Copyright’s critical mess: music metadata external link
Copyright, metadata, music
Keyword: metadata
D5.6 – Policy Brief 1: Music Metadata Mainstreaming and EU Law download
pp: 50, 2024
Abstract
In order to enable composers, performers and the music industry to benefit from licensing opportunities in the field of new technologies, such as AI training, it is important to establish a comprehensive music metadata infrastructure that improves the visibility and accessibility of the European music repertoire in digital and algorithmic environments. Recognizing the need for metadata improvement, various European initiatives aim to increase awareness among artists and rightholders, and to build bridges between existing metadata collections and infrastructures. One central factor in the equation, however, has remained underexplored and underused to this day: despite the prohibition of formalities in the Berne Convention, it is conceivable to employ legal mechanisms, such as the notification of work-related information under Article 17(4)(b) of Directive 2019/790 on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, the opt-out mechanism relating to text and data mining that follows from Article 4(3) of the same Directive, and the EU rules on collective rights management, as well as the broader legal framework applicable to data spaces as vehicles to impose an obligation on rightholders to constantly provide updated music metadata in standardised form. If information stemming from these channels is pooled, the resulting accumulation of EU copyright data could lead to a promising reservoir of music metadata that is capable of enhancing and boosting licensing opportunities.
Copyright, metadata, music
Bibtex
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 external link
Senftleben, M., Margoni, T., Antal, D., Bodó, B., van Gompel, S., Handke, C.W., Kretschmer, M., Poort, J., Quintais, J. & Schwemer, S.
JIPITEC, vol. 13, iss. : 1, pp: 67-86, 2022
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.
Artificial intelligence, Collective licensing, Content moderation, Copyright, creative industry, cultural diversity, Digital services act, interoperability, market concentration, market failure, metadata, Music Modernization Act, recommender systems, SME, Transparency, trustworthy AI
Bibtex
New Data Security Requirements and the Proceduralization of Mass Surveillance Law after the European Data Retention Case external link
Abstract
This paper discusses the regulation of mass metadata surveillance in Europe through the lens of the landmark judgment in which the Court of Justice of the European Union struck down the Data Retention Directive. The controversial directive obliged telecom and Internet access providers in Europe to retain metadata of all their customers for intelligence and law enforcement purposes, for a period of up to two years. In the ruling, the Court declared the directive in violation of the human rights to privacy and data protection. The Court also confirmed that the mere collection of metadata interferes with the human right to privacy. In addition, the Court developed three new criteria for assessing the level of data security required from a human rights perspective: security measures should take into account the risk of unlawful access to data, and the data’s quantity and sensitivity. While organizations that campaigned against the directive have welcomed the ruling, we warn for the risk of proceduralization of mass surveillance law. The Court did not fully condemn mass surveillance that relies on metadata, but left open the possibility of mass surveillance if policymakers lay down sufficient procedural safeguards. Such proceduralization brings systematic risks for human rights. Government agencies, with ample resources, can design complicated systems of procedural oversight for mass surveillance – and claim that mass surveillance is lawful, even if it affects millions of innocent people.
Data protection, data retention, GCHQ, Grondrechten, metadata, NSA, Privacy, security, Snowden, Surveillance, traffic data