@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}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Web harvesting: auteursrechtelijke implicaties en oplossingsrichtingen},

author = {van Gompel, S. and Schumacher, L.D. and Senftleben, M.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/auteursrecht_2022_1/},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-03-03},

journal = {Auteursrecht},

issue = {1},

pages = {3-14},

abstract = {‘Web harvesting’ is het proces waarbij een web crawler \textendash een gespecialiseerd computerprogramma \textendash wordt ingezet om websites en internetpagina’s op geautomatiseerde wijze te verzamelen en toe te voegen aan een webarchief. Nederlandse erfgoedinstellingen gebruiken deze techniek bijvoorbeeld om websites aan hun collecties toe te voegen die op het Nederlandse publiek zijn gericht (‘nationale domeincrawl’). Web harvesting kan ook beperkt zijn tot specifiek geselecteerde websites die met een bepaald onderwerp of gebeurtenis samenhangen (‘beredeneerde selectie’). In Nederland gebeurt web harvesting thans enkel nog op kleine schaal. Web crawling gaat namelijk gepaard met talloze reproductiehandelingen, waarvoor vanuit auteursrechtelijk perspectief toestemming kan zijn vereist. Voor het herhaaldelijk en systematisch harvesten van grote hoeveelheden materiaal op het web is het verkrijgen van individuele toestemming een schier onmogelijke taak. Daarnaast willen erfgoedinstellingen het geharveste materiaal ook op een of andere manier ontsluiten om het gebruik voor algemene zin \textendash toegang tot het digitale culturele erfgoed te bieden. Dit artikel onderzoekt tegen deze achtergrond, mede aan de hand van een rechtsvergelijking met het buitenland, welke oplossingsrichtingen er binnen het huidige auteursrechtelijke kader bestaan om web harvesting-activiteiten door erfgoedinstellingen op grotere schaal mogelijk te maken. Dit is nodig om gaten in de archivering van het online Nederlands erfgoed te voorkomen en het digitale culturele erfgoed voor het nageslacht te bewaren en beschikbaar te stellen. },

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@inbook{nokey,

title = {Introduction: An Information Law Approach to Intellectual Property and Sports},

author = {Senftleben, M. and Poort, J. and van Eechoud, M. and van Gompel, S. and Helberger, N.},

isbn = {9789403537337},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-11-30},

urldate = {2021-11-30},

booktitle = {Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz},

pages = {3-11},

publisher = {Wolters Kluwer},

series = {Information Law Series},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{nokey,

title = {Sports as Policy Levers in Intellectual Property Lawmaking},

author = {van Gompel, S.},

isbn = {9789403537337},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-11-30},

urldate = {2021-11-30},

booktitle = {Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz},

pages = {119-130},

publisher = {Wolters Kluwer},

series = {Information Law Series},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@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}

}

@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}

}

@book{ils2021,

title = {Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz},

author = {Senftleben, M. and Poort, J. and van Eechoud, M. and van Gompel, S. and Helberger, N.},

url = {https://lrus.wolterskluwer.com/store/product/intellectual-property-and-sports-essays-in-honour-of-p-bernt-hugenholtz/},

isbn = {9789403537337},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-09-09},

urldate = {2021-09-09},

volume = {46},

publisher = {Kluwer Law International},

series = {Information Law Series},

abstract = {Intellectual Property and Sports celebrates the enormous achievements of Professor Bernt Hugenholtz in the field of intellectual property and information law. Renowned intellectual property law expert Bernt Hugenholtz once warned, chiding the voracity of copyright, that reducing the subject matter test to mere originality and personal stamp might lead to ‘infinite expansion of the concept of the work of authorship. Anything touched by human hand, including for instance sports performances, would be deemed a work’. Focus on sports-related intellectual property issues offers an ideal starting point for exploring core questions on information law. Legal rules in sports and intellectual property evolve in a climate pervaded by powerful lobby pressures with new technologies that have a profound impact on developments in the sports arena. Indeed, the applicability of copyright law on sports events and players’ moves is one of the many topics discussed in this volume, which spans issues from those related to players and their performances and achievements, via those relevant to sports event organisers and clubs, to questions concerning event reporting and data and the growing role of AI technologies in sports.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {book}

}

@article{vanGompel2021,

title = {‘Non, non, rien n’a chang\'{e}’: Over vergoedingsaanspraken voor makers uit hoofde van exploitatiecontracten},

author = {van Gompel, S.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Auteursrecht-2021-1.pdf},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-04-29},

journal = {Auteursrecht},

volume = {2021},

number = {1},

pages = {3-9},

abstract = {‘Auteurs en artiesten profiteren nog weinig van Wet Auteurscontractenrecht’,  zo luidt de titel van het persbericht van het WODC bij de publicatie van het evaluatierapport van genoemde wet in oktober 2020. Makers geven onder meer aan dat zij hun aanspraak op een billijke vergoeding (art. 25c lid 1 Aw) of de aanvullende billijke vergoeding bij exploitatiesucces (art. 25d Aw) niet durven in te roepen of te handhaven jegens exploitanten. Het is daarom de vraag of de vergoeding die makers van exploitanten ontvangen voor de contractueel verleende exploitatiebevoegdheid van hun werken wel altijd ‘billijk’ is. Mede in het licht van art. 18 e.v. DSM-richtlijn, die eveneens beogen een passende en evenredige vergoeding voor auteurs en uitvoerende kunstenaars in exploitatiecontracten te waarborgen, bespreekt dit artikel juridische en praktische maatregelen om makers makkelijker in staat te stellen hun vergoedingsaanspraken uit exploitatiecontracten te effectueren.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{vanGompel2021b,

title = {Annotatie bij Rb Amsterdam 10 september 2020 (Left Lane c.s. / Sony Music)},

author = {van Gompel, S.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_Auteursrecht_2021-1.pdf},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-04-29},

journal = {Auteursrecht},

number = {1},

pages = {40-42},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@techreport{vanGompel2020b,

title = {Evaluatie Wet Auteurscontractenrecht: Eindrapport},

author = {van Gompel, S. and Hugenholtz, P. and Poort, J. and Schumacher, L.D. and Visser, D.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/evaluatie_wet_auteurscontractenrecht_2020.pdf





},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-10-29},

urldate = {2020-10-29},

abstract = {Onderzoek in opdracht van het Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC), ministerie van Justitie \& Veiligheid.



