Generative AI and Creative Commons Licences – The Application of Share Alike Obligations to Trained Models, Curated Datasets and AI Output

Generative AI and Creative Commons Licences – The Application of Share Alike Obligations to Trained Models, Curated Datasets and AI Output external link

JIPITEC, vol. 15, iss. : 3, 2024

Abstract

This article maps the impact of Share Alike (SA) obligations and copyleft licensing on machine learning, AI training, and AI-generated content. It focuses on the SA component found in some of the Creative Commons (CC) licences, distilling its essential features and layering them onto machine learning and content generation workflows. Based on our analysis, there are three fundamental challenges related to the life cycle of these licences: tracing and establishing copyright-relevant uses during the development phase (training), the interplay of licensing conditions with copyright exceptions and the identification of copyright-protected traces in AI output. Significant problems can arise from several concepts in CC licensing agreements (‘adapted material’ and ‘technical modification’) that could serve as a basis for applying SA conditions to trained models, curated datasets and AI output that can be traced back to CC material used for training purposes. Seeking to transpose Share Alike and copyleft approaches to the world of generative AI, the CC community can only choose between two policy approaches. On the one hand, it can uphold the supremacy of copyright exceptions. In countries and regions that exempt machine-learning processes from the control of copyright holders, this approach leads to far-reaching freedom to use CC resources for AI training purposes. At the same time, it marginalises SA obligations. On the other hand, the CC community can use copyright strategically to extend SA obligations to AI training results and AI output. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to use rights reservation mechanisms, such as the opt-out system available in EU copyright law, and subject the use of CC material in AI training to SA conditions. Following this approach, a tailor-made licence solution can grant AI developers broad freedom to use CC works for training purposes. In exchange for the training permission, however, AI developers would have to accept the obligation to pass on – via a whole chain of contractual obligations – SA conditions to recipients of trained models and end users generating AI output.

Links

https://www.jipitec.eu/jipitec/article/view/415

Artificial intelligence, Copyright, creative commons, Licensing, machine learning

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Szkalej, K.
AU  - Senftleben, M.
PY  - 2024
DA  - 2024-12-13
T1  - Generative AI and Creative Commons Licences – The Application of Share Alike Obligations to Trained Models, Curated Datasets and AI Output
JO  - JIPITEC
VL  - 15
IS  - 3
UR  - https://www.jipitec.eu/jipitec/article/view/415
AB  - This article maps the impact of Share Alike (SA) obligations and copyleft licensing on machine learning, AI training, and AI-generated content. It focuses on the SA component found in some of the Creative Commons (CC) licences, distilling its essential features and layering them onto machine learning and content generation workflows. Based on our analysis, there are three fundamental challenges related to the life cycle of these licences:  tracing and establishing copyright-relevant uses during the development phase (training), the interplay of licensing conditions with copyright exceptions and the identification of copyright-protected traces in AI output. Significant problems can arise from several concepts in CC licensing agreements (‘adapted material’ and ‘technical modification’) that could serve as a basis for applying SA conditions to trained models, curated datasets and AI output that can be traced back to CC material used for training purposes. Seeking to transpose Share Alike and copyleft approaches to the world of generative AI, the CC community can only choose between two policy approaches. On the one hand, it can uphold the supremacy of copyright exceptions. In countries and regions that exempt machine-learning processes from the control of copyright holders, this approach leads to far-reaching freedom to use CC resources for AI training purposes. At the same time, it marginalises SA obligations. On the other hand, the CC community can use copyright strategically to extend SA obligations to AI training results and AI output. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to use rights reservation mechanisms, such as the opt-out system available in EU copyright law, and subject the use of CC material in AI training to SA conditions. Following this approach, a tailor-made licence solution can grant AI developers broad freedom to use CC works for training purposes. In exchange for the training permission, however, AI developers would have to accept the obligation to pass on – via a whole chain of contractual obligations – SA conditions to recipients of trained models and end users generating AI output.
K1  - Artificial intelligence
K1  - Copyright
K1  - creative commons
K1  - Licensing
K1  - machine learning
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Generative AI and Creative Commons Licences – The Application of Share Alike Obligations to Trained Models, Curated Datasets and AI Output},
	author = {Szkalej, K. and Senftleben, M.},
	year = {2024},
	date = {2024-12-13},
	journal = {JIPITEC},
	volume = {15},
	issue = {3},
	abstract = {This article maps the impact of Share Alike (SA) obligations and copyleft licensing on machine learning, AI training, and AI-generated content. It focuses on the SA component found in some of the Creative Commons (CC) licences, distilling its essential features and layering them onto machine learning and content generation workflows. Based on our analysis, there are three fundamental challenges related to the life cycle of these licences:  tracing and establishing copyright-relevant uses during the development phase (training), the interplay of licensing conditions with copyright exceptions and the identification of copyright-protected traces in AI output. Significant problems can arise from several concepts in CC licensing agreements (‘adapted material’ and ‘technical modification’) that could serve as a basis for applying SA conditions to trained models, curated datasets and AI output that can be traced back to CC material used for training purposes. Seeking to transpose Share Alike and copyleft approaches to the world of generative AI, the CC community can only choose between two policy approaches. On the one hand, it can uphold the supremacy of copyright exceptions. In countries and regions that exempt machine-learning processes from the control of copyright holders, this approach leads to far-reaching freedom to use CC resources for AI training purposes. At the same time, it marginalises SA obligations. On the other hand, the CC community can use copyright strategically to extend SA obligations to AI training results and AI output. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to use rights reservation mechanisms, such as the opt-out system available in EU copyright law, and subject the use of CC material in AI training to SA conditions. Following this approach, a tailor-made licence solution can grant AI developers broad freedom to use CC works for training purposes. In exchange for the training permission, however, AI developers would have to accept the obligation to pass on – via a whole chain of contractual obligations – SA conditions to recipients of trained models and end users generating AI output.},
	keywords = {Artificial intelligence, Copyright, creative commons, Licensing, machine learning},
}

