@article{Reda2021b,
title = {What Member States can learn from the AG opinion on Article 17},
author = {Reda, J. and Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/07/26/what-member-states-can-learn-from-the-ag-opinion-on-article-17/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-07-27},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Reda2021,
title = {European Commission back-tracks on user rights in Article 17 Guidance},
author = {Reda, J. and Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/06/04/european-commission-back-tracks-on-user-rights-in-article-17-guidance/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-06-04},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Keller2021,
title = {It’s 23 April 2021, so where is the Advocate General opinion in Case C-401/19 Poland v Parliament and Council?},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/04/23/its-23-april-2021-so-where-is-the-advocate-general-opinion-in-case-c-401-19-poland-v-parliament-and-council/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-04-23},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Keller2021b,
title = {Article 17: (Mis)understanding the intent of the legislator},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/01/28/article-17-misunderstanding-the-intent-of-the-legislator/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-01-28},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Keller2021bb,
title = {Divergence instead of guidance: the Article 17 implementation discussion in 2020 \textendash Part 2},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/01/22/divergence-instead-of-guidance-the-article-17-implementation-discussion-in-2020-part-2/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-01-22},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Keller2021bb,
title = {Divergence instead of guidance: the Article 17 implementation discussion in 2020 \textendash Part 1},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/01/21/divergence-instead-of-guidance-the-article-17-implementation-discussion-in-2020-part-1/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-01-21},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Keller2020bb,
title = {Finnish Article 17 implementation proposal prohibits the use of automated upload filters},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/12/23/finnish-article-17-implementation-proposal-prohibits-the-use-of-automated-upload-filters/},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-12-23},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Keller2020d,
title = {CJEU hearing in the Polish challenge to Article 17: Not even the supporters of the provision agree on how it should work},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/11/11/cjeu-hearing-in-the-polish-challenge-to-article-17-not-even-the-supporters-of-the-provision-agree-on-how-it-should-work/},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-11-11},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Keller2020c,
title = {Hungary’s fast tracked implementation of Article 5 CDSM directive in response to the pandemic},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/06/23/hungarys-fast-tracked-implementation-of-article-5-cdsm-directive-in-response-to-the-pandemic/?doing_wp_cron=1593173611.1108019351959228515625},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-06-26},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Keller2020,
title = {Article 17 stakeholder dialogue: What we have learned so far - Part 1},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/01/13/article-17-stakeholder-dialogue-what-we-have-learned-so-far-part-1/},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-16},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Keller2020b,
title = {Article 17 stakeholder dialogue: What we have learned so far - Part 2},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/01/14/article-17-stakeholder-dialogue-what-we-have-learned-so-far-part-2/},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-16},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Keller2019,
title = {Over artikel 14 DSM-richtlijn: Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner digitalen Reproduzierbarkeit: Reactie van een fijnproever},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2019_5-1.pdf},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-10-31},
journal = {AMI},
volume = {2019},
number = {5},
pages = {172-173},
abstract = {In 1935 schreef de Duitse filosoof Walter Benjamin (1892-1940) in Parijs het invloedrijke essay ‘Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit’ waarin hij de cultuurtheoretische gevolgen van (fotografische) reproducties van werken van beeldende kunst analyseerde. In het licht van de snelle opkomst van fotografie en de toenemende kwaliteit van fotografische reproducties postuleerde hij dat de originaliteit van kunstwerken gebaseerd was op hun eenmaligheid in het “hier und jetzt”. Reproducties van kunstwerken kenmerken zich volgens Benjamin door het verlies van de aan het originele kunstwerk eigen zijnde “aura”. },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@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}
}