Van de Wet Auteurscontractenrecht, die ten doel heeft om de contractuele positie van auteurs en uitvoerende kunstenaars te versterken, wordt in de praktijk nog weinig gebruik gemaakt. De Wet, die in 2015 als een nieuw onderdeel van de Auteurswet werd ingevoerd, belooft auteurs en artiesten die met exploitanten in zee gaan een ‘billijke vergoeding', geeft makers de kans om contracten open te breken en verbiedt oneerlijke contractsbepalingen. Auteurs en artiesten blijken maar zelden op de bepalingen van de Wet een beroep te doen. Daarbij lijkt de angst voor verlies aan opdrachten of om op een zwarte lijst te komen een belangrijke rol te spelen. Ook blijkt de door de Wet in het leven geroepen laagdrempelige geschillenprocedure nauwelijks te functioneren. Dit zijn enkele van de conclusies van een praktijkevaluatie van de Wet Auteurscontractenrecht die door onderzoekers van de Universiteit van Amsterdam en de Universiteit Leiden in opdracht van het WODC is uitgevoerd.



See also the summary and conclusions in English here:



https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Evaluatie-ACR-Eindrapport-Summary-and-conclusions.pdf



https://www.wodc.nl/wodc-nieuws-2020/auteurscontractenrecht.aspx},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {techreport}

}

@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}

}

@article{vanGompel2020,

title = {Artikelen 8 tot en met 11 DSM-richtlijn: Niet of niet meer in de handel zijnde werken en andere materialen},

author = {van Gompel, S.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2020_1_VanGompel.pdf},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-02-20},

journal = {AMI},

number = {1},

pages = {3-10},

abstract = {In Hoofdstuk 1 van Titel III van de DSM-richtlijn, die maatregelen voorschrijft om de licentieverlening te verbeteren en een ruimere toegang tot content te verzekeren, wordt een regeling ge\"{i}ntroduceerd voor het gebruik door cultureel erfgoedinstellingen van werken en andere materialen die niet of niet meer in de handel zijn, kortgezegd: van out-of-commerce werken (hierna: OOC-werken). In dit artikel wordt

eerst de achtergrond van deze regeling geschetst. Daarna wordt ingegaan op de definitie van OOC-werken, de juridische instrumenten die worden ingezet om het gebruik van OOC-werken toe te staan (een licentiemechanisme plus terugvalbeperking), de grensoverschrijdende werking ervan, en de publiciteitsmaatregelen die de richtlijn voorschrijft. Het artikel sluit af met een conclusie.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@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}

}

@article{vanGompel2019f,

title = {Patent Abolition: A Real-Life Historical Case Study},

author = {van Gompel, S.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AUILR_2019.pdf},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-08-23},

journal = {American University International Law Review},

volume = {34},

number = {4},

pages = {877-922},

abstract = {Over time, patent abolition has been the subject of fierce academic debate. However, no country in the world has ever abolished patents, except for one. Between 1869 and 1912, the Netherlands officially abandoned patents. This unique case is often mentioned in the literature on patent abolition, but the accounts drawn up so far present an incomplete and somewhat obscure image of the motives behind the decision of the Dutch government to eliminate patents. This paper fills this gap by conducting a full analysis of the various \textendash legal, economic, practical, and political \textendash arguments that have inspired the Dutch to abolish patents. By so doing, it sketches a striking picture of the circumstances that gave rise to the exceptional Dutch case. Translating this to today’s reality, which is so entirely different, it seems unlikely that we will soon witness another case where all the necessary ingredients will so neatly coincide as they did in the Netherlands in the late 1860s. Therefore, another real-life example of a developed country abolishing patents appears far away.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@inbook{vanGompel2019e,

title = {Light Bulb},

author = {van Gompel, S.},

editor = {C. op den Kamp \& D. Hunter, },

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Light_Bulb.pdf},

doi = {10.1017/9781108325806},

isbn = {9781108325806},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-06-26},

urldate = {2019-06-26},

booktitle = {A History of Intellectual Property in 50 Objects},

volume = {2019},

pages = {104-111},

publisher = {Cambridge University Press},

chapter = {12},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@article{vanGompel2019d,

title = {Smaak, auteursrecht en objectafbakening: over perceptie en bepaalbaarheid},

author = {van Gompel, S.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2019_1.pdf},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-02-21},

journal = {AMI},

volume = {2019},

number = {1},

pages = {9-16},

abstract = {Het hoge woord is eruit: op smaak rust geen auteursrecht. Dit volgt direct uit het

Levola/Smilde-arrest, waarin het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie (HvJ EU)

vaststelt dat de Auteursrechtrichtlijn (Richtlijn 2001/29) ‘eraan in de weg staat dat

de smaak van een voedingsmiddel op grond van deze richtlijn auteursrechtelijk

wordt beschermd en dat een nationale wettelijke regeling in die zin wordt uitgelegd

dat zij auteursrechtelijke bescherming verleent aan een dergelijke smaak’. De reden

om smaak van auteursrechtelijk bescherming uit te sluiten is dat smaak onvoldoende

nauwkeurig en objectief bepaalbaar is om object van bescherming te zijn. Als

verklaring wijst het HvJ EU op de subjectiviteit en variabiliteit van de smaakperceptie

en het ontbreken van technische middelen voor smaakbepaling. Zoals in

deze bijdrage wordt uiteengezet, is deze argumentatie niet overtuigend en zelfs

ondeugdelijk. Het bepaalbaarheidsvereiste is evenwel plausibel en navolgenswaardig,

omdat het beoogt om meer rechtszekerheid te cre\"{e}ren over het object van

auteursrechtelijke bescherming.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{vanGompel2019b,

title = {Annotatie bij Rb. Amsterdam 27 augustus 2018 (Rutten / RF Mediaproducties)},

author = {van Gompel, S.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_AMI_2018_6_257.pdf},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-01-18},

journal = {AMI},

volume = {2018},

number = {6},

pages = {257},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{vanGompel2019c,

title = {Annotatie bij Rb. Overijssel 12 juni 2018 (Eiser / Rijksuniversiteit Groningen)},

author = {van Gompel, S.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_AMI_2018_6_259.pdf},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-01-18},

journal = {AMI},

volume = {2018},

number = {6},

pages = {259-260},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{vanGompel2019,

title = {Ten geleide: 'A je to!' 25 jaar Wet op de naburige rechten},

author = {van Gompel, S.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2018_6.pdf},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-01-11},

journal = {AMI},

volume = {2018},

number = {6},

pages = {235},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{vanGompel2018,

title = {Copyright, Doctrine and Evidence-Based Reform},

author = {van Gompel, S.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/JIPITEC_2017.pdf},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-01-05},