Save .bib

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 external link

Quintais, J. & Husovec, M.

GRUR International - Journal of European and International IP Law, vol. 70, num: 4, pp: 325-348, 2021

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.

Links

Article 17, communication to the public, exceptions and limitations, frontpage, frontpage; copyright law, intermediaries, Licensing

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Quintais, J.
AU  - Husovec, M.
PY  - 0218
DA  - 2021-02-18
T1  - 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
JO  - GRUR International - Journal of European and International IP Law
VL  - 70
NV  - 4
SP  - 325-348
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikaa200

DO  - https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikaa200
AB  - 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.
K1  - Article 17
K1  - communication to the public
K1  - exceptions and limitations
K1  - frontpage
K1  - frontpage; copyright law
K1  - intermediaries
K1  - Licensing
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

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.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikaa200},
	year = {0218},
	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 = {Article 17, communication to the public, exceptions and limitations, frontpage, frontpage; copyright law, intermediaries, Licensing},
}

Save .bib

How to License Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms external link

Husovec, M. & Quintais, J.

2020

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]

Links

Article 17, communication to the public, Copyright, exceptions and limitations, frontpage, intermediaries, Licensing

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Husovec, M.
AU  - Quintais, J.
PY  - 2020
DA  - 2020-09-29
T1  - How to License Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms
UR  - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3463011
DO  - https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3463011
AB  - 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]
K1  - Article 17
K1  - communication to the public
K1  - Copyright
K1  - exceptions and limitations
K1  - frontpage
K1  - intermediaries
K1  - Licensing
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

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.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/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 = {Article 17, communication to the public, Copyright, exceptions and limitations, frontpage, intermediaries, Licensing},
}

Save .bib

Selected Aspects of Implementing Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market into National Law – Comment of the European Copyright Society external link

Metzger, A., Senftleben, M., Derclaye E., Dreier, T., Geiger, C., Griffiths, J., Hilty, R., Hugenholtz, P.B., Riis, T., Rognstad, O.A., Strowel, A.M., Synodinou, T. & Xalabarder, R.

2020

Abstract

The national implementation of Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSMD) poses particular challenges. Article 17 is one of the most complex – and most controversial – provisions of the new legislative package which EU Member States must transpose into national law by 7 June 2021. Seeking to contribute to the debate on implementation options, the European Copyright Society addresses several core aspects of Article 17 that may play an important role in the national implementation process. It deals with the concept of online content-sharing service providers (OCSSPs) before embarking on a discussion of the licensing and content moderation duties which OCSSPs must fulfil in accordance with Article 17(1) and (4). The analysis also focuses on the copyright limitations mentioned in Article 17(7) that support the creation and dissemination of transformative user-generated content (UGC). It also discusses the appropriate configuration of complaint and redress mechanisms set forth in Article 17(9) that seek to reduce the risk of unjustified content removals. Finally, the European Copyright Society addresses the possibility of implementing direct remuneration claims for authors and performers, and explores the private international law aspect of applicable law – an impact factor that is often overlooked in the debate.

