law Series, no. 41, Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer, 2018. ISBN: 9789041191038). @inbook{Hugenholtz2018i,
title = {Towards a Universal Rights of Remuneration: Legalizing the Non-commercial Online Use of Works},
author = {Hugenholtz, P. and Quintais, J.},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-05-03},
note = {Chapter in: Copyright Reconstructed: Rethinking Copyright's Economic Rights in a Time of Highly Dynamic Technological and Economic Change, Hugenholtz, P.B. ed., Information Law Series, no. 41, Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer, 2018. ISBN: 9789041191038},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
|
| Quintais, J., Rendas, T. EU Copyright Law and the Cloud: VCAST and the Intersection of Private Copying and Communication to the Public In: Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice , vol. 2018, no. 9, pp. 711-719, 2018. @article{Quintais2018b,
title = {EU Copyright Law and the Cloud: VCAST and the Intersection of Private Copying and Communication to the Public},
author = {Quintais, J. and Rendas, T.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3113215},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-02-02},
journal = {Journal of Intellectual Property Law \& Practice },
volume = {2018},
number = {9},
pages = {711-719},
abstract = {This article examines the applicability of the private copying exception to cloud services against the backdrop of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the Opinion of Advocate General (AG) Szpunar in Case C-265/16, VCAST.
The case raises the question of whether the exception protects services of an online platform allowing users to store copies of free-to-air TV programmes in private cloud storage spaces. The AG’s proposed answer was to consider that cloud copying could generally be covered by the exception, but the specific service of VCAST could not. The CJEU focused on VCAST’s service only, largely following AG Szpunar’s conclusion.
The article explains and discusses both the Opinion and the Judgment, further addressing the possible implications of the case for the “leviability” of cloud-based services and the interface between the private copying exception and the right of communication to the public. },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This article examines the applicability of the private copying exception to cloud services against the backdrop of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the Opinion of Advocate General (AG) Szpunar in Case C-265/16, VCAST.
The case raises the question of whether the exception protects services of an online platform allowing users to store copies of free-to-air TV programmes in private cloud storage spaces. The AG’s proposed answer was to consider that cloud copying could generally be covered by the exception, but the specific service of VCAST could not. The CJEU focused on VCAST’s service only, largely following AG Szpunar’s conclusion.
The article explains and discusses both the Opinion and the Judgment, further addressing the possible implications of the case for the “leviability” of cloud-based services and the interface between the private copying exception and the right of communication to the public. |
| Quintais, J. Rethinking Normal Exploitation: Enabling Online Limitations in EU Copyright Law In: AMI, vol. 2017, no. 6, pp. 197-205, 2018. @article{Quintais2018,
title = {Rethinking Normal Exploitation: Enabling Online Limitations in EU Copyright Law},
author = {Quintais, J.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2017_6.pdf},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-01-11},
journal = {AMI},
volume = {2017},
number = {6},
pages = {197-205},
abstract = {The adoption of limitations to copyright is regulated at international and EU level by the three-step test. The major obstacle to new limitations for online use is a strict interpretation of the test, namely its second step, according to which a limitation shall not conflict with the normal exploitation of works. This article examines the test with a focus on the second step and its application to the digital and crossborder environment. It argues for a flexible and policy-oriented reading of the concept of normal exploitation. Following this approach could enable the introduction of new online limitations in EU law. In particular, within the context of current EU copyright reform, a flexible interpretation could support the introduction of a mandatory and unwaivable limitation for user-generated content. },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The adoption of limitations to copyright is regulated at international and EU level by the three-step test. The major obstacle to new limitations for online use is a strict interpretation of the test, namely its second step, according to which a limitation shall not conflict with the normal exploitation of works. This article examines the test with a focus on the second step and its application to the digital and crossborder environment. It argues for a flexible and policy-oriented reading of the concept of normal exploitation. Following this approach could enable the introduction of new online limitations in EU law. In particular, within the context of current EU copyright reform, a flexible interpretation could support the introduction of a mandatory and unwaivable limitation for user-generated content. |
| Quintais, J., Rendas, T. AG Szpunar on VCAST: Copyright and the Cloud 2017, (Kluwer Copyright Blog). @online{Quintais2017b,
title = {AG Szpunar on VCAST: Copyright and the Cloud},