journal = {JIPITEC},

volume = {2017},

number = {8},

pages = {304-310},

abstract = {Copyright lawmaking is conventionally embedded in a doctrinal tradition that gives much consideration to coherence and formal consistency with legal-theoretical foundations. This contrasts discernibly with the recent trend to base copyright policies and their elaboration into effective legal norms on empirical evidence. Recognizing that both approaches have their relative strengths and weaknesses, this paper explores how evidence-based policy can be reconciled with the traditional doctrinal approach to copyright lawmaking. It suggests that unproven doctrinal constellations that unnecessarily focus the legislative intention unequally on protecting copyright holders should be removed, but that lawmakers at the same time should also not stare blindly on economic evidence if legitimate claims based on fairness rationales are put forward, which also have to be weighed in as evidence.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{vanGompel2017b,

title = {The proposed publishers' right in press publications: an evidential mistake},

author = {van Gompel, S. },

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Publishers-right_SvG.pdf},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-10-12},

note = {Proceedings of the conference 'Better regulation for copyright: academics meet policy makers', Brussels: University of Southampton \& The Greems/EFA in the European Parliament, 6 September 2017, p. 11-16.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Gompel2017,

title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie 1 maart 2017 (ITV / TVCatchup II)},

author = {van Gompel, S. },

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_AMI_2017_3.pdf},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-10-10},

journal = {AMI},

volume = {2017},

number = {3},

pages = {135-137},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{vanGompel2017b,

title = {Over wetgeving, implementatie en beleid - Kroniek van het auteursrecht in Nederland 2010-2016},

author = {van Gompel, S.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AuteursMedia_2016_3.pdf},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-10-10},

journal = {Auteurs \& Media},

volume = {2016},

number = {3},

pages = {250-258},

abstract = {Het is alweer zes jaar geleden dat de laatste kroniek over het Nederlands auteursrecht in Auteurs \& Media is

gepubliceerd(1). Hoog tijd dus om de draad op te pakken en de stok van mijn illustere voorganger over te nemen. Deze

kroniek bespreekt de belangrijkste ontwikkelingen op het gebied van auteursrechtwetgeving en -beleid in Nederland in de

afgelopen zes jaren, waaronder de introductie van het auteurscontractenrecht, de afschaffing van geschriftenbescherming,

de versterking van het toezicht op collectieve beheersorganisaties en de implementatie van de Richtlijnen 2012/28/EU

(verweesde werken) en 2011/77/EU (verlenging beschermingsduur naburige rechten). Door deze nieuwe wetgeving is de

Nederlandse Auteurswet (Aw) en Wet op de naburige rechten (Wnr) op diverse plaatsen aangepast. },

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@techreport{Gompel2017b,

title = {Report of the Netherlands for ALAI 2017 Study Days (Copenhagen)},

author = {van Gompel, S. and Schaik, R. van},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/ReportoftheNetherlands_ALAI_2017.pdf},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-10-10},

note = {ALAI Congress 2017 in Copenhagen, Copyright, to be or not to be},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {techreport}

}

@article{vanGompel2017b,

title = {Formalidades del derecho de autor en la era de internet: filtros de protecci\'{o}n o facilitadores de licenciamiento},

author = {van Gompel, S.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/RCDT_2016.pdf},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-06-20},

journal = {Revista de Chilena de Derecho y Tecnolog\'{i}a},

volume = {5},

number = {1},

pages = {9-55},

note = {Spanish translation of ‘Copyright Formalities in the Internet Age: Filters of Protection or Facilitators of Licensing’},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{vanGompel2017b,

title = {Niet zomaar een slapstick: Charly \& Chaplin en het verval van auteursrecht op modellen},

author = {van Gompel, S.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2017_2.pdf},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-05-23},

journal = {AMI},

number = {2},

pages = {69-79},

abstract = {Het regime van de Eenvormige Beneluxwet inzake tekeningen en modellen (BTMW) ligt al ver achter ons, maar de vraag of het auteursrecht op modellen waarvoor in het verleden geen ‘instandhoudingsverklaring’ is afgelegd, geacht moet worden

blijvend te zijn vervallen of te zijn herleefd houdt de gemoederen nog altijd bezig. Dit artikel analyseert aan de hand van de Montis/Goossens-jurisprudentie of het oude vereiste van een instandhoudingsverklaring in overeenstemming is met

internationaal en Europees recht, welke implicaties dat heeft voor het kunnen inroepen van auteursrechtelijke bescherming in Nederland en op welke termijn van bescherming de betrokken werken dan aanspraak hebben. Geconcludeerd wordt dat

de lijn die thans in de jurisprudentie is ingezet onverenigbaar is met internationaal recht.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{vanGompel2017b,

title = {Annotatie bij  Hof Amsterdam 22 november 2016 (Pearson / B\"{a}r c.s.)},

author = {van Gompel, S.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_AMI_2017_2-2.pdf},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-05-23},

journal = {AMI},

number = {2},

pages = {103-105},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@inbook{Guibault2017,

title = {Collective management in the European Union},

author = {Guibault, L. and van Gompel, S.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/CMCR_5.pdf},

isbn = {9789041154415},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-05-18},

booktitle = {Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights, 2015},

pages = {139-174},

publisher = {Wolters Kluwer},

edition = {3},

chapter = {5},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@article{vanGompel2017b,

title = {Annotatie bij Rb Den Haag 9 november 2016 (Vereniging GEU / Stichting Snappet)},

author = {van Gompel, S.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_AMI_2016_6-1.pdf},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-05-02},

journal = {AMI},

number = {6},

pages = {51-53},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@misc{vanGompel2017,

title = {De waarde van het nieuws},

author = {van Gompel, S.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/VIEsymposium2017.pdf},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-03-15},

note = {Presentatie op het IE Symposium in Zeist op 15 maart 2017},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {presentation}