Links

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3589323

algorithmic enforcement, applicable law, collective copyright management, content hosting, Content moderation, copyright contract law, EU copyright law, filtering mechanisms, Freedom of expression, Licensing, notice-and-takedown, private international law, transformative use, user-generated content

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Metzger, A.
AU  - Senftleben, M.
AU  - Derclaye E.
AU  - Dreier, T.
AU  - Geiger, C.
AU  - Griffiths, J.
AU  - Hilty, R.
AU  - Hugenholtz, P.B.
AU  - Riis, T.
AU  - Rognstad, O.A.
AU  - Strowel, A.M.
AU  - Synodinou, T.
AU  - Xalabarder, R.
PY  - 0507
DA  - 2020-05-07
T1  - Selected Aspects of Implementing Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market into National Law – Comment of the European Copyright Society
UR  - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3589323
AB  - The national implementation of Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSMD) poses particular challenges. Article 17 is one of the most complex – and most controversial – provisions of the new legislative package which EU Member States must transpose into national law by 7 June 2021. Seeking to contribute to the debate on implementation options, the European Copyright Society addresses several core aspects of Article 17 that may play an important role in the national implementation process. It deals with the concept of online content-sharing service providers (OCSSPs) before embarking on a discussion of the licensing and content moderation duties which OCSSPs must fulfil in accordance with Article 17(1) and (4). The analysis also focuses on the copyright limitations mentioned in Article 17(7) that support the creation and dissemination of transformative user-generated content (UGC). It also discusses the appropriate configuration of complaint and redress mechanisms set forth in Article 17(9) that seek to reduce the risk of unjustified content removals. Finally, the European Copyright Society addresses the possibility of implementing direct remuneration claims for authors and performers, and explores the private international law aspect of applicable law – an impact factor that is often overlooked in the debate.
K1  - algorithmic enforcement
K1  - applicable law
K1  - collective copyright management
K1  - content hosting
K1  - Content moderation
K1  - copyright contract law
K1  - EU copyright law
K1  - filtering mechanisms
K1  - Freedom of expression
K1  - Licensing
K1  - notice-and-takedown
K1  - private international law
K1  - transformative use
K1  - user-generated content
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{Metzger2020,
	title = {Selected Aspects of Implementing Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market into National Law – Comment of the European Copyright Society},
	author = {Metzger, A. and Senftleben, M. and Derclaye E. and Dreier, T. and Geiger, C. and Griffiths, J. and Hilty, R. and Hugenholtz, P.B. and Riis, T. and Rognstad, O.A. and Strowel, A.M. and Synodinou, T. and Xalabarder, R.},
	year = {0507},
	date = {2020-05-07},
	abstract = {The national implementation of Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSMD) poses particular challenges. Article 17 is one of the most complex – and most controversial – provisions of the new legislative package which EU Member States must transpose into national law by 7 June 2021. Seeking to contribute to the debate on implementation options, the European Copyright Society addresses several core aspects of Article 17 that may play an important role in the national implementation process. It deals with the concept of online content-sharing service providers (OCSSPs) before embarking on a discussion of the licensing and content moderation duties which OCSSPs must fulfil in accordance with Article 17(1) and (4). The analysis also focuses on the copyright limitations mentioned in Article 17(7) that support the creation and dissemination of transformative user-generated content (UGC). It also discusses the appropriate configuration of complaint and redress mechanisms set forth in Article 17(9) that seek to reduce the risk of unjustified content removals. Finally, the European Copyright Society addresses the possibility of implementing direct remuneration claims for authors and performers, and explores the private international law aspect of applicable law – an impact factor that is often overlooked in the debate.},
	keywords = {algorithmic enforcement, applicable law, collective copyright management, content hosting, Content moderation, copyright contract law, EU copyright law, filtering mechanisms, Freedom of expression, Licensing, notice-and-takedown, private international law, transformative use, user-generated content},
}

Save .bib

Safeguarding User Freedoms in Implementing Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: Recommendations from European Academics external link

Quintais, J., Frosio, G., van Gompel, S., Hugenholtz, P.B., Husovec, M., Jütte, B.J. & Senftleben, M.

