dr. T. Margoni, Author at IVIR

Butler, B., Carroll, M., Cohen-Sasson, O., Contreras, J.L., Craig, C., Flynn, S., Guibault, L., Jaszi, P., Jütte, B.J., Katz, A., Margoni, T., Quintais, J., Rocha de Souza, A., Sag, M., Samberg, R., Schirru, L., Senftleben, M., Tur-Sinai, O.

Legal reform to enhance global text and data mining research: Outdated copyright laws around the world hinder research

In: Science, vol. 378, ed. 6623, pp. 951-953, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Margoni, T., Quintais, J., Schwemer, S.

Algorithmic propagation: do property rights in data increase bias in content moderation? – Part II

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Margoni, T., Quintais, J., Schwemer, S.

Algorithmic propagation: do property rights in data increase bias in content moderation? Part I

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Antal, D., Bodó, B., Handke, C.W., Kretschmer, M., Margoni, T., Poort, J., Quintais, J., Schwemer, S., Senftleben, M., van Gompel, S.

Ensuring the Visibility and Accessibility of European Creative Content on the World Market: The Need for Copyright Data Improvement in the Light of New Technologies

In: JIPITEC, vol. 13, ed. 1, pp. 67-86, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Carroll, M., Flynn, S., Geiger, C., Guibault, L., Margoni, T., Quintais, J., Sag, M.

Implementing User Rights for Research in the Field of Artificial Intelligence: A Call for International Action

In: European Intellectual Property Review, vol. 2020, nr. 7, Komende.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Bogataj Jancic, M., Botero, C., Butler, B., Carroll, M., Craig, C., Flynn, S., Geiger, C., Guibault, L., Jaszi, P., Margoni, T., Ncube, C., Quintais, J., Rocha de Souza, A., Sag, M., Scaria, A.G., White, B.

Joint Comment to WIPO on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence

In: 2020.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Angelopoulos, C., Brody, A., Hins, A., Hugenholtz, P., Margoni, T., McGonagle, T., van Daalen, O., van Hoboken, J.

Study of fundamental rights limitations for online enforcement through self-regulation

2016, (Study supported by the Open Society Foundations, 96 pp. ).

(Links | BibTeX)

Guibault, L., Margoni, T.

Legal aspects of open access to publicly funded research

2015.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Margoni, T., van Rompuy, B.

UK Horserace Betting Right: at odds with EU law?

2015, ( Opinion. ).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Margoni, T.

The digitisation of cultural heritage: originality, derivative works and (non) original photographs

2015.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@techreport{,

title = {The digitisation of cultural heritage: originality, derivative works and (non) original photographs},

author = {Margoni, T.},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1507.pdf},

year = {2015},

date = {2015-03-03},

pages = {70 p.},

abstract = {

The purpose of this paper is to explore the legal consequences of the digitisation of cultural heritage institutions' archives and in particular to establish whether digitisation processes involve the originality required to trigger new copyright or copyright-related protection.

As the European Commission and many MS reported, copyright and in particular "photographers rights" are cause of legal uncertainty during digitisation processes. A major role in this legally uncertain field is played by the standard of originality which is one of the main requirements for copyright protection. Only when a subject matter achieves the requested level of originality, it can be considered a work of authorship. Therefore, a first key issue analysed in this study is whether \textendash and under which conditions \textendash digitisation activities can be considered to be original enough as to constitute works (usually a photographic work) in their own right. A second element of uncertainty is connected with the type of work eventually created by acts of digitisation. If the process of digitisation of a (protected) work can be considered authorial, then the resulting work will be a derivative composed by two works: the original work digitally reproduced and the \textendash probably \textendash photographic work reproducing it. Finally, a third element of uncertainty is found in the protection afforded to "other photographs" by the last sentence of Art. 6 Term Directive and implemented in a handful of European countries.

Accordingly, the paper is structured as follows: Part I is dedicated to the analysis of copyright law key concepts such as the originality standard, the definition of derivative works and the forms of protection available in cases of digital (or film-based) representations of objects (photographs). The second part of the study is devoted to a survey of a selection of EU Member States in an attempt to verify how the general concepts identified in Part I are applied by national legislatures and courts. The selected countries are Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands and the UK. The country analysis fulfils a double function: on the one hand it provides a specific overview of the national implementation of the solutions found at international and EU level. On the other hand, it constitutes the only possible approach in order to analyse the protection afforded by some MS to those "other photographs" (also called non original photographs or mere/simple photographs) provided for by the last sentence of Art. 6 Copyright Term Directive. Part III presents some conclusions and recommendations for cultural heritage institutions and for legislatures.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {techreport}