}

@article{vanGompel2016,

title = {Annotatie bij Hof Den Haag 19 juli 2016 (Your Hosting / Bavaria)},

author = {van Gompel, S.},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_AMI_2016_5-1.pdf},

year  = {2016},

date = {2016-12-20},

journal = {AMI},

number = {5},

pages = {140-143},

abstract = {Auteursrecht op slagzinnen.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@misc{,

title = {Annotatie bij Vzr. Rb. Den Haag 16 maart 2016 (Bavaria / Your Hosting)},

author = {S.J.  van Gompel},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1816},

year  = {2016},

date = {2016-07-15},

journal = {AMI},

number = {3},

pages = {74.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {misc}

}

@article{,

title = {Op weg naar een wettelijk stelsel van extended collective licensing voor massadigitalisering?},

author = {S.J.  van Gompel and P.B.  Hugenholtz},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1623.pdf},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-09-15},

journal = {AMI},

number = {4},

pages = {93-102.},

abstract = {

	De \'extended collective license (ECL) - ofwel de \'verruimde\' collectieve licentieovereenkomst - staat in Nederland en elders ter wereld al enkele jaren sterk in de belangstelling, met name als wettelijk instrument om de rights clearance voor massadigitaliseringsprojecten van erfgoedinstellingen te vergemakkelijken. Naar aanleiding van een gezamenlijke brief van de Nederlandse erfgoedinstellingen en de Federatie Auteursrechtbelangen heeft het Ministerie van OCW door het IViR onderzoek laten verrichten naar het ECL-model en daarover een seminar met belanghebbbenden georganiseerd. In de zomer van 2015 wordt een standpuntbepaling van het kabinet inzake ECL verwacht. In dit artikel worden de belangijkste bevindingen van het onderzoek samengevat. Welke voor- en nadelen zou een ECL-regeling bieden ten opzichte van het huidige Nederlandse model van vrijwillige collectieve licenties die zonder ondersteunende wettelijke maatregelen tot stand komen?

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@techreport{,

title = {Remuneration of authors and performers for the use of their works and the fixations of their performances},

author = {L.  Guibault and O.M.  Salamanca and S.J.  van Gompel},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1593.pdf},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-08-18},

abstract = {

	This study analyses the current situation regarding the level of remuneration paid to authors and performers in the music and audio-visual sectors. We compare, from both a legal and economic perspective, the existing national systems of remuneration for authors and performers and identify the relative advantages and disadvantages of those systems for them. We also explore the need to harmonise mechanisms affecting the remuneration of authors and performers, and to identify which ones are the best suited to achieve this. Their potential impact on distribution models and on the functioning of the Internal Market is also examined. Finally, the study outlines a series of policy recommendations based on the analysis conducted.


	The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this report. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission\’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein.

},

note = {

	This study was carried out for the European Commission by Europe Economics and Lucie Guibault, Olivia Salamanca and Stef van Gompel of the University of Amsterdam (IViR). 


	ISBN 9789279471629


	DOI: 10.2759/834167



	See also: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/commission-gathers-evidence-remuneration-authors-and-performers-use-their-works-and-fixations

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {techreport}

}

@article{,

title = {Extended collective licensing: panacee voor massadigitalisering?},

author = {P.B.  Hugenholtz and S.J.  van Gompel and L.  Guibault},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1471.pdf},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-12-19},

abstract = {

	In dit rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek wordt geanalyseerd welke voor- en nadelen de invoering van een wettelijk stelsel van \emph{extended collective licensing} (\‘verruimde\’ collectieve licentieovereenkomsten) kan hebben om de \emph{rights clearance} van digitaliseringsprojecten van erfgoedinstellingen te vergemakkelijken. Daarbij wordt een vergelijking gemaakt met de situatie waarin collectieve licenties zonder ondersteunende wettelijke maatregelen tot stand komen. De jurisdicties die zijn onderzocht zijn Denemarken, Noorwegen, Duitsland en Nederland.

},

note = {

	Onderzoek in opdracht van het Ministerie van OCW, Amsterdam, 1 september 2014.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@inbook{vanGompel2014,

title = {Creativity, autonomy and personal touch: A critical appraisal of the CJEU's originality test for copyright},

author = {van Gompel, S.},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1468.pdf},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-12-18},

pages = {95-143},

abstract = {Copyright law’s originality threshold is not a high-to-attain standard. Recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirms that copyright extends to subject-matter that is original in the sense that it is the ‘author’s own intellectual creation’ (Infopaq International, 2009, § 37; Bezpe\v{c}nostn\'{i} softwarov\'{a} asociace, 2010, § 46; Football Association Premier League, 2011, § 97; Painer, 2011, § 87; Football Dataco, 2012, § 37; and SAS, 2012, § 45) and that no other criteria may be applied to determine its eligibility for protection. In the Eva-Maria Painer case, the Court clarified that an intellectual creation is the author’s own ‘if it reflects the author’s personality’ and that this is the case ‘if the author was able to express his creative abilities in the production of the work by making free and creative choices’ (2011, §§ 88\textendash89). This was reiterated in the Football Dataco case, where it was once more emphasised that, for an intellectual creation to be original, the author must have stamped it with his ‘personal touch’ by making ‘free and creative choices’ during its production (2012, § 38). The meaning and substance of the CJEU’s originality criterion has not yet attracted much analytical scrutiny. In particular, the limits inherent in the CJEU’s originality standard have received little attention in legal doctrine \textendash let alone in court decisions (although that is probably not where one would expect a critical review of the test be conducted in the first place). This is remarkable, seeing that copyright regulates such a wide variety of cultural production and may restrict the use of even the most low-key, routine creations that surround us in everyday life. A more critical and out-of-the-box reading of the ‘free and creative choices’-language suggests that the CJEU’s originality standard may perhaps impose more limitations than is currently recognised in legal discourse. For one thing, authors are of course not autonomous creators who work in a vacuum. Creative processes are contingent on many external factors. Cultural productions are usually made with audiences in mind and individual creators operate within social, technical and institutional environments with all of the attendant constraints. This implies that, in reality, the autonomy of authors to make free and creative choices is often naturally restricted.

},

note = {Chapter in: The Work of Authorship, M.M.M. van Eechoud (ed.), Amsterdam: AUP 2014, ISBN 9789089646354.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@article{,

title = {Het proceskostenrisico in IE-zaken: Een empirisch onderzoek naar toepassing van de indicatietarieven},

author = {S.J.  van Gompel},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2014_5.pdf},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-10-10},

journal = {AMI},

number = {5},

pages = {133-138.},

abstract = {

	De proceskostenveroordeling in IE-zaken veroorzaakt in de praktijk de nodige onrust, onzekerheid en frustratie. De rechterlijke macht heeft weliswaar indicatietarieven voor IE-zaken opgesteld, maar in de praktijk leggen rechters deze tarieven soms naast zich neer, zonder die beslissing altijd met duidelijke redenen te omkleden. Dit artikel beoogt meer inzicht te geven in de toepassing van de indicatietarieven en het proceskostenrisico in IE-zaken. Daartoe wordt empirisch onderzocht wanneer en op welke manier de indicatietarieven door rechters worden toegepast en om welke redenen deze tarieven in individuele gevallen juist niet worden nagevolgd.