JIPITEC, vol. vol. 10, num: nr. 3 - 2019, 2020

Links

https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-10-3-2019/5042

Article 17, Content-Sharing Service Providers, Copyright, digital content, Digital Single Market, DSM Directive, exceptions and limitations, Licensing, Online services, Platforms

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

How to license Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms external link

Husovec, M. & Quintais, J.

2019

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.

Links

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3463011

Article 17, Copyright, DMS Directive, frontpage, Licensing, ontent sharing service providers, Platforms

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Husovec, M.
AU  - Quintais, J.
PY  - 1003
DA  - 2019-10-03
T1  - How to license Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms
UR  - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3463011
AB  - 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.
K1  - Article 17
K1  - Copyright
K1  - DMS Directive
K1  - frontpage
K1  - Licensing
K1  - ontent sharing service providers
K1  - Platforms
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

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.},
	year = {1003},
	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.},
	keywords = {Article 17, Copyright, DMS Directive, frontpage, Licensing, ontent sharing service providers, Platforms},
}

Save .bib

The New Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: A Critical Look external link

Quintais, J.

European Intellectual Property Review, vol. 42, num: 1, pp: 28-41, 2020

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.

Links

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3424770

Collective licensing, Copyright, digital content, Digital Single Market, EU law, exceptions and limitations, frontpage, Licensing, Online services, Text and Data Mining (TDM)

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Quintais, J.
PY  - 0107
DA  - 2020-01-07
T1  - The New Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: A Critical Look
JO  - European Intellectual Property Review
VL  - 42
NV  - 1
SP  - 28-41
UR  - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3424770
AB  - 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.
K1  - Collective licensing
K1  - Copyright
K1  - digital content
K1  - Digital Single Market
K1  - EU law
K1  - exceptions and limitations
K1  - frontpage
K1  - Licensing
K1  - Online services
K1  - Text and Data Mining (TDM)
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{Quintais2019e,
	title = {The New Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: A Critical Look},
	author = {Quintais, J.},
	year = {0107},
	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 = {Collective licensing, Copyright, digital content, Digital Single Market, EU law, exceptions and limitations, frontpage, Licensing, Online services, Text and Data Mining (TDM)},
}

Save .bib

Blockchain and smart contracts: the missing link in copyright licensing? external link

Bodó, B., Gervais, D.J. & Quintais, J.

International Journal of Law and Information Technology, vol. 2018, num: 4, pp: 311-336, 2018

Abstract

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.

Links

blockchain, Copyright, frontpage, Licensing, smart contracts

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Bodó, B.
AU  - Gervais, D.J.
AU  - Quintais, J.
PY  - 0927
DA  - 2018-09-27
T1  - Blockchain and smart contracts: the missing link in copyright licensing?
JO  - International Journal of Law and Information Technology
VL  - 2018
NV  - 4
SP  - 311-336
UR  - https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IJLIT_2018.pdf
https://academic.oup.com/ijlit/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ijlit/eay014/5106727
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eay014
AB  - 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.
K1  - blockchain
K1  - Copyright
K1  - frontpage
K1  - Licensing
K1  - smart contracts
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{Bodó2018d,
	title = {Blockchain and smart contracts: the missing link in copyright licensing?},
	author = {Bodó, B. and Gervais, D.J. and Quintais, J.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eay014},
	year = {0927},
	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—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.},
	keywords = {blockchain, Copyright, frontpage, Licensing, smart contracts},
}

Save .bib

Literature review on the use of licensing in library context, and the limitations this creates to access to knowledge external link

Yakovleva, S.

vol. 2017, 2017

Abstract

The dual purpose of this literature review is, first, to identify and summarise limitations that result from the use of copyright licences in a library context, and, second, to illustrate these limitations with specific examples available in both the academic and grey literature. The licences discussed in the reviewed literature deal essentially with access to, and use of, digital content.

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/limits_of_licensing_literature_review.pdf

access to knowledge, Copyright, frontpage, libraries, Licensing

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Formalidades del derecho de autor en la era de internet: filtros de protección o facilitadores de licenciamiento external link

van Gompel, S.

Revista de Chilena de Derecho y Tecnología, vol. 5, num: 1, pp: 9-55, 2017

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/RCDT_2016.pdf

Auteursrecht, filters, formalities, frontpage, Internet, Licensing

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib