@article{nokey,

title = {Opinion of the European Copyright Society on selected aspects of the proposed Data Act},

author = {Derclaye E. and van Eechoud, M. and Husovec, M. and Senftleben, M.},

url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/05/16/opinion-of-the-european-copyright-society-on-selected-aspects-of-the-proposed-data-act/},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-05-16},

journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Between Filters and Fundamental Rights: How the Court of Justice saved Article 17 in C-401/19 - Poland v. Parliament and Council},

author = {Quintais, J.},

url = {https://verfassungsblog.de/filters-poland/?s=09},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-05-16},

journal = {Verfassungsblog},

abstract = {On 26 April 2022, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU or Court) delivered its much awaited judgement in Case C-401/19 \textendash Poland v Parliament and Council. The case focuses on the validity of Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (CDSMD) in light of fundamental rights. The judgment marks the climax of a turbulent journey in the area of copyright law, with potential implications for the future of platform regulation and content moderation in EU law.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {AI Music Outputs: Challenges to the Copyright Legal Framework \textendash Part II},

author = {Bulayenko, O. and Poort, J. and Quintais, J. and Gervais, D.J.},

url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/04/25/ai-music-outputs-challenges-to-the-copyright-legal-framework-part-ii/},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-05-02},

journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {CJEU upholds Article 17, but not in the form (most) Member States imagined},

author = {Reda, F. and Keller, P.},

url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/04/28/cjeu-upholds-article-17-but-not-in-the-form-most-member-states-imagined/},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-04-28},

journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 8 september 2020 (Recorded Artists Actors Performers / Phonographic Performance (Ireland))},

author = {Hugenholtz, P.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/annotatie_nj_2022_126/},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-04-19},

journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie},

number = {126},

issue = {15},

pages = {2384-2386},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {EU copyright law round up \textendash first trimester of 2022},

author = {Quintais, J. and Trapova, A.},

url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/04/06/eu-copyright-law-round-up-first-trimester-of-2022/},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-04-07},

journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {European Copyright Society \textendash Comment on Copyright and the Digital Services Act Proposal},

author = {Peukert, A. and Husovec, M. and Kretschmer, M. and Mezei, P. and Quintais, J.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/iic_2022/},

doi = {10.1007/s40319-022-01154-1},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-03-14},

urldate = {2022-03-14},

journal = {IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law },

volume = {53},

issue = {3},

pages = {358-376},

note = {Opinion},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

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

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

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

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-03-03},

journal = {Auteursrecht},

issue = {1},

pages = {3-14},

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

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 22 juni 2021 Frank Peterson / Google \& YouTube (C 682/18) \& Elsevier / Cyando AG (C 683/18)},

author = {Quintais, J. and Angelopoulos, C.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/annotatie_auteursrecht_2022_1/},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-03-03},

journal = {Auteursrecht},

number = {1},

issue = {1},

pages = {46-51},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Annotatie bij Rechtbank Midden-Nederland 22 december 2021 (VVZBI/KVK)},

author = {van Eechoud, M.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/annotatie_auteursrecht_2022_71/},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-03-03},

journal = {Auteursrecht},

issue = {1},

pages = {71-72},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {DJs are Phonogram Producers, says Dutch Supreme Court},

author = {Hugenholtz, P.},

url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/01/31/djs-are-phonogram-producers-says-dutch-supreme-court/},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-01-31},

journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Article 17, the year in review (2021 edition)},

author = {Keller, P.},

url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/01/24/article-17-the-year-in-review-2021-edition/},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-01-24},

journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {European Copyright Society (ECS): Comment on Copyright and the Digital Services Act Proposal},

author = {Peukert, A. and Husovec, M. and Kretschmer, M. and Mezei, P. and Quintais, J.},

url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/01/18/european-copyright-society-ecs-comment-on-copyright-and-the-digital-services-act-proposal/},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-01-18},

journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {EU copyright law round up \textendash fourth trimester of 2021},

author = {Trapova, A. and Quintais, J.},

url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/12/27/eu-copyright-law-round-up-fourth-trimester-of-2021/},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-12-27},

journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {YouTube Copyright Transparency Report: Overblocking is real},

author = {Keller, P.},

url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/12/09/youtube-copyright-transparency-report-overblocking-is-real/},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-12-10},

urldate = {2021-12-10},

journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Annotatie bij Hof Arnhem-Leeuwarden 25 mei 2021 (Atlantic/Marell Boats)},

author = {van Eechoud, M.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_Auteursrecht_2021_4.pdf},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-12-02},

journal = {Auteursrecht},

number = {4},

pages = {228-229},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 8 september 2020 (RAAP/PPI)},

author = {van Eechoud, M.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_Auteursrecht_2021_2.pdf},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-11-23},

journal = {Auteursrecht},

volume = {2021},

number = {2},

pages = {77-79},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Hugenholtz2021d,

title = {Copyright and Artificial Creation: Does EU Copyright Law Protect AI-Assisted Output?},

author = {Hugenholtz, P. and Quintais, J.},

url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-021-01115-0},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01115-0},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-10-07},

urldate = {2021-10-07},

journal = {IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law },

volume = {52},

number = {9},

pages = {1190-1216},

abstract = {This article queries whether and to what extent works produced with the aid of AI systems \textendash AI-assisted output \textendash are protected under EU copyright standards. We carry out a doctrinal legal analysis to scrutinise the concepts of “work”, “originality” and “creative freedom”, as well as the notion of authorship, as set forth in the EU copyright acquis and developed in the case-law of the Court of Justice. On this basis, we develop a four-step test to assess whether AI-assisted output qualifies as an original work of authorship under EU law, and how the existing rules on authorship may apply. Our conclusion is that current EU copyright rules are generally suitable and sufficiently flexible to deal with the challenges posed by AI-assisted output.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Reda2021bb,

title = {A Proposal to leverage Article 17 to build a public repository of Public Domain and openly licensed works},

author = {Reda, J. and Keller, P.},

url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/09/23/a-proposal-to-leverage-article-17-to-build-a-public-repository-of-public-domain-and-openly-licensed-works/},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-09-23},

journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Angelopoulos2021,

title = {De reikwijdte van artikel 17 DSM-richtlijn in het licht van het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen: een Odyssee},

author = {Angelopoulos, C. and Senftleben, M. and Thije, P. ten},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Auteursrecht_2021_3.pdf},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-09-21},

journal = {Auteursrecht},

number = {3},

pages = {120-142},

abstract = {Met de Richtlijn auteursrechten en naburige rechten in de digitale eengemaakte markt (‘DSM-RL’) zijn nieuwe wettelijke verplichtingen op het terrein van het filteren van online content ontstaan. Aanbieders van onlinediensten voor het delen van content (‘OCSSPs’) dienen \textendash op basis van door rechthebbenden verstrekte informatie \textendash ervoor te zorgen dat beschermd materiaal niet beschikbaar is op hun platforms. Tegelijkertijd bevestigt artikel 17 lid 8 DSM-RL dat de nieuwe auteursrechtelijke regels niet tot een algemene toezichtverplichting moeten leiden. Ondanks de nieuwe filterverplichtingen heeft de Uniewetgever het traditionele verbod op een algemene toezichtverplichting \textendash dat al 20 jaar deel uitmaakt van de regeling van aansprakelijkheidsprivileges in de Richtlijn inzake elektronische handel (‘REH’) \textendash uitdrukkelijk overeind gehouden. Ook het voorstel van de Europese Commissie voor een Digital Services Act (‘DSA’) houdt het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen in stand. Tegen deze achtergrond rijst de vraag hoe de nieuwe auteursrechtelijke filterverplichtingen moeten worden uitgelegd om een verboden algemene toezichtverplichting te voorkomen. De volgende analyse geeft antwoord op deze vraag op basis van een nadere bespreking van het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen in de REH, de DSM-RL en het DSA-voorstel. Naast relevante rechtspraak van het HvJ EU komt het nauwe verband tussen het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen en fundamentele rechten aan de orde.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{vanEechoud2021bb,

title = {Please share nicely \textemdash From Database directive to Data (governance) acts},