},

note = {

	Het jurisprudentieonderzoek dat ten grondslag ligt aan dit artikel is hier te downloaden.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@misc{,

title = {Annotatie bij Hof Den Haag 16 juli 2013 (Erven Endstra / Nieuw-Amsterdam c.s.)},

author = {S.J.  van Gompel},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_AMI_2013_6_7.pdf},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-07-25},

journal = {AMI},

number = {6},

pages = {197-203.},

note = {

	Zie ook:


	- Reactie van F.W. Grosheide, Over wat (on)juist is, valt te twisten, AMI, 2014-2, p. 53-54;


	- Naschrift van S.J. van Gompel, Over vorm en inhoud gesproken, AMI, 2014-2, p. 55-56.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {misc}

}

@article{,

title = {Reintroducing Copyright Formalities: Controversies and Challenges},

author = {S.J.  van Gompel},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Copyright_New_Media_2014_2.pdf},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-07-25},

journal = {The Copyright \& New Media Law Newsletter},

number = {2},

pages = {7-9},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{,

title = {Copyright Formalities in the Internet Age: Filters of Protection or Facilitators of Licensing},

author = {S.J.  van Gompel},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/BTLJ_2014_3.pdf},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-03-18},

journal = {Berkeley Technology Law Journal},

number = {3},

pages = {1425-1458.},

abstract = {

	This article examines how copyright formalities may aid in addressing the objectives of enhancing the free\underline{ }flow of information by enlarging the public domain and facilitating the licensing of copyright protected materials. For this purpose, it maps the different objectives for reintroducing copyright formalities and provides a brief overview of the types of formalities that might be imposed, including the legal consequences that can be attached to them. The article then explores in more detail which formalities, in what way, can assist in accomplishing the specific objectives of enriching the public domain and facilitating rights clearance. It concludes with a synthesis of the main findings.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{vanGompel2013,

title = {On the prospects of raising the originality requirement in copyright law: Perspectives from the Humanities},

author = {van Gompel, S. and Lavik, E.},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/JCS_2013_3.pdf

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2347361},

year  = {2013},

date = {2013-10-24},

journal = {Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA},

volume = {60},

number = {3},

pages = {387-443},

abstract = {In 1903, in \emph{Bleistein v Donaldson Lithographing}, Justice Holmes famously concluded that judges are ill-suited to make merit judgments when determining the eligibility for protection of works. Subsequent courts and commentators have generally followed his caution. Yet, no one has thought through how the copyright system would work were Justice Holmes not heeded. What if courts were called upon to determine the aesthetic merit of a work? How would they go about it? And would they be able to separate the gold from the dross by drawing upon an aesthetic evaluation of such kind?

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{vanGompel2013b,

title = {Quality, merit, aesthetics and purpose: An inquiry into EU copyright law's eschewal of other criteria than originality},

author = {van Gompel, S. and Lavik, E.},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/RIDA_236.pdf},

year  = {2013},

date = {2013-09-03},

journal = {RIDA},

number = {236},

pages = {100-295},

abstract = {This article examines the rule that no other criteria than originality shall be applied to determine the eligibility for protection of works, as contained in a few EU Directives on copyright (i.e. the Computer Programs Directive, the Term Directive and the Database Directive). While aimed to preclude criteria such as quality, merit, aesthetics and purpose from the subject-matter definition of copyright, the legal significance and practical implications of this rule is not entirely clear. Analysing the legislative history of the ‘no other criteria’-clause in EU copyright law and its equivalent in the national laws of four EU Member States (i.e. France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom), the article observes that the objective of the rule is to prevent the grant or refusal of copyright by the courts from being dependent on subjective evaluative judgments about a work’s intrinsic value or worth. Judges are not supposed to assess whether a work aesthetically or commercially stands out, but only need to determine whether it meets the originality threshold. In practice, however, while the courts practically always refrain from using the lack of success, merit or quality as an argument to \textit{withhold} copyright from a creation, they do not necessarily ignore a work’s success, merit or quality when \textit{ granting} protection to it. Moreover, the article finds that genres and categories of works are not always definable on formal properties alone and that judges sometimes cannot escape making qualitative or aesthetic considerations when determining the eligibility for protection of low original works.  The article concludes that, since judges sometimes cannot make a clear distinction between protectable and non-protectable subject-matter on the basis of the originality criterion alone, copyright law’s concept of originality would fail to adequately serve its discriminatory function, should the ‘no other criteria’-clause always be taken literally. },

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{,

title = {The Orphan Works Chimera and How to Defeat It: A View From Across the Atlantic},

author = {S.J.  van Gompel},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/BTLJ_2013_3.pdf},

year  = {2013},

date = {2013-03-26},

journal = {Berkeley Technology Law Journal},

number = {3},

pages = {1347-1378.},

note = {

	This article contends that the orphan works problem (the problem of unknown or untraceable right owners) is a generic problem. It is not specific to a certain form of use, but has implications across the copyright spectrum. Yet, it manifests itself in different ways, depending on the type of use that is made of these works. The article consists of three parts. Employing the metaphor of the Chimera, a three-headed she-monster in ancient Greek mythology, Part I introduces the different ways in which the problem manifests itself and describes the legal uncertainty that the different categories of users of orphan works experience. Next, Part II argues that there is not one best approach to address the orphan works problem. Rather, it suggests adopting a multifaceted approach that would provide adequate relief for the different categories of users of orphan works. Part III concludes.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@misc{,

title = {Flexibel auteursrecht},

author = {S.J.  van Gompel},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Symposium_Auteurrecht_Economie_Presentatie.pdf},

year  = {2012},

date = {2012-11-01},

note = {

	Presentatie gegeven op het symposium Auteursrecht en economie, 16 oktober 2012.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {presentation}

}

@techreport{,

title = {Flexible Copyright: The Law and Economics of Introducing and Open Norm in the Netherlands},

author = {R.  van der Noll and J.  Weda and I.  Akker and L.  Guibault and S.J.  van Gompel and J.P.  Poort and J.M.  Breemen},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Flexible_Copyright.pdf},

year  = {2012},

date = {2012-11-01},

publisher = {SEO},

address = {Amsterdam},

abstract = {

	This study analyses the law and economics of introducing flexibility in the system of exceptions and limitations in Dutch copyright law. Flexibility would exist in an open norm, on the basis of which the courts can decide whether certain uses of copyrighted material are permissible or not, instead of explicitly defining this in the law. The report assesses problem areas where the lack of flexibility creates legal disputes and potential barriers to innovation and production. The core of the study concerns the analysis of the economic rationale and effects of introducing flexibility in the Dutch legal order in the form of an open norm.