author = {Quintais, J. and Rendas, T.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2017/10/09/ag-szpunar-vcast-copyright-cloud/},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-10-09},
abstract = {On 7 September 2017, AG Szpunar delivered his opinion on Case C-265/16, VCAST. The case concerns the question of whether the private copying exception covers the services of an online platform that allows users to store copies of free-to-air TV programmes in private cloud storage spaces. AG Szpunar’s proposed answer was a mixed one: while cloud copying, in general, should be considered covered by the exception, the specific service offered by VCAST should not.},
note = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
On 7 September 2017, AG Szpunar delivered his opinion on Case C-265/16, VCAST. The case concerns the question of whether the private copying exception covers the services of an online platform that allows users to store copies of free-to-air TV programmes in private cloud storage spaces. AG Szpunar’s proposed answer was a mixed one: while cloud copying, in general, should be considered covered by the exception, the specific service offered by VCAST should not. |
| Quintais, J. Copyright in the Age of Online Access: Alternative Compensation Systems in EU Law Kluwer Law International, 2017, ISBN: 9789041186676. @book{Quintais2017,
title = {Copyright in the Age of Online Access: Alternative Compensation Systems in EU Law},
author = {Quintais, J. },
url = {https://lrus.wolterskluwer.com/store/products/copyright-age-online-access-alternative-compensation-systems-eu-law-prod-9041186670/hardcover-item-1-9041186670#details},
isbn = {9789041186676},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-05-29},
volume = {40},
publisher = {Kluwer Law International},
series = {Information Law Series},
abstract = {This book examines pragmatic legal solutions that enable Internet users to access works in the digital environment by exploring the flexibilities in EU copyright law in search of a consistent regulation of non-commercial online use. In addition to proving virtually impossible, online enforcement of copyright may be undesirable because it risks encroaching upon fundamental rights and freedoms. However, the problem remains that creators are often not fairly remunerated for the online use of their works. This book addresses the need for legalisation schemes that favour remunerated access over exclusivity and enforcement for large-scale online use by individuals, while assuring remuneration to rights holders and promoting the development of the information society.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}
This book examines pragmatic legal solutions that enable Internet users to access works in the digital environment by exploring the flexibilities in EU copyright law in search of a consistent regulation of non-commercial online use. In addition to proving virtually impossible, online enforcement of copyright may be undesirable because it risks encroaching upon fundamental rights and freedoms. However, the problem remains that creators are often not fairly remunerated for the online use of their works. This book addresses the need for legalisation schemes that favour remunerated access over exclusivity and enforcement for large-scale online use by individuals, while assuring remuneration to rights holders and promoting the development of the information society. |
| Quintais, J. Alternative compensation models for large-scale non-commercial online use of works Remuneration for the use of works : exclusivity vs. other approaches, ALAI DE GRUYTER, Berlin, 2016, ISBN: 978-3-11-047819-8, (
Paper presented at ALAI International Congress - 50 Years of the German Copyright Act: Remuneration for the Use of Works - Exclusivity vs. Other Approaches, Bonn, June 18-20, 2015. Published in: Remuneration for the Use of Works - Exclusivity vs. Other Approaches, Edited by S. von Lewinski, Silke, De Gruyter (December 2016)
). @conference{,
title = {Alternative compensation models for large-scale non-commercial online use of works},
author = {Quintais, J.},
editor = {Lewinski, S. von},
url = {https://ssrn.com/abstract=2625492},
doi = { https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110478198},
isbn = {978-3-11-047819-8},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-12-01},
booktitle = {Remuneration for the use of works : exclusivity vs. other approaches},
pages = {pp. 298-306},
publisher = {DE GRUYTER},
address = {Berlin},
organization = {ALAI},
abstract = {
This paper briefly discusses an alternative legal model to assure remuneration for non-commercial mass online uses by individuals, covered by the exclusive rights of reproduction and communication/making available to the public in Directive 2001/29/EC. Alternative compensation systems (ACS) are legal mechanisms that forsake the need for direct authorization of end-user acts under the aforementioned rights \textendash downloading, uploading, sharing, modifying \textendash, while simultaneously ensuring compensation to creators (i.e. authors and performers) or all rights holders of works included in the scheme. After providing some background, the paper explains the concept of ACS, outlines the legal models and challenges to its implementation and reports on the results of an ongoing interdisciplinary research project on the legal and socioeconomic feasibility of such systems carried out by the Institute for Information Law (IViR), University of Amsterdam. Chief among the findings are the willingness of users to pay for and participate in an ACS, its quantification and, using the case-study of recorded music, the realization that such a model holds the promise of being welfare increasing.
