Intellectuele eigendom
| Husovec, M., Quintais, J.
2020. @article{Husovec2020c,
title = {How to License Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms}, author = {Husovec, M. and Quintais, J.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3463011}, doi = {10.2139/ssrn.3463011}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-09-29}, abstract = {Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive is a major Internet policy experiment of our decade. The provision fundamentally changes copyright regulation of certain digital platforms. However, the precise nature of art. 17 is far from clear. How does it fit the existing structure of EU copyright law and doctrine? How can the Member States implement it? These are the questions at the heart of this article. To answer them, we start by examining the nature and structure of the right prescribed in art. 17. The exact qualification brings important legal consequences. Among others, it determines the conditions imposed by EU law and international law on national implementations. After reviewing different interpretation options, we conclude that art. 17 introduces either a special or a new sui generis right, both of which allow significant margin of discretion for Member States, especially as regards licensing mechanisms and exceptions. [This is a revised and updated version of a working paper first published in October 2019]}, Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive is a major Internet policy experiment of our decade. The provision fundamentally changes copyright regulation of certain digital platforms. However, the precise nature of art. 17 is far from clear. How does it fit the existing structure of EU copyright law and doctrine? How can the Member States implement it? These are the questions at the heart of this article. To answer them, we start by examining the nature and structure of the right prescribed in art. 17. The exact qualification brings important legal consequences. Among others, it determines the conditions imposed by EU law and international law on national implementations. After reviewing different interpretation options, we conclude that art. 17 introduces either a special or a new sui generis right, both of which allow significant margin of discretion for Member States, especially as regards licensing mechanisms and exceptions.
[This is a revised and updated version of a working paper first published in October 2019] |
| Husovec, M., Quintais, J.
Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020. @article{Husovec2020b,
title = {Article 17 of the Copyright Directive: Why the German implementation proposal is compatible with EU law \textendash Part 2}, author = {Husovec, M. and Quintais, J.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/08/28/article-17-of-the-copyright-directive-why-the-german-implementation-proposal-is-compatible-with-eu-law-part-2/?doing_wp_cron=1598609159.3323481082916259765625}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-08-28}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Husovec, M., Quintais, J.
Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020. @article{Husovec2020,
title = {Article 17 of the Copyright Directive: Why the German implementation proposal is compatible with EU law \textendash Part 1}, author = {Husovec, M. and Quintais, J.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/08/26/article-17-of-the-copyright-directive-why-the-german-implementation-proposal-is-compatible-with-eu-law-part-1/}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-08-27}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Cooper Dreyfuss, R., van Eechoud, M.
Choice of Law in EU Trade Secrecy Cases Chapter 10, pp. 171-191, 2020. @inbook{Dreyfuss2020,
title = {Choice of Law in EU Trade Secrecy Cases}, author = {Cooper Dreyfuss, R. and van Eechoud, M.}, url = {https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781788973335/9781788973335.xml}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788973342}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-08-27}, pages = {171-191}, chapter = {10}, abstract = {Chapter in: The Harmonization and Protection of Trade Secrets in the EU: An Appraisal of the EU Directive, J. Schovsbo, T. Minssen & T. Riis eds., Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020. ISBN: 9781788973335.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {inbook} } Chapter in: The Harmonization and Protection of Trade Secrets in the EU: An Appraisal of the EU Directive, J. Schovsbo, T. Minssen & T. Riis eds., Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020. ISBN: 9781788973335.
|
| Buijtelaar, L.D., Senftleben, M.
Auteursrecht op robotcreaties? Een analyse op basis van de incentivetheorie AMI, (3-4), pp. 77-93, 2020. @article{Buijtelaar2020,
title = {Auteursrecht op robotcreaties? Een analyse op basis van de incentivetheorie}, author = {Buijtelaar, L.D. and Senftleben, M.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2020_3_4_77.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-24}, journal = {AMI}, number = {3-4}, pages = {77-93}, abstract = {Vandaag de dag zijn teksten, schilderijen en liedjes niet noodzakelijkerwijs het resultaat van menselijke creativiteit. Geavanceerde robotsystemen zijn in staat om output te genereren die nauwelijks te onderscheiden is van de werken van makers van vlees en bloed. Dit doet de vraag rijzen of door robots gegenereerde creaties in aanmerking kunnen komen voor auteursrechtelijke bescherming. In de volgende analyse staat deze vraag centraal. Na een inleidende bespreking van het traditionele vereiste van menselijke creativiteit in het auteursrecht dienen de ratio’s van auteursrechtelijke bescherming \textendash met name de economische incentivetheorie \textendash als maatstaf om over nut en noodzaak van de toekenning van bescherming te beslissen. Voorts wordt aandacht besteed aan de vraag wie de houder van rechten op robotcreaties zou kunnen zijn. Ten slotte vindt een afweging plaats van de voor- en nadelen van bescherming, mede in het licht van de mogelijkheid om robotcreaties vrij te laten en het publieke domein te verrijken.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Vandaag de dag zijn teksten, schilderijen en liedjes niet noodzakelijkerwijs het resultaat van menselijke creativiteit. Geavanceerde robotsystemen zijn in staat om output te genereren die nauwelijks te onderscheiden is van de werken van makers van vlees en bloed. Dit doet de vraag rijzen of door robots gegenereerde creaties in aanmerking kunnen komen voor auteursrechtelijke bescherming. In de volgende analyse staat deze vraag centraal. Na een inleidende bespreking van het traditionele vereiste van menselijke creativiteit in het auteursrecht dienen de ratio’s van auteursrechtelijke bescherming – met name de economische incentivetheorie – als maatstaf om over nut en noodzaak van de toekenning van bescherming te beslissen. Voorts wordt aandacht besteed aan de vraag wie de houder van rechten op robotcreaties zou kunnen zijn. Ten slotte vindt een afweging plaats van de voor- en nadelen van bescherming, mede in het licht van de mogelijkheid om robotcreaties vrij te laten en het publieke domein te verrijken.
|
| Hugenholtz, P.
Annotatie bij Rb Amsterdam 1 november 2019 (Van Uem / De Persgroep) AMI, (3-4), pp. 101-105, 2020. @article{Hugenholtz2020c,
title = {Annotatie bij Rb Amsterdam 1 november 2019 (Van Uem / De Persgroep)}, author = {Hugenholtz, P.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_AMI_2020_3_4.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-24}, journal = {AMI}, number = {3-4}, pages = {101-105}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Keller, P.