},

note = {

	Rapport in opdracht van het Ministerie van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie, SEO-rapport nr. 2012-60, augustus 2012.


	Zie ook aanbiedingsbrief Tweede Kamer.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {techreport}

}

@techreport{,

title = {Digitale drempels: Knelpunten voor legaal digitaal aanbod in de creatieve industrie},

author = {J.  Weda and R.  van der Noll and I.  Akker and J.  Leenheer and J.P.  Poort and S.J.  van Gompel},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/digitale_drempels.pdf},

year  = {2012},

date = {2012-07-10},

pages = {136},

publisher = {SEO},

address = {Amsterdam},

abstract = {

	Dit rapport beschrijft de knelpunten bij het tot stand komen van een volwaardige markt voor digitale distributie en exploitatie van muziek, films en series, games en boeken. Onderscheid wordt gemaakt tussen economische, juridische en technische knelpunten.

},

note = {

	Rapport in opdracht van het Ministerie van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie, SEO-rapport nr. 2012-41, Amsterdam, juni 2012.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {techreport}

}

@article{,

title = {Het richtlijnvoorstel verweesde werken: Een kritische beschouwing},

author = {S.J.  van Gompel},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_6_2011.pdf},

year  = {2012},

date = {2012-01-13},

journal = {AMI},

number = {6},

pages = {205-218},

abstract = {

	Op 24 mei 2011 heeft de Europese Commissie een voorstel ingediend voor een richtlijn inzake bepaalde toegestane gebruikswijzen van verweesde werken. Hiermee beoogt de Commissie rechtszekerheid te cre\ëren met betrekking tot het digitaliseren en online toegankelijk maken van verweesde werken door bepaalde - specifiek aangewezen - culturele organisaties. Het voorstel voorziet in een aanpak die is gebaseerd op een zorgvuldige zoektocht naar rechthebbenden en op de wederzijdse erkenning van nationale oplossingen voor verweesde werken. Dit artikel bespreekt de achtergrond en inhoud van het richtlijnvoorstel. Geconcludeerd wordt dat het zowel qua reikwijdte als qua inhoud tekort schiet. Daarnaast laat het voorstel nog veel vragen onbeantwoord.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@misc{,

title = {Ten geleide},

author = {S.J.  van Gompel},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Ten_geleide_Canon_Schriks.pdf},

year  = {2012},

date = {2012-01-13},

pages = {XI-XIII},

note = {

	In: Canon van het uitgevers- en auteursrecht. Een route in vijftig data [1450-1950], C. Schriks, Deventer: Kluwer 2011.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {misc}

}

@book{,

title = {Formalities in Copyright Law: An Analysis of Their History, Rationales and Possible Future},

author = {S.J.  van Gompel},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/704.pdf},

isbn = {9789041134189},

year  = {2011},

date = {2011-08-24},

publisher = {Kluwer Law International},

address = {Alphen aan den Rijn },

series = {Information Law Series},

abstract = {

	At present, copyright is \‘automatic\’. From the moment an original work is created, the author enjoys all the benefits that copyright protection entails, without the need to complete a registration, deposit the work, mark it with a copyright notice, or comply with any other statutorily prescribed formality. However, the digital revolution has caused a paradigm shift in the way copyright-protected works are created and consumed. Copyright law is now facing significant challenges arising from the need to establish legal certainty over copyright claims, improve rights clearance, and enhance the free flow of information. Inevitably, proposals to introduce formalities in copyright law (or reintroduce them, as the absence of formalities has not always been the norm) have risen to prominence in legal debate. This book examines whether reintroducing copyright formalities is legally feasible. Based on a comprehensive and thorough analysis of copyright formalities, it sets out to establish the extent to which the current copyright system allows for their reintroduction. To this end, the author describes the role and functions of formalities, revisits the history of formalities at the national and international levels, examines the scope of the international prohibition on formalities, and scrutinizes the rationales behind this prohibition, including an in-depth examination of the validity of the argument that copyright is a \‘natural right\’ and therefore should be protected independently of formalities. The author skilfully evaluates and contrasts the conflicting theories according to which formalities, on the one hand, add legal certainty to claims on the ownership of property, and, on the other, hamper individual authors from seeking adequate protection for their works. This book makes an important contribution to legal science by answering questions that so far have been neglected or only marginally addressed. To the degree that current copyright law permits reintroducing formalities, the author posits the specifications that will determine to a great extent what role and functions they may eventually fulfil: depending on the aims to be achieved, lawmakers must choose which types of formalities shall be imposed, and what their legal consequences shall be. This book goes a long way towards reinforcing the foundation for those decisions.

},

note = {

	Verkrijgbaar bij Wolters Kluwer.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {book}

}

@misc{,

title = {Collective Management in the European Union,},

author = {S.J.  van Gompel and L.  Guibault},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Chapter%205_Guibault-Gompel_preprint.pdf},

year  = {2011},

date = {2011-07-13},

abstract = {

	This chapter examines efforts to regulate the collective management of copyright at the European level. It is divided in three main parts. First, the chapter describes the current state of the law concerning collective rights management organizations (CMOs) in Europe, as pronounced over the past few decades in decisions of the European Court of Justice and the European Commission in competition matters. Second, the chapter discusses the recent efforts deployed by the European lawmakers toward the establishment of a legal framework governing the activities of CMOs in Europe, and more specifically the multi-territorial licensing of online music services. The third part analyses the actual and potential impact on the market for the cross-border collective management of legitimate online music services of the most recent measures adopted by the European bodies. The chapter critically concludes on the overall state of the law in Europe pertaining to CMOs.