author = {van Eechoud, M.},

url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/08/18/please-share-nicely-from-database-directive-to-data-governance-acts/},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-08-24},

journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@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{Hugenholtz2021b,

title = {Auteursrecht en artifici\"{e}le creatie},

author = {Hugenholtz, P. and Quintais, J.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Auteursrecht-2021-2.pdf},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-06-17},

journal = {Auteursrecht},

number = {2},

pages = {47-52},

abstract = {In dit artikel wordt de vraag gesteld of voortbrengselen die met behulp van AI-systemen tot stand zijn gebracht auteursrechtelijk beschermd kunnen zijn. Centraal in deze analyse staat niet de machine, maar de rol van de mens in het door het AI-systeem ondersteunde creatieve proces. Is deze rol voldoende om het resultaat als auteursrechtelijke beschermd werk te kwalificeren? En wie heeft in dat geval te gelden als maker(s)? Deze vragen worden aan de hand van het Unierecht en de jurisprudentie van het HvJ EU beantwoord. Dit artikel is gebaseerd op een studie die in opdracht van de Europese Commissie is verricht en aan de basis ligt van het door de Commissie in het Actieplan IE geformuleerde

beleidsstandpunt over AI-creaties.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Hugenholtz2021bb,

title = {Three Cheers for the DSM Directive’s Rules on Author’s Contracts \textendash and a Cautionary Note from the Netherlands},

author = {Hugenholtz, P.},

url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/06/14/three-cheers-for-the-dsm-directives-rules-on-authors-contracts-and-a-cautionary-note-from-the-netherlands/},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-06-14},

journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Quintais2021,

title = {Commission’s Guidance on Art. 17 CDSM Directive: the authorisation dimension},

author = {Quintais, J.},

url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/06/10/commissions-guidance-on-art-17-cdsm-directive-the-authorisation-dimension/},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-06-10},

journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Hugenholtz2021,

title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 11 juni 2020 (Brompton Bicycle / Chedech/Get2Get},

author = {Hugenholtz, P.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2021_175.pdf},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-06-04},

journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie},

number = {22},

pages = {3136-3138},

abstract = {Verzoek om een prejudici\"{e}le beslissing krachtens artikel 267 VWEU, ingediend door de tribunal de l’entreprise de Li\`{e}ge (ondernemingsrechtbank Luik, Belgi\"{e}) bij beslissing van 18 december 2018. Intellectuele en industri\"{e}le eigendom, auteursrecht en naburige rechten. Vouwfiets. Bescherming van werken op grond van het auteursrecht. Voor het bereiken van een technisch resultaat noodzakelijke vorm.},

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{Bostyn2021,

title = {Why a COVID IP Waiver Is not a Good Strategy},

author = {Bostyn, S.},

url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3843327},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-05-17},

abstract = {The COVID-19 pandemic has a profound influence on all aspects of society. The development of successful vaccines in record speed is almost a miracle. But despite the successful development and approval of multiple vaccines, many people still die of this terrible disease, and there is an urgent need to see more vaccines manufactured and distributed across the globe.

The proposed COVID-19 IP waiver has been touted by some to be the perfect solution to a terrible problem. We all agree that there is a terrible problem of insufficient vaccines to inoculate the world population.

An IP waiver is not a good strategy however, to tackle this crisis. There are multiple more effective solution conceivable which do not require a very disruptive IP waiver.

The problem of insufficient supply is much more complicated than a simple IP waiver suggests. This is a complex ecosystem, and there are many moving parts. Moreover, IP rights are only part of the problem relating to more supply of vaccine or therapeutics. In view of the complexities, it will probably take many months to negotiate any kind of IP waiver system that would be acceptable to all WTO member states, if consensus could be reached at all. And the end result is likely to satisfy very few if any countries.

The legality of an IP waiver can be doubted, and it would require retro-active effect, a concept that should be extremely sparingly used.

A multitude of complex issues needs to be sorted out. There are hundreds of patents to navigate. A waiver to the equally patented vaccine platform technology (covering many patents), which may be used to develop any other vaccine, will make those companies who have invested heavily into developing it very nervous indeed, to say the least.