},
note = {
Paper presented at ALAI International Congress - 50 Years of the German Copyright Act: Remuneration for the Use of Works - Exclusivity vs. Other Approaches, Bonn, June 18-20, 2015. Published in: Remuneration for the Use of Works - Exclusivity vs. Other Approaches, Edited by S. von Lewinski, Silke, De Gruyter (December 2016)
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {conference}
}
This paper briefly discusses an alternative legal model to assure remuneration for non-commercial mass online uses by individuals, covered by the exclusive rights of reproduction and communication/making available to the public in Directive 2001/29/EC. Alternative compensation systems (ACS) are legal mechanisms that forsake the need for direct authorization of end-user acts under the aforementioned rights – downloading, uploading, sharing, modifying –, while simultaneously ensuring compensation to creators (i.e. authors and performers) or all rights holders of works included in the scheme. After providing some background, the paper explains the concept of ACS, outlines the legal models and challenges to its implementation and reports on the results of an ongoing interdisciplinary research project on the legal and socioeconomic feasibility of such systems carried out by the Institute for Information Law (IViR), University of Amsterdam. Chief among the findings are the willingness of users to pay for and participate in an ACS, its quantification and, using the case-study of recorded music, the realization that such a model holds the promise of being welfare increasing.
|
| Quintais, J., Velze, S.C. van, Yakovleva, S. Symposium on Alternative Compensation Systems for Digital Copyright 2015, (
Summary Report of <a href="http://www.ivir.nl/onderzoek/acs">ACS Symposium</a> on Saturday 11 July 2015.
). @techreport{,
title = {Symposium on Alternative Compensation Systems for Digital Copyright},
author = {Quintais, J. and Velze, S.C. van and Yakovleva, S.},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1629.pdf},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-09-22},
note = {
Summary Report of \<a href="http://www.ivir.nl/onderzoek/acs"\>ACS Symposium\</a\> on Saturday 11 July 2015.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
|
| Bodó, B., Handke, C.W., Quintais, J., Vallbé, J. Knocking on Heaven's Door - User Preferences on Digital Cultural Distribution In: 2015. @article{,
title = {Knocking on Heaven's Door - User Preferences on Digital Cultural Distribution},
author = {Bod\'{o}, B. and Quintais, J. and Vallb\'{e}, J. and Handke, C.W.},
url = {http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2630519},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-07-31},
abstract = {
14 July 2015.
This paper explores the social, demographic and attitudinal basis of consumer support to a change from the status quo in digital cultural distribution. First we identify how different online and offline, legal and illegal, free and paying content acquisition channels are used in the Dutch media market using a cluster-based classification of respondents according to their cultural consumption. Second, we assess the effect of cultural consumption on the support to the introduction of a Copyright Compensation System (CCS), which, for a small monthly fee would legalize currently infringing online social practices such as private copying from illegal sources and online sharing of copyrighted works. Finally, we link these two analyses to identify the factors that drive the dynamics of change in digital cultural consumption habits.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
14 July 2015.<br />
This paper explores the social, demographic and attitudinal basis of consumer support to a change from the status quo in digital cultural distribution. First we identify how different online and offline, legal and illegal, free and paying content acquisition channels are used in the Dutch media market using a cluster-based classification of respondents according to their cultural consumption. Second, we assess the effect of cultural consumption on the support to the introduction of a Copyright Compensation System (CCS), which, for a small monthly fee would legalize currently infringing online social practices such as private copying from illegal sources and online sharing of copyrighted works. Finally, we link these two analyses to identify the factors that drive the dynamics of change in digital cultural consumption habits.