},

note = {

	In: Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights, D. Gervais (ed.), 2de dr., Alphen aan de Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2010, p. 135-167.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {misc}

}

@techreport{,

title = {Report of the Netherlands for ALAI 2011 Study Days (Dublin)},

author = {van Eechoud, M. and van Gompel, S. and Guibault, L. and van der Sloot, B. and Hugenholtz, P.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/ALAI_2011_Dublin.pdf},

year  = {2011},

date = {2011-05-19},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {techreport}

}

@book{,

title = {Digitisation and Online Exploitation of Broadcasters' Archives},

author = {S.J.  van Gompel and C.J.  Angelopoulos},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/707.pdf},

isbn = {9789287169976},

year  = {2011},

date = {2011-01-14},

pages = {91},

publisher = {European Audiovisual Observatory},

address = {Strasbourg},

series = {IRIS Special},

abstract = {

	The archives of many television broadcasters now contain materiel which includes more than half a century of contemporary, documentary and entertainment history and are of immense cultural and economic value. Digitisation has created an entirely new technical basis for making these assets available to a wide audience, and there are a whole range of projects aimed at opening up audiovisual archives (including those of broadcasters). However, many projects to open up broadcasters\' archives and exploit them online generally run up against serious problems when it comes to clearing the rights for these archived works. These problems arise, firstly, due to a contractual practice that developed in the pre-digital era and to aspects of copyright law that do not really meet the needs of the digital age. Secondly, the very large number of works stored in archives constitutes a challenge that is not easily overcome. The aim of this IRIS Special is to discuss the subject from a number of different perspectives. The team of authors involved is accordingly made up of representatives of many different interests: copyright holders and those who look after their interests, television broadcasters, lawyers and copyright experts.

},

note = {

	Zie hier voor meer informatie over IRIS Special: http://www.obs.coe.int/shop/irisspecial

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {book}

}

@misc{,

title = {Formalities in the digital era: an obstacle or opportunity?,},

author = {S.J.  van Gompel},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Formalities_in_the_digital_era.pdf},

year  = {2010},

date = {2010-10-20},

abstract = {

	This paper, which was presented at the 2009 ALAI conference in London, examines the possible reintroduction of copyright formalities against the background of the challenges that copyright law faces in the digital era. It does so by contrasting the current calls for reintroducing formalities with the legal-historical reasons for their abolition. The paper concludes that, while, in the pre-digital era, the objections against copyright formalities were real, in the light of the changes caused by the advent of digital technologies, there is now sufficient reason to reconsider subjecting copyright to formalities.

},

note = {

	In: Global Copyright: Three Hundred Years Since the Statute of Anne, from 1709 to Cyberspace, L. Bently, U. Suthersanen \& P. Torremans (eds.), Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2010, p. 395-424.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {misc}

}

@misc{,

title = {Les formalit\'{e}s sont mortes, vive les formalit\'{e}s! Copyright formalities and the reasons for their decline in nineteenth century Europe,},

author = {S.J.  van Gompel},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/privilege_and_property.pdf},

year  = {2010},

date = {2010-09-01},

abstract = {

	Modern copyright law is based on the premise that copyright originates from original authorship and exists independently from formalities. This was different in the past, when copyright law was fully occupied with formalities. This paper examines the development of copyright formalities against the background of the upcoming national rights thinking and some conceptual innovations in copyright law in nineteenth century Europe (France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK). Among other things, this paper concludes that, from a historical perspective, formalities are not as incompatible with the natural rights view as is commonly believed. This may cast new light on the possible reintroduction of copyright formalities, which is increasingly called for in the current digital era.

},

note = {

	In: Privilege and Property: Essays on the History of Copyright, R. Deazley, M. Kretschmer \& L. Bently (eds.), Cambridge: Open Book Publishers, 2010, p. 157-206.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {misc}

}

@article{,

title = {The Orphan Works Problem: The Copyright Conundrum of Digitizing Large-Scale Audiovisual Archives, and How to Solve it},

author = {S.J.  van Gompel and P.B.  Hugenholtz},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/the_orphan_works_problem.pdf},

year  = {2010},

date = {2010-03-03},

journal = {Popular Communication - The International Journal of Media and Culture},

number = {1},

pages = {61-71},

abstract = {

	This article examines the problem of \'orphan works\' against the background of various projects for mass-digitization of audiovisual content. Orphan works are works for which the copyright owners cannot be identified or located. The fact that a particular work is \'orphaned\' makes it impossible to clear the rights and to legally reutilize the work. This article describes and evaluates six different possible regulatory solutions to the orphan works problem, including extended collective licensing and compulsory licensing. The article concludes that if one wants to make the vast European audiovisual cultural heritage available for future usage, regulatory intervention is indispensable.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@book{,

title = {Harmonizing European Copyright Law: The Challenges of Better Lawmaking},

author = {S.J.  van Gompel and M.M.M.  van Eechoud and L.  Guibault and N.  Helberger and P.B.  Hugenholtz},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/710.pdf},

isbn = {9789041131300},

year  = {2009},

date = {2009-10-13},

publisher = {Kluwer Law International },

address = {Alphen aan den Rijn},

series = {Information Law Series},

abstract = {

	Nobody likes today\’s copyright law. Widespread unauthorized use of copyright material proliferates with impunity, while citizens and users protest that intrusive copyright and related rights law stifle cultural expression. Equipment manufacturers and intermediaries complain about yet more \’security\’ features that complicate their products and services and encumber marketing, while content owners desperately want enforcement to work. And of course it is crucial that whatever regulatory instruments come into play must not age prematurely in Internet time. The European Union faces the daunting challenge of articulating coherent copyright policies that satisfy these contradictory multiple demands. Yet the legal framework must conform to the European Union\’s remit of fostering economic growth in a common market, while respecting the national traditions of its still growing family of Member States. Clearly, an extraordinary balancing act is called for if justice is to be done to all of the private and public interests affected. So how has the European acquis communautaire scored on these issues so far? In this groundbreaking study the Institute for Information Law of the University of Amsterdam brings its extensive academic expertise to bear on this question. The authors scrutinize the present law as laid down in the seven copyright and related rights directives, against the background of the relevant international standards of the Berne Convention, the TRIPs agreement, and the WIPO Internet Treaties. They map out in detail the degree to which certain areas of copyright have been harmonized as they expose the gaps and inconsistencies in the acquis and the urgent unresolved issues that persist. They identify the EU\’s ambitions in relation to its present and future competences (following the Lisbon Reform) to regulate copyright, and to its Better Regulation agenda. Following a comprehensive analysis of almost two decades of regulatory intervention, they move on to the salient current trends that point toward a more coherent and balanced European copyright law.