Crucial manufacturing know-how is often not protected by IP rights, but is kept secret, and it will be difficult to force companies to disclose that information, also because one does not know what to ask for.

The present IP waiver proposal also provides for a disclosure of commercially very sensitive information. Companies did not have a chance to adapt their regulatory disclosure strategies to this new reality, which means that information which will be disclosed under the waiver could very well have a major negative impact on future innovation strategies, and may also hamper competitive advantage or leverage.

Market exclusivity is arguably not covered by the IP waiver, which means that separate national statutory intervention will be required to ensure that this market exclusivity is set aside, absent of which the IP waiver cannot have any practical effect.

A quick and determined use of compulsory licensing could be a better way forward, as they have the potential to be a powerful tool. There are inefficiencies in using the instrument however, and invoking them when the need is high will require a relatively long lead time before they sort practical effect. They also require additional statutory intervention to ensure that regulatory exclusivities do not block their practical effect. And they might not necessarily work as well with low and middle-income countries, who would have less leverage in the negotiations.

More efficient solutions can be arrived at by introducing hard clauses into contracts in the context of push and pull mechanisms. Those obligations are much more likely to result in more supply in the shorter to medium term if they are agreed upon long before the vaccine enters the market. It is obviously too late for the contracts that have been concluded in the past, but it should be a template for the future.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Ancel2021,

title = {International Law Association’s Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Private International Law (“Kyoto Guidelines”): Applicable Law},

author = {Ancel, M-E. and Binctin, N. and Drexl, J. and van Eechoud, M. and Ginsburg, J.C. and Kono, T. and Lee, G. and Matulionyte, R. and Treppoz, E. and Moura Vicente, D.},

url = {https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-12-1-2021/5247/jipitec%20-12_1_2021_applicable_law.pdf},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-05-11},

journal = {JIPITEC},

volume = {12},

number = {1},

pages = {44-73},

abstract = {The chapter “Applicable Law” of the International Law Association’s Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Private International Law (“Kyoto Guidelines”) provides principles on the choice of law in international intellectual property matters. The Guidelines confirm the traditional principle of the lex loci protection is for the existence, transferability, scope and infringement of intellectual property rights. The law applicable to the initial ownership of registered rights is governed by the lex loci protection is whereas the law of the closest connection is applied to determine the ownership of copyright. For contracts, freedom of choice is acknowledged. With regard to ubiquitous or multi-state infringement and collective rights management in the field of copyright, the Guidelines suggest innovative solutions. Finally, the chapter contains a Guideline on the law applicable to the arbitrability of disputes.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{onProperty2021,

title = {Annex Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Private International Law (“Kyoto Guidelines”)},

author = {van Eechoud, M. and as part of ILA Committee:},

url = {https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-12-1-2021/5252},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-05-11},

journal = {JIPITEC},

volume = {12},

number = {1},

pages = {86-93},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{vanGompel2021,

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

author = {van Gompel, S.},

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

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-04-29},

journal = {Auteursrecht},

volume = {2021},

number = {1},

pages = {3-9},

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

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{vanGompel2021b,

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

author = {van Gompel, S.},

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

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-04-29},

journal = {Auteursrecht},

number = {1},

pages = {40-42},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@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{vanEechoud2021b,

title = {A Serpent Eating Its Tail: The Database Directive Meets the Open Data Directive},

author = {van Eechoud, M.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IIC_2021.pdf},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01049-7},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-04-14},

journal = {IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law },

volume = {52},

number = {4},

pages = {375-378},

abstract = {As part of its broader digital strategy, the European Commission has articulated a data strategy. Its aim is to help grow “the use of, and demand for, data and data-enabled products and services throughout the Single Market”. In the eyes of the EC, promoting wider availability and use of data would stimulate not just “greater productivity and competitive markets, but also improvements in health and well-being, environment, transparent governance and convenient public services”. That is quite a shopping list. The data strategy has ramifications for intellectual property law, especially for the sui generis database right enshrined in the 1996 Database Directive.},

note = {Editorial},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}