|
| Guibault, L., Quintais, J. Copyright, technology and the exploitation of audiovisual works in the EU In: IRIS Plus, no. 4, pp. 9-24., 2014, (
Lead article in IRIS plus 2014-4.
). @article{,
title = {Copyright, technology and the exploitation of audiovisual works in the EU},
author = {Guibault, L. and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1488.pdf},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-11-01},
journal = {IRIS Plus},
number = {4},
pages = {9-24.},
note = {
Lead article in IRIS plus 2014-4.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Quintais, J. Private Copying and Downloading from Unlawful Sources In: IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 66-92, 2014, (Article also available on SSRN). @article{,
title = {Private Copying and Downloading from Unlawful Sources},
author = {Quintais, J.},
url = {http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-014-0295-7},
doi = {10.1007/s40319-014-0295-7},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-10-29},
journal = {IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law},
volume = {46},
number = {1},
pages = {66-92},
abstract = {
Private copying is one of the most contested areas of EU copyright law. This paper surveys that nebulous area and examines the issue of copies made from unlawful sources in light of the ECJ’s ACI Adam decision. After describing the legal background of copyright levies and the facts of the litigation, the paper scrutinizes the Advocate General’s Opinion and the Court’s decision. The latter is analyzed against the history of copyright levies, the ECJ’s extensive case-law on the private copying limitation and Member States’ regulation of unlawful sources. This paper further reflects on the decision’s implications for end-users, rights holders, collective management organizations and manufacturers/importers of levied goods. It concludes that, from a legal and economic standpoint, the decision not only fails to be properly justified, but its consequences will likely diverge from those anticipated by the Court. Most worrisome is the Court’s stance on the three-step test, which it views as a restrictive, rather than enabling, clause. In its interpretation of the test, the decision fails to strike the necessary balance between competing rights and interests. This is due to multiple factors: overreliance on the principle of strict interpretation; failure to consider the fundamental right of privacy; lack of justification of the normative and empirical elements of the test’s second condition; and a disregard for the remuneration element in connection with the test’s third condition. To the contrary, it is argued that a flexible construction of the three-step test is more suited to the Infosoc Directive’s balancing aims.
},
note = {Article also available on SSRN},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Private copying is one of the most contested areas of EU copyright law. This paper surveys that nebulous area and examines the issue of copies made from unlawful sources in light of the ECJ’s ACI Adam decision. After describing the legal background of copyright levies and the facts of the litigation, the paper scrutinizes the Advocate General’s Opinion and the Court’s decision. The latter is analyzed against the history of copyright levies, the ECJ’s extensive case-law on the private copying limitation and Member States’ regulation of unlawful sources. This paper further reflects on the decision’s implications for end-users, rights holders, collective management organizations and manufacturers/importers of levied goods. It concludes that, from a legal and economic standpoint, the decision not only fails to be properly justified, but its consequences will likely diverge from those anticipated by the Court. Most worrisome is the Court’s stance on the three-step test, which it views as a restrictive, rather than enabling, clause. In its interpretation of the test, the decision fails to strike the necessary balance between competing rights and interests. This is due to multiple factors: overreliance on the principle of strict interpretation; failure to consider the fundamental right of privacy; lack of justification of the normative and empirical elements of the test’s second condition; and a disregard for the remuneration element in connection with the test’s third condition. To the contrary, it is argued that a flexible construction of the three-step test is more suited to the Infosoc Directive’s balancing aims.
|
| Quintais, J. Legalizing File-Sharing: An Idea Whose Time Has Come - Or Gone? Report from the Information Influx Conference 2014 In: 2014, (
1 October 2014
). @article{,
title = {Legalizing File-Sharing: An Idea Whose Time Has Come - Or Gone? Report from the Information Influx Conference 2014},
author = {Quintais, J. },
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2510545},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-10-24},
abstract = {
On 2-4 July 2014 Information Influx, the 25th anniversary conference of the Institute for Information Law (IViR) was held in Amsterdam. Integrated in the conference, on Friday, 4 July a panel entitled “Legalizing file-sharing: an idea whose time has come \textendash or gone?” met.