},

note = {

	Inhoudsopgave;


	Hoofdstuk 1: The European Concern with Copyright and Related Rights;


	Hoofdstuk 9:The Last Frontier: Territoriality;


	Cover

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {book}

}

@inbook{,

title = {The European Concern with Copyright and Related Rights},

author = {van Gompel, S. and Guibault, L. and van Eechoud, M.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/harmonizing_european_copyright_law_chap1},

year  = {2009},

date = {2009-10-13},

urldate = {2009-10-13},

note = {	In: \<em\>Harmonizing European Copyright Law: The Challenges of Better Lawmaking\</em\>, Information Law Series, nr. 19, Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International 2009.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@article{,

title = {Another 45 miles to go? Kritisch commentaar op het richtlijnvoorstel duurverlenging naburige rechten},

author = {S.J.  van Gompel},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_6_2008.pdf},

year  = {2008},

date = {2008-12-10},

journal = {AMI},

number = {6},

pages = {169-180},

abstract = {

	Dit artikel zet kritisch uiteen waarom het richtlijnvoorstel dat door de Europese Commissie is ingediend om de beschermingsduur van naburige rechten op fonogrammen en de daarop vastgelegde uitvoeringen te verlengen van 50 naar 95 jaar, onwenselijk is en de problemen waarmee de fonogrammenindustrie en uitvoerende kunstenaars te maken hebben niet, of nauwelijks, oplost.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{,

title = {Unlocking the Potential of Pre-Existing Content: How to Address the Issue of Orphan Works in Europe?},

author = {S.J.  van Gompel},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IIC_2007_6_orphan_works.pdf},

year  = {2008},

date = {2008-06-04},

journal = {IIC},

number = {6},

pages = {669-702},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{,

title = {Never Forever: Why Extending the Term of Protection for Sound Recordings is a Bad Idea},

author = {N.  Helberger and S.J.  van Gompel and P.B.  Hugenholtz},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/EIPR_2008_5.pdf},

year  = {2008},

date = {2008-06-04},

journal = {European Intellectual Property Review},

number = {5},

pages = {174-181},

abstract = {

	This article critically examines the arguments put forward in favour of a term extension of related rights of phonogram producers. The authors conclude that there are no convincing reasons to extend the existing term of protection. The article also explains why the popular argument that a term extension would improve the situation of performers is probably a fallacy.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{,

title = {Audiovisual Archives and the Inability to Clear Rights in Orphan Works},

author = {S.J.  van Gompel},

url = {http://www.obs.coe.int/oea_publ/iris/iris_plus/iplus4_2007.pdf.en},

year  = {2007},

date = {2007-04-20},

journal = {IRIS plus (Supplement to IRIS - Legal Observations of the European Audiovisual Observatory)},

number = {4},

pages = {1-8},

abstract = {

	Dit artikel behandelt het vraagstuk van de zogenaamde \'verweesde werken\' (orphan works). Verweesde werken zijn werken waarvan de rechthebbenden niet ge\ïdentificeerd of gelokaliseerd kunnen worden. Het feit dat een rechthebbende onvindbaar is, maakt het onmogelijk om toestemming te verkrijgen en het werk op een legale manier te hergebruiken. Om het potentieel te kunnen ontsluiten van de vele bestaande werken die zijn opgeslagen in audiovisuele archieven is het noodzakelijk dat juridische oplossingen worden gevonden die dit probleem op een adequate manier aanpakken. In dit artikel worden een aantal oplossingen beschreven die mogelijkerwijs ge\ïntroduceerd zouden kunnen worden op Europees of nationaal niveau.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@misc{,

title = {Collective Management in the European Union},

author = {L.  Guibault and S.J.  van Gompel},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/collective_management_in_the_european_union.pdf},

year  = {2007},

date = {2007-03-20},

note = {

	In: Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights, Daniel Gervais (red.), The Hague: Kluwer Law International 2006, p. 117-152.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {misc}

}

@misc{,

title = {Openbaarheid in de Grondwet},

author = {M.M.M.  van Eechoud and S.J.  van Gompel},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/969.pdf},

year  = {2007},

date = {2007-01-24},

note = {

	In: Openbaarheid in het internettijdperk: de invloed van ICT op juridische concepten van openbaarheid, Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers 2006.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {misc}

}

@techreport{,

title = {The Recasting of Copyright \& Related Rights for the Knowledge Economy},

author = {S.J.  van Gompel and M.M.M.  van Eechoud and L.  Guibault and N.  Helberger and P.B.  Hugenholtz},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IViR_Recast_Final_Report_2006.pdf},

year  = {2007},

date = {2007-01-10},

abstract = {

	Study carried out by the Institute for Information Law for the European Commission (DG Internal Market). Chapters 1 and 2 describe and examine the existing \'acquis communautaire\' in the field of copyright and related (neighbouring) rights, with special focus on inconsistencies and unclarities. Chapters 3-6 deal with distinct issues that were identified a priori by the European Commission as meriting special attention: possible extension of the term of protection of phonograms (Chapter 3), possible alignment of the term of protection of co-written musical works (Chapter 4), the problems connected to multiple copyright ownership, including the issue of \'orphan works\' (Chapter 5), and copyright awareness among consumers (Chapter 6). Chapter 7 provides an overall assessment of the benefits and drawbacks of the fifteen years of harmonisation of copyright and related rights in the EU and dwells on regulatory alternatives.

},

note = {

	Rapport aan de Europese Commissie, DG Interne Markt, november 2006, 308 p.


	Zie ook de executive summary.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {techreport}

}

@article{,

title = {De vaststelling van de thuiskopievergoeding},

author = {S.J.  van Gompel},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2_2006.pdf},

year  = {2006},

date = {2006-04-18},

journal = {AMI},

number = {2},

pages = {52-62},

abstract = {

	In dit artikel wordt beschreven hoe in Nederland de thuiskopievergoedingen worden vastgesteld. Een sleutelrol is daarbij weggelegd voor de SONT, waarbinnen rechthebbenden en betalingsplichtigen onderhandelen over de vast te stellen vergoeding. Gekeken wordt in hoeverre bij de vaststelling rekening gehouden wordt met de voorwaarden uit de Auteurswet en de Auteursrechtrichtlijn. Daarnaast wordt aan de orde gesteld of de zelfregulering tussen de marktpartijen werkt. Geconcludeerd wordt dat beide aspecten te wensen over laten en dat het daarom passelijk zou zijn als de wetgever aanvullend of corrigerend op zou treden.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@techreport{,

title = {Digital Rights Management and Consumer Acceptability: A Multi-Disciplinary Discussion of Consumer Concerns and Expectations},

author = {N.  Dufft and K.  Ker\'{e}nyi and B.  Krings and R.  Lambers and C.  Orwat and U.  Riehm and N.  Helberger and S.J.  van Gompel},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/INDICAREStateoftheArtReport.pdf},

year  = {2004},

date = {2004-12-14},

note = {

	State-of-the-Art Report, INDICARE, december 2004.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {techreport}

}