Hungary’s fast tracked implementation of Article 5 CDSM directive in response to the pandemic Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020. @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} } |
| Senftleben, M.
Flexibility Grave – Partial Reproduction Focus and Closed System Fetishism in CJEU, Pelham IIC, 51 (6), pp. 751-769, 2020. @article{Senftleben2020c,
title = {Flexibility Grave \textendash Partial Reproduction Focus and Closed System Fetishism in CJEU, Pelham}, author = {Senftleben, M.}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-020-00940-z}, doi = {10.1007/s40319-020-00940-z}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-05-12}, journal = {IIC}, volume = {51}, number = {6}, pages = {751-769}, abstract = {In the ongoing discussion about the impact of fundamental rights on EU copyright law, the Pelham judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has received much attention. However, the decision also raises important legal-doctrinal issues. The CJEU employs the harmonized right of reproduction as a vehicle to regulate adaptations of pre-existing source material. Moreover, the Court insists on a balancing of interests within the EU matrix of exclusive rights and limitations. The closed list of limitations in EU copyright law, however, can hardly be expected to offer sufficient breathing space for adaptation scenarios. As the Information Society Directive did not harmonize the right of adaptation, there was no need to include indispensable free adaptation rules that have evolved at the national level, such as the German “free use” doctrine. Instead of embracing national rules of equity and fairness to fill the gap, the CJEU is reluctant to borrow from the legal traditions of EU Member States and misses an important opportunity to provide guidance for the regulation of adaptations outside the sound sampling arena. After an introduction to the German “Metall auf Metall” saga that led to the Pelham decision, the following analysis sheds light on these developments in EU copyright law and discusses problems arising from the approach taken by the CJEU.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } In the ongoing discussion about the impact of fundamental rights on EU copyright law, the Pelham judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has received much attention. However, the decision also raises important legal-doctrinal issues. The CJEU employs the harmonized right of reproduction as a vehicle to regulate adaptations of pre-existing source material. Moreover, the Court insists on a balancing of interests within the EU matrix of exclusive rights and limitations. The closed list of limitations in EU copyright law, however, can hardly be expected to offer sufficient breathing space for adaptation scenarios. As the Information Society Directive did not harmonize the right of adaptation, there was no need to include indispensable free adaptation rules that have evolved at the national level, such as the German “free use” doctrine. Instead of embracing national rules of equity and fairness to fill the gap, the CJEU is reluctant to borrow from the legal traditions of EU Member States and misses an important opportunity to provide guidance for the regulation of adaptations outside the sound sampling arena. After an introduction to the German “Metall auf Metall” saga that led to the Pelham decision, the following analysis sheds light on these developments in EU copyright law and discusses problems arising from the approach taken by the CJEU.
|
| Carroll, M., Flynn, S., Geiger, C., Guibault, L., Margoni, T., Quintais, J., Sag, M.
European Intellectual Property Review, 2020 (7), Forthcoming. @article{Flynn2020b,
title = {Implementing User Rights for Research in the Field of Artificial Intelligence: A Call for International Action}, author = {Flynn, S. and Geiger, C. and Quintais, J. and Margoni, T. and Sag, M. and Guibault, L. and Carroll, M.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3578819}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-04-21}, journal = {European Intellectual Property Review}, volume = {2020}, number = {7}, abstract = {Last year, before the onset of a global pandemic highlighted the critical and urgent need for technology-enabled scientific research, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) launched an inquiry into issues at the intersection of intellectual property (IP) and artificial intelligence (AI). We contributed comments to that inquiry, with a focus on the application of copyright to the use of text and data mining (TDM) technology. This article describes some of the most salient points of our submission and concludes by stressing the need for international leadership on this important topic. WIPO could help fill the current gap on international leadership, including by providing guidance on the diverse mechanisms that countries may use to authorize TDM research and serving as a forum for the adoption of rules permitting cross-border TDM projects.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {forthcoming}, tppubtype = {article} } Last year, before the onset of a global pandemic highlighted the critical and urgent need for technology-enabled scientific research, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) launched an inquiry into issues at the intersection of intellectual property (IP) and artificial intelligence (AI). We contributed comments to that inquiry, with a focus on the application of copyright to the use of text and data mining (TDM) technology. This article describes some of the most salient points of our submission and concludes by stressing the need for international leadership on this important topic. WIPO could help fill the current gap on international leadership, including by providing guidance on the diverse mechanisms that countries may use to authorize TDM research and serving as a forum for the adoption of rules permitting cross-border TDM projects.
|
| Flynn, S., Geiger, C., Quintais, J.
Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020. @article{Flynn2020c,
title = {Implementing User Rights for Research in the Field of Artificial Intelligence: A Call for Action at International Level}, author = {Flynn, S. and Geiger, C. and Quintais, J.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/04/21/implementing-user-rights-for-research-in-the-field-of-artificial-intelligence-a-call-for-action-at-international-level/ http://infojustice.org/archives/42260}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-04-21}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, abstract = {A version of this post was also published on the InfoJustice website: http://infojustice.org/archives/42260}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } A version of this post was also published on the InfoJustice website: http://infojustice.org/archives/42260
|
| Senftleben, M.