The panel’s moderator was Professor Bernt Hugenholtz (University of Amsterdam, IViR) and the panelists were scholars with groundbreaking research on the topic for the past decade: Professor Neil Netanel (University of California, Los Angeles), Professor Alexander Peukert (University of Frankfurt), Dr. Philippe Aigrain (La Quadrature du Net), Professor S\'{e}verine Dusollier (SciencesPo./\'{E}cole de droit).
The panel was divided into four parts, which this report reflects. First, the moderator introduced the topic and the panelists. Second, IViR member Mr. Bal\'{a}zs Bod\'{o} offered a short presentation of an ongoing research project on the topic of debate. Third, each panelist commented on the topic from different perspectives. The panel discussion was then opened for comments from the audience and responses from the panel.
},
note = {
1 October 2014
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
On 2-4 July 2014 Information Influx, the 25th anniversary conference of the Institute for Information Law (IViR) was held in Amsterdam. Integrated in the conference, on Friday, 4 July a panel entitled “Legalizing file-sharing: an idea whose time has come – or gone?” met.<br />
The panel’s moderator was Professor Bernt Hugenholtz (University of Amsterdam, IViR) and the panelists were scholars with groundbreaking research on the topic for the past decade: Professor Neil Netanel (University of California, Los Angeles), Professor Alexander Peukert (University of Frankfurt), Dr. Philippe Aigrain (La Quadrature du Net), Professor Séverine Dusollier (SciencesPo./École de droit).<br />
The panel was divided into four parts, which this report reflects. First, the moderator introduced the topic and the panelists. Second, IViR member Mr. Balázs Bodó offered a short presentation of an ongoing research project on the topic of debate. Third, each panelist commented on the topic from different perspectives. The panel discussion was then opened for comments from the audience and responses from the panel.
|
| Poort, J., Quintais, J. The Levy Runs Dry: A Legal and Economic Analysis of EU Private Copying Levies In: JIPITEC, no. 3, pp. 205-224, 2013. @article{,
title = {The Levy Runs Dry: A Legal and Economic Analysis of EU Private Copying Levies},
author = {Poort, J. and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-4-3-2013/3846},
year = {2013},
date = {2013-09-19},
journal = {JIPITEC},
number = {3},
pages = {205-224},
abstract = {
This article provides a legal and economic analysis of private copying levies in the EU, against the background of the Copyright Directive (2001/29), a number of recent rulings by the European Court of Justice and the recommendations presented by mediator Vitorino earlier this year. It concludes that notwithstanding these rulings and recommendations, there remains a lack of concordance on the relevance of contractual stipulations and digital rights management technologies (DRM) for setting levies, and the concept of harm. While Mr. Vitorino and AG Sharpston (in the Opinion preceding VG Wort v Kyocera) use different lines of reasoning to argue that levies raised on authorized copies would lead to double payment, the Court of Justice’s decision in VG Wort v Kyocera seems to conclude that such copies should nonetheless be levied. If levies are to provide fair compensation for harm resulting from acts of private copying, economic analysis suggests one should distinguish between various kinds of private copies and take account of the extent to which the value said copies have for consumers can be priced into the purchase. Given the availability of DRM (including technical protection measures), the possibility of such indirect appropriation leads to the conclusion that the harm from most kinds of private copies is de minimis and gives no cause for levies. The user value of copies from unauthorised sources (e.g. from torrent networks or cyber lockers), on the other hand, cannot be appropriated indirectly by rightholders. It is however an open question in references for preliminary rulings pending at the Court of Justice whether these copies are included in the scope of the private copying exception or limitation and can thus be be levied for. If they are not, as currently happens in several EU Member States, legal and economic analysis leads to the conclusion that the scope of private copying acts giving rise to harm susceptible of justifying levies is gradually diminishing.