}

Sluiten

The purpose of this paper is to explore the legal consequences of the digitisation of cultural heritage institutions' archives and in particular to establish whether digitisation processes involve the originality required to trigger new copyright or copyright-related protection. 
As the European Commission and many MS reported, copyright and in particular "photographers rights" are cause of legal uncertainty during digitisation processes. A major role in this legally uncertain field is played by the standard of originality which is one of the main requirements for copyright protection. Only when a subject matter achieves the requested level of originality, it can be considered a work of authorship. Therefore, a first key issue analysed in this study is whether – and under which conditions – digitisation activities can be considered to be original enough as to constitute works (usually a photographic work) in their own right. A second element of uncertainty is connected with the type of work eventually created by acts of digitisation. If the process of digitisation of a (protected) work can be considered authorial, then the resulting work will be a derivative composed by two works: the original work digitally reproduced and the – probably – photographic work reproducing it. Finally, a third element of uncertainty is found in the protection afforded to "other photographs" by the last sentence of Art. 6 Term Directive and implemented in a handful of European countries. 
Accordingly, the paper is structured as follows: Part I is dedicated to the analysis of copyright law key concepts such as the originality standard, the definition of derivative works and the forms of protection available in cases of digital (or film-based) representations of objects (photographs). The second part of the study is devoted to a survey of a selection of EU Member States in an attempt to verify how the general concepts identified in Part I are applied by national legislatures and courts. The selected countries are Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands and the UK. The country analysis fulfils a double function: on the one hand it provides a specific overview of the national implementation of the solutions found at international and EU level. On the other hand, it constitutes the only possible approach in order to analyse the protection afforded by some MS to those "other photographs" (also called non original photographs or mere/simple photographs) provided for by the last sentence of Art. 6 Copyright Term Directive. Part III presents some conclusions and recommendations for cultural heritage institutions and for legislatures.

Sluiten

Keller, P., Margoni, T., Rybicka, K., Tarkowski, A.

Re-use of public sector information in cultural heritage institutions

In: International Free and Open Source Software Law Review, vol. 6, nr. 1, pp. 1-9., 2015.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@article{,

title = {Re-use of public sector information in cultural heritage institutions},

author = {Keller, P. and Rybicka, K. and Tarkowski, A. and Margoni, T.},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1484.pdf},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-01-13},

journal = {International Free and Open Source Software Law Review},

volume = {6},

number = {1},

pages = {1-9.},

abstract = {

	In 2013 the European Union amended the Directive on Public Sector Information, establishing the principle that all available information produced and collected by public sector institutions must be made available for reuse under open terms and conditions. The amended Directive also brings publicly funded libraries, museums and archives into its scope. These new rules on reuse of heritage materials, treated as public sector information (PSI), attempt for the first time to define a general framework for sharing cultural heritage information all around Europe. In this paper we argue that if Member States are not careful, the implementation of the changes required by the new Directive could do more harm than good when it comes to access to digitized cultural heritage in Europe. These concerns center on how the directive interacts with copyright legislation. The paper recommends that in order to contribute to the opening up of cultural heritage resources, Member States should ensure that all qualifying documents that are not currently covered by third party intellectual property rights fall within the scope of the Directive. Member States should also implement the Directive in a way that does not encourage or require institutions to charge for the reuse of works that they make available for reuse. For documents that are still protected by intellectual property rights but where these rights are held by the cultural heritage institutions that have these works in their collections, Member States should encourage the use of Open Definition-compliant licenses.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Sluiten

Margoni, T., van Rompuy, B.

Study on sports organisers' rights in the European Union

Luxembourg, 2014, ( Report prepared by the T.M.C. Asser Instituut (Asser International Sport Law Centre) and the Institute for Information Law of the University of Amsterdam, for the European Commission, DG Education and Culture. See also the <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="10" src="http://www.ivir.nl/images/pdf-icon.gif" width="11" /></a> <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/2014/docs/study-sor2014-executive-summary-gc-compatible_en.pdf" target="_blank"> executive summary</a>. ).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Margoni, T.

Not for Designers: On the Inadequacies of EU Design Law and How to Fix It

In: JIPITEC, nr. 3, pp. 225-248, 2014.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@article{,

title = {Not for Designers: On the Inadequacies of EU Design Law and How to Fix It},

author = {T.  Margoni},

url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/JIPITEC_2013_3.pdf},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-01-24},