Florida International University Law Review, 14 , Forthcoming. @article{Senftleben2020,
title = {Institutionalized Algorithmic Enforcement - The Pros and Cons of the EU Approach to UGC Platform Liability}, author = {Senftleben, M.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3565175}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-04-09}, journal = {Florida International University Law Review}, volume = {14}, abstract = {Algorithmic copyright enforcement \textendash the use of automated filtering tools to detect infringing content before it appears on the internet \textendash has a deep impact on the freedom of users to upload and share information. Instead of presuming that user-generated content ("UGC") does not amount to infringement unless copyright owners take action and provide proof, the default position of automated filtering systems is that every upload is suspicious and that copyright owners are entitled to ex ante control over the sharing of information online. If platform providers voluntarily introduce algorithmic enforcement measures, this may be seen as a private decision following from the freedom of companies to run their business as they wish. If, however, copyright legislation institutionalizes algorithmic enforcement and imposes a legal obligation on platform providers to employ automated filtering tools, the law itself transforms copyright into a censorship and filtering instrument. Nonetheless, the new EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (“DSM Directive”) follows this path and requires the employment of automated filtering tools to ensure that unauthorized protected content does not populate UGC platforms. The new EU rules on UGC licensing and screening will inevitably lead to the adoption of algorithmic enforcement measures in practice. Without automated content control, UGC platforms will be unable to escape liability for infringing user uploads. To provide a complete picture, however, it is important to also shed light on counterbalances which may distinguish this new, institutionalized form of algorithmic enforcement from known content filtering tools that have evolved as voluntary measures in the private sector. The DSM Directive underlines the necessity to safeguard user freedoms that support transformative, creative remixes and mash-ups of pre-existing content. This feature of the new legislation may offer important incentives to develop algorithmic tools that go beyond the mere identification of unauthorized takings from protected works. It has the potential to encourage content assessment mechanisms that factor the degree of transformative effort and user creativity into the equation. As a result, more balanced content filtering tools may emerge in the EU. Against this background, the analysis shows that the new EU legislation not only escalates the use of algorithmic enforcement measures that already commenced in the private sector years ago. If rightly implemented, it may also add an important nuance to existing content identification tools and alleviate the problems arising from reliance on automated filtering mechanisms.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {forthcoming}, tppubtype = {article} } Algorithmic copyright enforcement – the use of automated filtering tools to detect infringing content before it appears on the internet – has a deep impact on the freedom of users to upload and share information. Instead of presuming that user-generated content ("UGC") does not amount to infringement unless copyright owners take action and provide proof, the default position of automated filtering systems is that every upload is suspicious and that copyright owners are entitled to ex ante control over the sharing of information online. If platform providers voluntarily introduce algorithmic enforcement measures, this may be seen as a private decision following from the freedom of companies to run their business as they wish. If, however, copyright legislation institutionalizes algorithmic enforcement and imposes a legal obligation on platform providers to employ automated filtering tools, the law itself transforms copyright into a censorship and filtering instrument. Nonetheless, the new EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (“DSM Directive”) follows this path and requires the employment of automated filtering tools to ensure that unauthorized protected content does not populate UGC platforms. The new EU rules on UGC licensing and screening will inevitably lead to the adoption of algorithmic enforcement measures in practice. Without automated content control, UGC platforms will be unable to escape liability for infringing user uploads.
To provide a complete picture, however, it is important to also shed light on counterbalances which may distinguish this new, institutionalized form of algorithmic enforcement from known content filtering tools that have evolved as voluntary measures in the private sector. The DSM Directive underlines the necessity to safeguard user freedoms that support transformative, creative remixes and mash-ups of pre-existing content. This feature of the new legislation may offer important incentives to develop algorithmic tools that go beyond the mere identification of unauthorized takings from protected works. It has the potential to encourage content assessment mechanisms that factor the degree of transformative effort and user creativity into the equation. As a result, more balanced content filtering tools may emerge in the EU. Against this background, the analysis shows that the new EU legislation not only escalates the use of algorithmic enforcement measures that already commenced in the private sector years ago. If rightly implemented, it may also add an important nuance to existing content identification tools and alleviate the problems arising from reliance on automated filtering mechanisms. |
| 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 2020. @article{Flynn2020,
title = {Joint Comment to WIPO on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence}, author = {Flynn, S. and Carroll, M. and Sag, M. and Guibault, L. and Margoni, T. and Butler, B. and Rocha de Souza, A. and Bogataj Jancic, M. and Jaszi, P. and Quintais, J. and Geiger, C. and Ncube, C. and White, B. and Scaria, A.G. and Botero, C. and Craig, C.}, url = {http://infojustice.org/archives/42009}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-02-25}, abstract = {On December 13, 2019, WIPO invited member states and all other interested parties to provide comments and suggestions to help define the issues related to intellectual property (IP) and artificial intelligence (AI) based on a Draft Issues Paper on IP Policy and AI. These comments will be used to prepare a revised issues paper for discussion at the second session of the WIPO Conversation on IP and AI. This Joint Comment is made in response to WIPO’s Public Consultation on AI and IP Policy and is endorsed by 16 members of the Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } On December 13, 2019, WIPO invited member states and all other interested parties to provide comments and suggestions to help define the issues related to intellectual property (IP) and artificial intelligence (AI) based on a Draft Issues Paper on IP Policy and AI. These comments will be used to prepare a revised issues paper for discussion at the second session of the WIPO Conversation on IP and AI. This Joint Comment is made in response to WIPO’s Public Consultation on AI and IP Policy and is endorsed by 16 members of the Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights.
|
| Hugenholtz, P.
AMI, (1), pp. 1-2, 2020. @article{Hugenholtz2020b,
title = {In Memoriam Jan Kabel}, author = {Hugenholtz, P.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2020_1.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-02-20}, journal = {AMI}, number = {1}, pages = {1-2}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| van Gompel, S.
AMI, (1), pp. 3-10, 2020. @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} } 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 geïntroduceerd 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. |
| Keller, P.
Article 17 stakeholder dialogue: What we have learned so far - Part 1 Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020. @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} } |
| Keller, P.
Article 17 stakeholder dialogue: What we have learned so far - Part 2 Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020. @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} } |
| Dommering, E.