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This article provides a legal and economic analysis of private copying levies in the EU, against the background of the Copyright Directive (2001/29), a number of recent rulings by the European Court of Justice and the recommendations presented by mediator Vitorino earlier this year. It concludes that notwithstanding these rulings and recommendations, there remains a lack of concordance on the relevance of contractual stipulations and digital rights management technologies (DRM) for setting levies, and the concept of harm. While Mr. Vitorino and AG Sharpston (in the Opinion preceding VG Wort v Kyocera) use different lines of reasoning to argue that levies raised on authorized copies would lead to double payment, the Court of Justice’s decision in VG Wort v Kyocera seems to conclude that such copies should nonetheless be levied. If levies are to provide fair compensation for harm resulting from acts of private copying, economic analysis suggests one should distinguish between various kinds of private copies and take account of the extent to which the value said copies have for consumers can be priced into the purchase. Given the availability of DRM (including technical protection measures), the possibility of such indirect appropriation leads to the conclusion that the harm from most kinds of private copies is de minimis and gives no cause for levies. The user value of copies from unauthorised sources (e.g. from torrent networks or cyber lockers), on the other hand, cannot be appropriated indirectly by rightholders. It is however an open question in references for preliminary rulings pending at the Court of Justice whether these copies are included in the scope of the private copying exception or limitation and can thus be be levied for. If they are not, as currently happens in several EU Member States, legal and economic analysis leads to the conclusion that the scope of private copying acts giving rise to harm susceptible of justifying levies is gradually diminishing.
|
| Quintais, J. The empire strikes back: CISAC beats Commission in General Court In: Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, no. 9, pp. 680-683, 2013. @article{,
title = {The empire strikes back: CISAC beats Commission in General Court},
author = {J.P. Quintais},
url = {http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/9/680.abstract},
year = {2013},
date = {2013-08-13},
journal = {Journal of Intellectual Property Law \& Practice},
number = {9},
pages = {680-683},
abstract = {
The General Court\'s judgments in Case T-442/08 and related cases annulled Article 3 of the Commission\'s 2008 decision against CISAC and 20 collecting societies, on the basis of the Commission\'s failure to prove the required evidentiary legal standard for the existence of a concerted practice on national territorial limitations. These judgments should have an impact on the legislative process of the proposed Directive on collective rights management, namely in what concerns the multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The General Court's judgments in Case T-442/08 and related cases annulled Article 3 of the Commission's 2008 decision against CISAC and 20 collecting societies, on the basis of the Commission's failure to prove the required evidentiary legal standard for the existence of a concerted practice on national territorial limitations. These judgments should have an impact on the legislative process of the proposed Directive on collective rights management, namely in what concerns the multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses.
|
| Quintais, J. Dr Strangelaw, or how Portugal learned to stop worrying and love P2P In: Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, no. 3, pp. 193-196, 2013. @article{,
title = {Dr Strangelaw, or how Portugal learned to stop worrying and love P2P},
author = {J.P. Quintais},
url = {http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/3/193.abstract},
year = {2013},
date = {2013-02-22},
journal = {Journal of Intellectual Property Law \& Practice},
number = {3},
pages = {193-196},
abstract = {
A recent decision by a Public Prosecutor in a criminal case in Portugal, based on an Opinion by the Prosecutor General\'s Office, considers download acts by peer-to-peer (P2P) users to be covered by the private use limitation, raises the possibility that acts of upload are also covered by it and considers IP addresses insufficient evidence upon which to prosecute users.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
A recent decision by a Public Prosecutor in a criminal case in Portugal, based on an Opinion by the Prosecutor General's Office, considers download acts by peer-to-peer (P2P) users to be covered by the private use limitation, raises the possibility that acts of upload are also covered by it and considers IP addresses insufficient evidence upon which to prosecute users.
|
| Quintais, J. Proposal for a Directive on collective rights management and (some) multi-territorial licensing In: European Intellectual Property Review, no. 2, pp. 65-73, 2013, (
Article available on Westlaw. Preliminary version on Kluwer Copyright Blog: Part I and Part II.