journal = {JIPITEC},

number = {3},

pages = {225-248},

abstract = {Design rights represent an interesting example of how the EU legislature has successfully regulated an otherwise heterogeneous field of law. Yet this type of protection is not for all. The tools created by EU intervention have been drafted paying much more attention to the industry sector rather than to designers themselves. In particular, modern, digitally based, individual or small-sized, 3D printing, open designers and their needs are largely neglected by such legislation. There is obviously nothing wrong in drafting legal tools around the needs of an industrial sector with an important role in the EU economy, on the contrary, this is a legitimate and good decision of industrial policy. However, good legislation should be fair, balanced, and (technologically) neutral in order to offer suitable solutions to all the players in the market, and all the citizens in the society, without discriminating the smallest or the newest: the cost would be to stifle innovation. The use of printing machinery to manufacture physical objects created digitally thanks to computer programs such as Computer-Aided Design (CAD) software has been in place for quite a few years, and it is actually the standard in many industrial fields, from aeronautics to home furniture. The change in recent years that has the potential to be a paradigm-shifting factor is a combination between the opularization of such technologies (price, size, usability, quality) and the diffusion of a culture based on access to and reuse of knowledge. We will call this blend Open Design. It is probably still too early, however, to say whether 3D printing will be used in the future to refer to a major event in human history, or instead will be relegated to a lonely Wikipedia entry similarly to \³Betamax\² (copyright scholars are familiar with it for other reasons). It is not too early, however, to develop a legal analysis that will hopefully contribute to clarifying the major issues found in current EU design law structure, why many modern open designers will probably find better protection in copyright, and whether they can successfully rely on open licenses to achieve their goals. With regard to the latter point, we will use Creative Commons (CC) licenses to test our hypothesis due to their unique characteristic to be modular, i.e. to have different license elements (clauses) that licensors can choose in order to adapt the license to their own needs.”

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Sluiten

Design rights represent an interesting example of how the EU legislature has successfully regulated an otherwise heterogeneous field of law. Yet this type of protection is not for all. The tools created by EU intervention have been drafted paying much more attention to the industry sector rather than to designers themselves. In particular, modern, digitally based, individual or small-sized, 3D printing, open designers and their needs are largely neglected by such legislation. There is obviously nothing wrong in drafting legal tools around the needs of an industrial sector with an important role in the EU economy, on the contrary, this is a legitimate and good decision of industrial policy. However, good legislation should be fair, balanced, and (technologically) neutral in order to offer suitable solutions to all the players in the market, and all the citizens in the society, without discriminating the smallest or the newest: the cost would be to stifle innovation. The use of printing machinery to manufacture physical objects created digitally thanks to computer programs such as Computer-Aided Design (CAD) software has been in place for quite a few years, and it is actually the standard in many industrial fields, from aeronautics to home furniture. The change in recent years that has the potential to be a paradigm-shifting factor is a combination between the opularization of such technologies (price, size, usability, quality) and the diffusion of a culture based on access to and reuse of knowledge. We will call this blend Open Design. It is probably still too early, however, to say whether 3D printing will be used in the future to refer to a major event in human history, or instead will be relegated to a lonely Wikipedia entry similarly to ³Betamax² (copyright scholars are familiar with it for other reasons). It is not too early, however, to develop a legal analysis that will hopefully contribute to clarifying the major issues found in current EU design law structure, why many modern open designers will probably find better protection in copyright, and whether they can successfully rely on open licenses to achieve their goals. With regard to the latter point, we will use Creative Commons (CC) licenses to test our hypothesis due to their unique characteristic to be modular, i.e. to have different license elements (clauses) that licensors can choose in order to adapt the license to their own needs.”

Sluiten

Guibault, L., Margoni, T.

Safe to be open: Study on the protection of research data and recommendations for access and usage

2013, ISBN: 9783863951474, ( With contributions by Nils Dietrich, Lucie Guibault, Thomas Margoni, Krzysztof Siewicz, Gerald Spindler and Andreas Wiebe. See also the <a href="/syscontent/uploads/2013_12_19_dd3e185ee06e75e52a34b728b28e8488">summary of findings</a> ).

(Links | BibTeX)

Margoni, T.

Open design? 3D printing and open license

2013.

(Links | BibTeX)

Margoni, T., Perry, M.

Deep Pockets, Packets, and Harbours: Never the Three Shall Meet

In: Ohio State Law Journal, nr. 6, pp. 1196-1216., 2013.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@article{,

title = {Deep Pockets, Packets, and Harbours: Never the Three Shall Meet},

author = {Perry, M. and Margoni, T.},

url = {http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2296216},

year  = {2013},

date = {2013-04-12},

journal = {Ohio State Law Journal},

number = {6},

pages = {1196-1216.},

abstract = {

	Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) is a set of methodologies used for the analysis of data flow over the Internet. It is the intention of this paper to describe technical details of this issue and to show that by using DPI technologies it is possible to understand the content of Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol communications. This communications can carry public available content, private users information, legitimate copyrighted works, as well as infringing copyrighted works.


	Legislation in many jurisdictions regarding Internet service providers’ liability, or more generally the liability of communication intermediaries, usually contains “safe harbour” provisions. The World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty of 1996 has a short but significant provision excluding liability for suppliers of physical facilities. The provision is aimed at communication to the public and the facilitation of physical means. Its extensive interpretation to cases of contributory or vicarious liability, in absence of specific national implementation, can prove problematic. Two of the most relevant legislative interventions in the field, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the European Directive on Electronic Commerce, regulate extensively the field of intermediary liability. This paper looks at the relationship between existing packet inspection technologies, especially the ‘deep version,’ and the international and national legal and regulatory interventions connected with intellectual property protection and with the correlated liabilities ‘exemptions. In analyzing the referred two main statutes, we will take a comparative look at similar interventions in Australia and Canada that can offer some interesting elements of reflection.

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}