De arresten Funke Medien, Spiegel Onlineen Pelham van het HvJ EU van 29 juli 2019 AMI, 2019 (6), pp. 185-191, 2020. @article{Dommering2020,
title = {De arresten Funke Medien, Spiegel Onlineen Pelham van het HvJ EU van 29 juli 2019}, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2019_6.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-01-07}, journal = {AMI}, volume = {2019}, number = {6}, pages = {185-191}, abstract = {29 juli 2019 was het D-Day voor het Europese auteursrecht. Toen deed een Grote Kamer van het Hof van Justitie uitspraak in drie zaken waarin het Duitse Bundesgerichtshof prejudici\"{e}le vragen had gesteld over de uitleg en toepassing van de Auteursrechtrichtlijn (Richtlijn 2001/29/EG) in relatie tot het Europese Handvest en indirect ook tot het Europese Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens. Het waren alledrie ‘borderline cases’. In de zaak Funke Medien gaat het om de perspublicatie van een proces-verbaal van een periodieke verslaggeving van de buitenlandse interventies van de Bundeswehr, bedoeld voor beperkt gebruik voor bepaalde afgevaardigden in de Bondsdag. Een van deze rapportages was uitgelekt en de Bondsregering probeerde verspreiding tegen te gaan met een beroep op haar auteursrecht; het proces-verbaal zou een ‘werk’ zijn in de zin van het door de richtlijn geharmoniseerde Duitse auteursrecht. In de Spiegel Online-zaak gaat het om de reikwijdte van het citaatrecht in het geval dat er door middel van een hyperlink op het web naar het werk wordt verwezen. De zaak bevat ook de vraag of het werk waaruit werd geciteerd op geoorloofde manier openbaar was gemaakt en of dat een omstandigheid was die citeren kon verhinderen. In de Pelham-zaak gaat het om de vraag of het gebruik van zeer korte muziekfragmenten (‘soundsampling’) moet worden aangemerkt als een geoorloofd citaat in de zin van artikel 5 lid 3 onder d van de richtlijn (beperking van het muziekreproductierecht).}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } 29 juli 2019 was het D-Day voor het Europese auteursrecht. Toen deed een Grote Kamer van het Hof van Justitie uitspraak in drie zaken waarin het Duitse Bundesgerichtshof prejudiciële vragen had gesteld over de uitleg en toepassing van de Auteursrechtrichtlijn (Richtlijn 2001/29/EG) in relatie tot het Europese Handvest en indirect ook tot het Europese Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens. Het waren
alledrie ‘borderline cases’. In de zaak Funke Medien gaat het om de perspublicatie van een proces-verbaal van een periodieke verslaggeving van de buitenlandse interventies van de Bundeswehr, bedoeld voor beperkt gebruik voor bepaalde afgevaardigden in de Bondsdag. Een van deze rapportages was uitgelekt en de Bondsregering probeerde verspreiding tegen te gaan met een beroep op haar auteursrecht; het proces-verbaal zou een ‘werk’ zijn in de zin van het door de richtlijn geharmoniseerde Duitse auteursrecht. In de Spiegel Online-zaak gaat het om de reikwijdte van het citaatrecht in het geval dat er door middel van een hyperlink op het web naar het werk wordt verwezen. De zaak bevat ook de vraag of het werk waaruit werd geciteerd op geoorloofde manier openbaar was gemaakt en of dat een omstandigheid was die citeren kon verhinderen. In de Pelham-zaak gaat het om de vraag of het gebruik van zeer korte muziekfragmenten (‘soundsampling’) moet worden aangemerkt als een geoorloofd citaat in de zin van artikel 5 lid 3 onder d van de richtlijn (beperking van het muziekreproductierecht). |
| van Eechoud, M.
AMI, 2019 (6), pp. 197-202, 2020. @article{vanEechoud2020,
title = {Artikel 15 DSM-richtlijn: bescherming van perspublicaties met betrekking tot onlinegebruik (persuitgeversrecht)}, author = {van Eechoud, M.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2019_6_DSM.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-01-07}, journal = {AMI}, volume = {2019}, number = {6}, pages = {197-202}, abstract = {Het in 2016 voorgestelde naburig recht op perspublicaties was \textendash met de licentieverplichting voor platforms \textendash het meest omstreden onderdeel van de DSM-richtlijn. In dit blad en elders zijn nut, noodzaak en (negatieve) effecten uitgebreid besproken. Nu ligt er dan een ten opzichte van het oorspronkelijke Commissievoorstel uitgekleed recht voor uitgevers (art. 15 DSM-richtlijn), dat wordt ge\"{i}mplementeerd in de Wet op de naburige rechten (nieuw art. 7b Wnr). Dit artikel geeft een korte analyse van de belangrijkste kenmerken van het nieuwe recht, en van de (on)zekerheden die het meebrengt.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Het in 2016 voorgestelde naburig recht op perspublicaties was – met de licentieverplichting voor platforms – het meest omstreden onderdeel van de DSM-richtlijn. In dit blad en elders zijn nut, noodzaak en (negatieve) effecten uitgebreid besproken. Nu ligt er dan een ten opzichte van het oorspronkelijke Commissievoorstel uitgekleed recht voor uitgevers (art. 15 DSM-richtlijn), dat wordt geïmplementeerd in de Wet op de naburige rechten (nieuw art. 7b Wnr). Dit artikel geeft een korte analyse van de belangrijkste kenmerken van het nieuwe recht, en van de (on)zekerheden die het meebrengt.
|
| Goldstein, P., Hugenholtz, P.
International Copyright: Principles, Law, and Practice Oxford University Press, 2019. @book{Goldstein2019,
title = {International Copyright: Principles, Law, and Practice}, author = {Goldstein, P. and Hugenholtz, P.}, url = {https://global.oup.com/academic/product/international-copyright-9780190060619?q=goldstein%20hugenholtz&lang=en&cc=nl}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-12-23}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {book} } |
| Jütte, B.J., Quintais, J.
Sample, sample in my song, can they tell where you are from? The Pelham judgment – Part II Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2019. @article{Quintais2019i,
title = {Sample, sample in my song, can they tell where you are from? The Pelham judgment \textendash Part II}, author = {Quintais, J. and J\"{u}tte, B.J.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/11/19/sample-sample-in-my-song-can-they-tell-where-you-are-from-the-pelham-judgment-part-ii/}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-11-19}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Frosio, G., Hugenholtz, P., Husovec, M., Jütte, B.J., Quintais, J., Senftleben, M., van Gompel, S.
2019. @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} } 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 – namely in its paragraphs (7) and (9) – and should be read in the context of the stakeholder dialogue mentioned in paragraph (10). |
| Quintais, J.
Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2019. @article{Quintais2019h,
title = {Safeguarding User Freedoms in Implementing Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: Recommendations from European Academics}, author = {Quintais, J.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/11/12/safeguarding-user-freedoms-in-implementing-article-17-of-the-copyright-in-the-digital-single-market-directive-recommendations-from-european-academics/}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-11-12}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Jütte, B.J., Quintais, J.
Sample, sample in my song, can they tell where you are from? The Pelham judgment – Part I Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2019. @article{J\"{u}tte2019c,
title = {Sample, sample in my song, can they tell where you are from? The Pelham judgment \textendash Part I}, author = {J\"{u}tte, B.J. and Quintais, J.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/11/06/sample-sample-in-my-song-can-they-tell-where-you-are-from-the-pelham-judgment-part-i/}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-11-07}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Hugenholtz, P.