). @article{,
title = {Proposal for a Directive on collective rights management and (some) multi-territorial licensing},
author = {Quintais, J.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2351186},
year = {2013},
date = {2013-01-31},
journal = {European Intellectual Property Review},
number = {2},
pages = {65-73},
abstract = {
This article provides a brief descriptive analysis of the recent Proposal from the European Commission for a Directive on collective rights management and multi-territorial licensing. After setting the necessary background, it examines the Proposal's main provisions, focusing on those establishing a governance and transparency framework for collecting societies and multi-territorial licensing for online uses of musical works.
},
note = {
Article available on Westlaw. Preliminary version on Kluwer Copyright Blog: Part I and Part II.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This article provides a brief descriptive analysis of the recent Proposal from the European Commission for a Directive on collective rights management and multi-territorial licensing. After setting the necessary background, it examines the Proposal's main provisions, focusing on those establishing a governance and transparency framework for collecting societies and multi-territorial licensing for online uses of musical works.
|
| Quintais, J. On Peers and Copyright: Why the EU should consider collective management of P2P Munich Intellectual Property Law Center, Nomos, 2012, ISBN: 978-3-8329-7638-5, (
). @book{,
title = {On Peers and Copyright: Why the EU should consider collective management of P2P},
author = {Quintais, J.},
url = {http://www.nomos-shop.de/Quintais-On-Peers-Copyright-Why-EU-Should-Consider-Collective-Management-of-P2P/productview.aspx?product=19336\&pac=weco},
isbn = {978-3-8329-7638-5},
year = {2012},
date = {2012-08-07},
publisher = {Munich Intellectual Property Law Center},
address = {Nomos},
series = {MIPLC},
abstract = {
This book analyzes the E.U.’s approach to P2P, a digital age technology that highlights the tensions between the Internet and a territorial and fragmented copyright law. It aims at providing the necessary legal qualification and context to understand why the E.U., while following an economic and socially onerous path, has thus far failed to achieve its deterrence goals. It is argued that a solution to this conundrum must be based on the use of copyright law and policy as tools for market organization and innovation growth, with respect for rights holders and users (sometimes) opposing interests and the existing legal framework. The best answer to mass online P2P uses seems to be that of collective rights management, as it offers an organized licensing and remuneration system compatible with the interests of stakeholders. This is especially true in the E.U., home to a developed and sophisticated market of CMOs, subject to numerous ECJ and Commission decisions, as well as varying E.U. institutional approaches, all pointing towards a preference for multi-territorial and pan-European licensing models. In this context, this book tests the compatibility of several non-voluntary and voluntary approaches to P2P with international treaties, the \textit{acquis }or simply strategic policy considerations.
},
note = {
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}
This book analyzes the E.U.’s approach to P2P, a digital age technology that highlights the tensions between the Internet and a territorial and fragmented copyright law. It aims at providing the necessary legal qualification and context to understand why the E.U., while following an economic and socially onerous path, has thus far failed to achieve its deterrence goals. It is argued that a solution to this conundrum must be based on the use of copyright law and policy as tools for market organization and innovation growth, with respect for rights holders and users (sometimes) opposing interests and the existing legal framework. The best answer to mass online P2P uses seems to be that of collective rights management, as it offers an organized licensing and remuneration system compatible with the interests of stakeholders. This is especially true in the E.U., home to a developed and sophisticated market of CMOs, subject to numerous ECJ and Commission decisions, as well as varying E.U. institutional approaches, all pointing towards a preference for multi-territorial and pan-European licensing models. In this context, this book tests the compatibility of several non-voluntary and voluntary approaches to P2P with international treaties, the acquis or simply strategic policy considerations.
|