Annotatie bij Rb Noord-Nederland 24 juli 2019 (Piet Hein Eek / Dudink) AMI, 2019 (5), pp. 180-181, 2019. @article{Hugenholtz2019h,
title = {Annotatie bij Rb Noord-Nederland 24 juli 2019 (Piet Hein Eek / Dudink)}, author = {Hugenholtz, P.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_AMI_2019_5.pdf}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-10-31}, journal = {AMI}, volume = {2019}, number = {5}, pages = {180-181}, abstract = {Meubelontwerper Piet Hein Eek heeft auteursrecht op de door hem ontworpen meubels van sloophout. Een aantal van de door gedaagde vervaardigde sloophouten tafels en stoelen maken wegens overeenstemmende totaalindrukken inbreuk op het auteursrecht van Eek. Vordering tot vergoeding van schade wegens winstderving toelaatbaar. Geen vergoeding wegens waardevermindering van het auteursrecht.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Meubelontwerper Piet Hein Eek heeft auteursrecht op de door hem ontworpen meubels van sloophout. Een aantal van de door gedaagde vervaardigde sloophouten tafels en stoelen maken wegens overeenstemmende totaalindrukken inbreuk op het auteursrecht van Eek. Vordering tot vergoeding van schade wegens winstderving toelaatbaar. Geen vergoeding wegens waardevermindering van het
auteursrecht. |
| Hugenholtz, P.
Artikelen 3 en 4 DSM-richtlijn: tekst- en datamining AMI, 2019 (5), pp. 167-171, 2019. @article{Hugenholtz2019i,
title = {Artikelen 3 en 4 DSM-richtlijn: tekst- en datamining}, author = {Hugenholtz, P.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2019_5.pdf}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-10-31}, journal = {AMI}, volume = {2019}, number = {5}, pages = {167-171}, abstract = {Tekst- en datamining (TDM) \textendash het geautomatiseerd analyseren van grote hoeveelheden ongestructureerde tekst en data \textendash is niet meer weg te denken uit de wetenschap, en speelt daarnaast een steeds grotere rol in een veelheid van andere domeinen, vari\"{e}rend van journalistiek tot artifici\"{e}le intelligentie. De nieuwe DSMrichtlijn voorziet daarom in een tweetal beperkingen van het auteursrecht en het databankenrecht ten aanzien van tekst- en datamining: de ene ten behoeve van nonprofit wetenschappelijk onderzoek (art. 3), de andere voor andere doeleinden (art. 4). Daarmee ontstaat de indruk dat de richtlijn voor TDM ruim baan heeft gemaakt, maar deze schijn bedriegt. Rechthebbenden kunnen door middel van een ‘opt-out’ tekst- en datamining voor commerci\"{e}le doeleinden uitsluiten of aan licenties onderwerpen. In dit artikel worden de TDM-bepalingen van de DSMrichtlijn kritisch besproken. Daaraan gaat vooraf een kort expos\'{e} over tekst- en datamining en de stand van zaken naar huidig auteursrecht.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Tekst- en datamining (TDM) – het geautomatiseerd analyseren van grote hoeveelheden ongestructureerde tekst en data – is niet meer weg te denken uit de wetenschap, en speelt daarnaast een steeds grotere rol in een veelheid van andere domeinen, variërend van journalistiek tot artificiële intelligentie. De nieuwe DSMrichtlijn voorziet daarom in een tweetal beperkingen van het auteursrecht en het databankenrecht ten aanzien van tekst- en datamining: de ene ten behoeve van nonprofit wetenschappelijk onderzoek (art. 3), de andere voor andere doeleinden (art. 4). Daarmee ontstaat de indruk dat de richtlijn voor TDM ruim baan heeft gemaakt, maar deze schijn bedriegt. Rechthebbenden kunnen door middel van een ‘opt-out’ tekst- en datamining voor commerciële doeleinden uitsluiten of aan licenties onderwerpen. In dit artikel worden de TDM-bepalingen van de DSMrichtlijn kritisch besproken. Daaraan gaat vooraf een kort exposé over tekst- en datamining en de stand van zaken naar huidig auteursrecht.
|
| Keller, P.
AMI, 2019 (5), pp. 172-173, 2019. @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} } 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”.
|
| Angelopoulos, C., Quintais, J.
Fixing Copyright Reform: A Better Solution to Online Infringement JIPITEC, 10 (2), 2019. @article{Angelopoulos2019,
title = {Fixing Copyright Reform: A Better Solution to Online Infringement}, author = {Angelopoulos, C. and Quintais, J.}, url = {https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-10-2-2019/4913}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-10-11}, journal = {JIPITEC}, volume = {10}, number = {2}, abstract = {The newly-adopted Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSMD) will fundamentally reshape EU copyright law. Among its most controversial offerings is Article 17, the so-called “value gap” provision, aimed at solving the alleged mismatch between the value that online content-sharing platforms extract from creative content and the revenue returned to the copyright-holders. This article argues that the new rules are misguided, misconceiving the real problems afflicting modern copyright. These are the proliferation of copyright infringement online in general \textendash not only through content-sharing platforms \textendash and the current piecemeal harmonisation of the rules on the liability of the intermediaries whose services are used to access and disseminate copyright-protected content. The current outdated and fragmented EU legal framework is ill-equipped to address these problems. Instead, it creates legal uncertainty for users and intermediaries in the online environment, while also failing to compensate creators fairly. The new rules will not change this. This article examines the pre-DSMD acquis and proposes a better solution than Article 17, consisting of two key changes: (a) the introduction of a harmonised EU framework for accessory liability for third party copyright infringement; and (b) the adoption of an alternative compensation system for right-holders covering non-commercial direct copyright use by the end-users of certain online platforms.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } The newly-adopted Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSMD) will fundamentally reshape EU copyright law. Among its most controversial offerings is Article 17, the so-called “value gap” provision, aimed at solving the alleged mismatch between the value that online content-sharing platforms extract from creative content and the revenue returned to the copyright-holders. This article argues that the new rules are misguided, misconceiving the real problems afflicting modern copyright. These are the proliferation of copyright infringement online in general – not only through content-sharing platforms – and the current piecemeal harmonisation of the rules on the liability of the intermediaries whose services are used to access and disseminate copyright-protected content. The current outdated and fragmented EU legal framework is ill-equipped to address these problems. Instead, it creates legal uncertainty for users and intermediaries in the online environment, while also failing to compensate creators fairly. The new rules will not change this. This article examines the pre-DSMD acquis and proposes a better solution than Article 17, consisting of two key changes: (a) the introduction of a harmonised EU framework for accessory liability for third party copyright infringement; and (b) the adoption of an alternative compensation system for right-holders covering non-commercial direct copyright use by the end-users of certain online platforms.
|
| Ende, M. van der, Poort, J., Yagafarova, A.
TPEdigitaal, 13 (2), pp. 97-111, 2019. @article{Poort2019d,
title = {Polderpiraten voor anker}, author = {Poort, J. and Ende, M. van der and Yagafarova, A.}, url = {http://www.tpedigitaal.nl/artikel/polderpiraten-voor-anker}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-10-01}, journal = {TPEdigitaal}, volume = {13}, number = {2}, pages = {97-111}, abstract = {Dit artikel bespreekt hoe de verwerving en consumptie van muziek, films, series, games en boeken zich tussen 2012 en 2017 in Nederland heeft ontwikkeld. Voor al deze soorten materiaal is de omzet in die periode gestegen, behalve voor boeken. De groep die weleens materiaal downloadt of streamt uit illegale bronnen is kleiner geworden voor muziek en games, gelijk gebleven voor films en series en licht gestegen voor boeken. Piraten consumeren echter veel vaker betaalde content dan niet-piraten. De vrees voor piraterij zou de ontwikkeling van e-boekabonnementen daarom niet in de weg moeten staan.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Dit artikel bespreekt hoe de verwerving en consumptie van muziek, films, series, games en boeken zich tussen 2012 en 2017 in Nederland heeft ontwikkeld. Voor al deze soorten materiaal is de omzet in die periode gestegen, behalve voor boeken. De groep die weleens materiaal downloadt of streamt uit illegale bronnen is kleiner geworden voor muziek en games, gelijk gebleven voor films en series en licht gestegen voor boeken. Piraten consumeren echter veel vaker betaalde content dan niet-piraten. De vrees voor piraterij zou de ontwikkeling van e-boekabonnementen daarom niet in de weg moeten staan.
|
| Jütte, B.J., Quintais, J.
Conference on Freedom of Expression and Copyright: Luxembourg, 7 November 2019 Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2019. @article{J\"{u}tte2019b,
title = {Conference on Freedom of Expression and Copyright: Luxembourg, 7 November 2019}, author = {J\"{u}tte, B.J. and Quintais, J.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/09/24/conference-on-freedom-of-expression-and-copyright-luxembourg-7-november-2019/}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-09-26}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Kabel, J.
AMI, 2019 (3), pp. 96-99, 2019. @article{Kabel2019b,
title = {Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 29 maart 2019 (Dijkstra / De 4 Jaargetijden): Is artikel 25 Aw nu eindelijk helemaal af?}, author = {Kabel, J.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_AMI_2019_3.pdf}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-07-26}, journal = {AMI}, volume = {2019}, number = {3}, pages = {96-99}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Hugenholtz, P.
The New Copyright Directive: Text and Data Mining (Articles 3 and 4) Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2019. @article{Hugenholtz2019e,
title = {The New Copyright Directive: Text and Data Mining (Articles 3 and 4)}, author = {Hugenholtz, P.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/07/24/the-new-copyright-directive-text-and-data-mining-articles-3-and-4/}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-07-25}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Giannopoulou, A.
The New Copyright Directive: Article 14 or when the Public Domain Enters the New Copyright Directive Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2019. @article{Giannopoulou2019b,
title = {The New Copyright Directive: Article 14 or when the Public Domain Enters the New Copyright Directive }, author = {Giannopoulou, A.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/06/27/the-new-copyright-directive-article-14-or-when-the-public-domain-enters-the-new-copyright-directive/}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-06-28}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| van Gompel, S.
C. op den Kamp & D. Hunter, (Ed.): A History of Intellectual Property in 50 Objects, 2019 , Chapter 12, pp. 104-111, Cambridge University Press, 2019, ISBN: 9781108325806. @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} } |
| Bodó, B., Handke, C.W., Quintais, J., Vallbé, J.
Knocking on Heaven’s Door: User preferences on digital cultural distribution Internet Policy Review, 8 (2), 2019. @article{Vallb\'{e}2019,
title = {Knocking on Heaven’s Door: User preferences on digital cultural distribution}, author = {Vallb\'{e}, J. and Bod\'{o}, B. and Quintais, J. and Handke, C.W.}, url = {https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/knocking-heavens-door-user-preferences-digital-cultural-distribution}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-06-20}, journal = {Internet Policy Review}, volume = {8}, number = {2}, abstract = {This paper explores the social, demographic and attitudinal basis of consumer support of a Copyright Compensation System (CCS), which, for a small monthly fee would legalise currently infringing online social practices such as private copying from illegal sources and online sharing of copyrighted works. We do this by first identifying how different online and offline, legal and illegal, free and paying content acquisition channels are used in the media market using a cluster-based classification of respondents. Second, we assess the effect of cultural consumption on the support for a shift from the status quo towards alternative, CCS-based forms of digital cultural content distribution. Finally, we link these two analyses to identify the factors that drive the dynamics of change in digital cultural consumption habits. Our study shows significant support to a CCS compared to the status quo by both occasional and frequent buyers of cultural goods, despite the widespread adoption of legal free and paying online services by consumers. The nature of these preferences are also explored with the inclusion of consumer preference intensities regarding certain CCS attributes. Our results have relevant policy implications, for they outline CCS as a reform option. In particular, they point evidence-based copyright reform away from its current direction in the EU of stronger enforcement measures, additional exclusive rights, and increased liability and duties of care for online platforms. This work shows that CCS may be an apt policy tool to hinder piracy and potentially increase right holder revenues, while respecting fundamental rights and promoting technological development.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } This paper explores the social, demographic and attitudinal basis of consumer support of a Copyright Compensation System (CCS), which, for a small monthly fee would legalise currently infringing online social practices such as private copying from illegal sources and online sharing of copyrighted works. We do this by first identifying how different online and offline, legal and illegal, free and paying content acquisition channels are used in the media market using a cluster-based classification of respondents. Second, we assess the effect of cultural consumption on the support for a shift from the status quo towards alternative, CCS-based forms of digital cultural content distribution. Finally, we link these two analyses to identify the factors that drive the dynamics of change in digital cultural consumption habits. Our study shows significant support to a CCS compared to the status quo by both occasional and frequent buyers of cultural goods, despite the widespread adoption of legal free and paying online services by consumers. The nature of these preferences are also explored with the inclusion of consumer preference intensities regarding certain CCS attributes. Our results have relevant policy implications, for they outline CCS as a reform option. In particular, they point evidence-based copyright reform away from its current direction in the EU of stronger enforcement measures, additional exclusive rights, and increased liability and duties of care for online platforms. This work shows that CCS may be an apt policy tool to hinder piracy and potentially increase right holder revenues, while respecting fundamental rights and promoting technological development.
|
| Quintais, J.
Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2019. @article{Quintais2019d,
title = {The New Copyright Directive: A tour d’horizon \textendash Part II (of press publishers, upload filters and the real value gap)}, author = {Quintais, J.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/06/17/the-new-copyright-directive-a-tour-dhorizon-part-ii-of-press-publishers-upload-filters-and-the-real-value-gap/}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-06-18}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Quintais, J.
The New Copyright Directive: A tour d’horizon – Part I Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2019. @article{Quintais2019c,
title = {The New Copyright Directive: A tour d’horizon \textendash Part I}, author = {Quintais, J.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/06/07/the-new-copyright-directive-a-tour-dhorizon-part-i/}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-06-07}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Hugenholtz, P.
Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 6 oktober 2017 (Imation / Thuiskopie en Staat) Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, 2019 (21/22), pp. 3068-3070, 2019. @article{Hugenholtz2019d,
title = {Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 6 oktober 2017 (Imation / Thuiskopie en Staat)}, author = {Hugenholtz, P.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2019_182.pdf}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-06-04}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, volume = {2019}, number = {21/22}, pages = {3068-3070}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Kabel, J.
Annotatie bij Hof Amsterdam 27 november 2018 (Nomenta / Nikki) AMI, 2019 (2), pp. 72, 2019. @article{Kabel2019,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof Amsterdam 27 november 2018 (Nomenta / Nikki)}, author = {Kabel, J.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_AMI_2019_2.pdf}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-05-24}, journal = {AMI}, volume = {2019}, number = {2}, pages = {72}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| van Eechoud, M.
Annotatie bij Rb. Den Haag 12 december 2018 (FPI Ghana / Koas c.s.) AMI, 2019 (2), pp. 73-74, 2019. @article{vanEechoud2019e,
title = {Annotatie bij Rb. Den Haag 12 december 2018 (FPI Ghana / Koas c.s.)}, author = {van Eechoud, M.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_AMI_2019_2_p73.pdf}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-05-24}, journal = {AMI}, volume = {2019}, number = {2}, pages = {73-74}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Jütte, B., Quintais, J.
Advocate General Turns down the Music - Sampling Is Not a Fundamental Right under EU Copyright Law European Intellectual Property Review , 41 (10), pp. 654-657, 2019. @article{J\"{u}tte2019,
title = { Advocate General Turns down the Music - Sampling Is Not a Fundamental Right under EU Copyright Law}, author = {J\"{u}tte, B. and Quintais, J.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3377205}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-05-09}, journal = {European Intellectual Property Review }, volume = {41}, number = {10}, pages = {654-657}, abstract = {In his Opinion in Pelham (C-467/17) Advocate General Szpunar suggests that the use of samples from sound recordings is not permitted under the European copyright rules. While applying an extensive interpretation of the scope of the rights of phonogram producers, he rejects an extensive interpretation of the quotation exception and limits the role of fundamental rights as external checks to copyright law. Despite its merits, there are key aspects of the Opinion that raise concerns: a too broad interpretation of the reproduction right; and an unduly strict view of copyright exceptions \textendash especially quotation \textendash and the role of fundamental rights in shaping the scope of copyright protection. On those points, we suggest that the Court does not follow the Opinion.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } In his Opinion in Pelham (C-467/17) Advocate General Szpunar suggests that the use of samples from sound recordings is not permitted under the European copyright rules. While applying an extensive interpretation of the scope of the rights of phonogram producers, he rejects an extensive interpretation of the quotation exception and limits the role of fundamental rights as external checks to copyright law. Despite its merits, there are key aspects of the Opinion that raise concerns: a too broad interpretation of the reproduction right; and an unduly strict view of copyright exceptions – especially quotation – and the role of fundamental rights in shaping the scope of copyright protection. On those points, we suggest that the Court does not follow the Opinion.
|
| Mil, J. van
German Federal Court of Justice asks CJEU if YouTube is directly liable for user-uploaded content Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice , 14 (5), pp. 355-356, 2019. @article{Mil2019b,
title = {German Federal Court of Justice asks CJEU if YouTube is directly liable for user-uploaded content}, author = {Mil, J. van}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpz034}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-05-07}, journal = {Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice }, volume = {14}, number = {5}, pages = {355-356}, abstract = {On 13 September 2018, the German Federal Court of Justice referred preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, including the question whether YouTube performs acts of communication to the public when its users upload unauthorized content onto this platform.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } On 13 September 2018, the German Federal Court of Justice referred preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, including the question whether YouTube performs acts of communication to the public when its users upload unauthorized content onto this platform.
|
| van Eechoud, M.
Schriftelijke inbreng Rondetafelgesprek wijziging Handelsregisterwet 2019, (Vaste Commissie voor Economische Zaken en Klimaat, Tweede Kamer). @techreport{vanEechoud2019d,
title = {Schriftelijke inbreng Rondetafelgesprek wijziging Handelsregisterwet}, author = {van Eechoud, M.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/paper_t.b.v._hoorzitting_rondetafelgesprek_Handelsregisterwet_d.d._11_april_2019.pdf}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-04-12}, note = {Vaste Commissie voor Economische Zaken en Klimaat, Tweede Kamer}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } |
| Hugenholtz, P.
The WIPO Broadcasting Treaty. A Conceptual Conundrum European Intellectual Property Review, 2019 (4), pp. 199-202, 2019, (This opinion is based on a keynote speech delivered at the KEI Seminar, "Appraising the WIPO Broadcast treaty and its Implications on Access to Culture", Geneva, 3-4 October 2018.). @article{Hugenholtz2019c,
title = {The WIPO Broadcasting Treaty. A Conceptual Conundrum}, author = {Hugenholtz, P.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/EIPR_2019_4.pdf}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-04-04}, journal = {European Intellectual Property Review}, volume = {2019}, number = {4}, pages = {199-202}, abstract = {The Broadcasting Treaty that has been discussed at WIPO for over twenty years, seems to be reaching a dead end. The Treaty that aims at extending the legal protection of broadcasters to the digital realm, suffers from three serious flaws: one economic, one conceptual and one pragmatic. Due to the decreasing technical costs of broadcasting, the economic case for granting special rights to broadcasters is weakening. Moreover, properly defining the act of ‘broadcasting’ that would give rise to legal protection, is highly problematic. Finally, no real and urgent need for a new right seems to exist, in light of current legal regimes that broadcasters already rely on under national law. Perhaps the time has come to abandon work on the WIPO Broadcasting Treaty, and move on.}, note = {This opinion is based on a keynote speech delivered at the KEI Seminar, "Appraising the WIPO Broadcast treaty and its Implications on Access to Culture", Geneva, 3-4 October 2018.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } The Broadcasting Treaty that has been discussed at WIPO for over twenty years, seems to be reaching a dead end. The Treaty that aims at extending the legal protection of broadcasters to the digital realm, suffers from three serious flaws: one economic, one conceptual and one pragmatic. Due to the decreasing technical costs of broadcasting, the economic case for granting special rights to broadcasters is weakening. Moreover, properly defining the act of ‘broadcasting’ that would give rise to legal protection, is highly problematic. Finally, no real and urgent need for a new right seems to exist, in light of current legal regimes that broadcasters already rely on under national law. Perhaps the time has come to abandon work on the WIPO Broadcasting Treaty, and move on.
|
| Bodó, B.
Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2019 , 2019. @article{Bod\'{o}2019c,
title = {The science of piracy, the piracy of science. Who are the science pirates and where do they come from: Part 2}, author = {Bod\'{o}, B.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/03/21/the-science-of-piracy-the-piracy-of-science-who-are-the-science-pirates-and-where-do-they-come-from-part-2/}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-03-21}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, volume = {2019}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Coche, E.
Heks'nkaas or the "Fifty Shades of Taste" Explained by the CJEU through EU Copyright Law European Intellectual Property Review, 2019 (3), pp. 173-180, 2019. @article{Coche2019b,
title = {Heks'nkaas or the "Fifty Shades of Taste" Explained by the CJEU through EU Copyright Law}, author = {Coche, E.}, url = {http://uba-sfx.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/uva-linker?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info:sid/sfxit.com:azlist&sfx.ignore_date_threshold=1&rft.object_id=110978977740233&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off;}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-03-12}, journal = {European Intellectual Property Review}, volume = {2019}, number = {3}, pages = {173-180}, abstract = {If the CJEU were to grant a prize to the 2018 most "original" copyright dispute, Levola Hengola v Smilde Foods (C-310/17) (the Heks’nkaas case) would undoubtedly stand among the nominees. The main reason why this case hit the spotlight is most probably because it touched upon the fundamentals of EU copyright law, namely its protectable subject-matter. Intriguingly, the complexities of copyright were unveiled by the following question: "Does Union law preclude the taste of food\textemdashas the author’s own intellectual creation\textemdashfrom being protected by copyright?" Notwithstanding the court’s dissenting answer, which clarified the scope of EU copyright law, it is of paramount importance to also discuss and unravel the ruling’s preceding procedure, including the Opinion by the Advocate General, as it shed light on the many existing controversies within copyright law.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } If the CJEU were to grant a prize to the 2018 most "original" copyright dispute, Levola Hengola v Smilde Foods (C-310/17) (the Heks’nkaas case) would undoubtedly stand among the nominees. The main reason why this case hit the spotlight is most probably because it touched upon the fundamentals of EU copyright law, namely its protectable subject-matter. Intriguingly, the complexities of copyright were unveiled by the following question: "Does Union law preclude the taste of food—as the author’s own intellectual creation—from being protected by copyright?" Notwithstanding the court’s dissenting answer, which clarified the scope of EU copyright law, it is of paramount importance to also discuss and unravel the ruling’s preceding procedure, including the Opinion by the Advocate General, as it shed light on the many existing controversies within copyright law.
|
| Bodó, B.
Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2019 , 2019. @article{Bod\'{o}2019b,
title = {The science of piracy, the piracy of science. Who are the science pirates and where do they come from: Part 1}, author = {Bod\'{o}, B.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/03/06/the-science-of-piracy-the-piracy-of-science-who-are-the-science-pirates-and-where-do-they-come-from-part-1/}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-03-07}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, volume = {2019}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Delinavelli, G.
The EU Counterfeit & Piracy Watch List: political aims and legal challenges Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2019 , 2019. @article{Delinavelli2019,
title = {The EU Counterfeit & Piracy Watch List: political aims and legal challenges}, author = {Delinavelli, G.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/03/05/the-eu-counterfeit-piracy-watch-list-political-aims-and-legal-challenges/}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-03-07}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, volume = {2019}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| van Gompel, S.
Smaak, auteursrecht en objectafbakening: over perceptie en bepaalbaarheid AMI, 2019 (1), pp. 9-16, 2019. @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} } 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 creëren over het object van auteursrechtelijke bescherming. |
| Hugenholtz, P.
Openbaarheid van tarieven en licentievoorwaarden van cbo’s AMI, 2019 (1), pp. 1-8, 2019. @article{Hugenholtz2019b,
title = {Openbaarheid van tarieven en licentievoorwaarden van cbo’s}, author = {Hugenholtz, P.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2019_1_PBH.pdf}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-02-21}, journal = {AMI}, volume = {2019}, number = {1}, pages = {1-8}, abstract = {Op grond van de Wet toezicht zijn collectieve beheersorganisaties verplicht ‘standaardlicentieovereenkomsten en normaal toepasselijke tarieven’ actief openbaar te maken. Over de betekenis en reikwijdte van deze verplichting bestaat in Nederland onduidelijkheid en zelfs onenigheid, maar (nog) geen jurisprudentie. In dit artikel wordt gepoogd om, mede aan de hand van een analyse van de rechtsgronden van deze verplichting, te komen tot een juiste en in de praktijk hanteerbare interpretatie van de openbaarheidsplicht.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Op grond van de Wet toezicht zijn collectieve beheersorganisaties verplicht
‘standaardlicentieovereenkomsten en normaal toepasselijke tarieven’ actief openbaar te maken. Over de betekenis en reikwijdte van deze verplichting bestaat in Nederland onduidelijkheid en zelfs onenigheid, maar (nog) geen jurisprudentie. In dit artikel wordt gepoogd om, mede aan de hand van een analyse van de rechtsgronden van deze verplichting, te komen tot een juiste en in de praktijk hanteerbare interpretatie van de openbaarheidsplicht. |
| van Eechoud, M.
Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 8 juni 2018 (Pearson) AMI, 2019 (1), pp. 34-39, 2019. @article{vanEechoud2019,
title = {Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 8 juni 2018 (Pearson)}, author = {van Eechoud, M.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_AMI_2019_1.pdf}, year = {2019}, date = {2019-02-21}, journal = {AMI}, volume = {2019}, number = {1}, pages = {34-39}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |