Intellectuele eigendom
| Hugenholtz, P.
Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 14 juni 2013 (Cruijff / Tirion Uitgevers & De Jong) 2015. @misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 14 juni 2013 (Cruijff / Tirion Uitgevers & De Jong)}, author = {P.B. Hugenholtz}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1523.pdf}, year = {2015}, date = {2015-03-24}, journal = {NJ}, number = {13}, pages = {1273-1308.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {misc} } |
| Alberdingk Thijm, Chr. A.
2015. @misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 10 april 2014 (ACI Adam c.s. / Stichting de Thuiskopie en SONT)}, author = {Alberdingk Thijm, Chr. A.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1525.pdf}, year = {2015}, date = {2015-03-24}, journal = {AMI}, number = {1}, pages = {12-17}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {misc} } |
| Margoni, T.
The digitisation of cultural heritage: originality, derivative works and (non) original photographs 2015. @techreport{,
title = {The digitisation of cultural heritage: originality, derivative works and (non) original photographs}, author = {Margoni, T.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1507.pdf}, year = {2015}, date = {2015-03-03}, pages = {70 p.}, abstract = { The purpose of this paper is to explore the legal consequences of the digitisation of cultural heritage institutions' archives and in particular to establish whether digitisation processes involve the originality required to trigger new copyright or copyright-related protection. As the European Commission and many MS reported, copyright and in particular "photographers rights" are cause of legal uncertainty during digitisation processes. A major role in this legally uncertain field is played by the standard of originality which is one of the main requirements for copyright protection. Only when a subject matter achieves the requested level of originality, it can be considered a work of authorship. Therefore, a first key issue analysed in this study is whether \textendash and under which conditions \textendash digitisation activities can be considered to be original enough as to constitute works (usually a photographic work) in their own right. A second element of uncertainty is connected with the type of work eventually created by acts of digitisation. If the process of digitisation of a (protected) work can be considered authorial, then the resulting work will be a derivative composed by two works: the original work digitally reproduced and the \textendash probably \textendash photographic work reproducing it. Finally, a third element of uncertainty is found in the protection afforded to "other photographs" by the last sentence of Art. 6 Term Directive and implemented in a handful of European countries. Accordingly, the paper is structured as follows: Part I is dedicated to the analysis of copyright law key concepts such as the originality standard, the definition of derivative works and the forms of protection available in cases of digital (or film-based) representations of objects (photographs). The second part of the study is devoted to a survey of a selection of EU Member States in an attempt to verify how the general concepts identified in Part I are applied by national legislatures and courts. The selected countries are Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands and the UK. The country analysis fulfils a double function: on the one hand it provides a specific overview of the national implementation of the solutions found at international and EU level. On the other hand, it constitutes the only possible approach in order to analyse the protection afforded by some MS to those "other photographs" (also called non original photographs or mere/simple photographs) provided for by the last sentence of Art. 6 Copyright Term Directive. Part III presents some conclusions and recommendations for cultural heritage institutions and for legislatures.
The purpose of this paper is to explore the legal consequences of the digitisation of cultural heritage institutions' archives and in particular to establish whether digitisation processes involve the originality required to trigger new copyright or copyright-related protection.<br />
As the European Commission and many MS reported, copyright and in particular "photographers rights" are cause of legal uncertainty during digitisation processes. A major role in this legally uncertain field is played by the standard of originality which is one of the main requirements for copyright protection. Only when a subject matter achieves the requested level of originality, it can be considered a work of authorship. Therefore, a first key issue analysed in this study is whether – and under which conditions – digitisation activities can be considered to be original enough as to constitute works (usually a photographic work) in their own right. A second element of uncertainty is connected with the type of work eventually created by acts of digitisation. If the process of digitisation of a (protected) work can be considered authorial, then the resulting work will be a derivative composed by two works: the original work digitally reproduced and the – probably – photographic work reproducing it. Finally, a third element of uncertainty is found in the protection afforded to "other photographs" by the last sentence of Art. 6 Term Directive and implemented in a handful of European countries.<br /> Accordingly, the paper is structured as follows: Part I is dedicated to the analysis of copyright law key concepts such as the originality standard, the definition of derivative works and the forms of protection available in cases of digital (or film-based) representations of objects (photographs). The second part of the study is devoted to a survey of a selection of EU Member States in an attempt to verify how the general concepts identified in Part I are applied by national legislatures and courts. The selected countries are Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands and the UK. The country analysis fulfils a double function: on the one hand it provides a specific overview of the national implementation of the solutions found at international and EU level. On the other hand, it constitutes the only possible approach in order to analyse the protection afforded by some MS to those "other photographs" (also called non original photographs or mere/simple photographs) provided for by the last sentence of Art. 6 Copyright Term Directive. Part III presents some conclusions and recommendations for cultural heritage institutions and for legislatures.<br /> |
| Poort, J.
Empirical Evidence for Policy in Telecommunication, Copyright & Broadcasting Vossiuspers UvA / Amsterdam University Press, 2015, ISBN: 9789056297602. @book{,
title = {Empirical Evidence for Policy in Telecommunication, Copyright & Broadcasting}, author = {J.P. Poort}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1504.pdf}, isbn = {9789056297602}, year = {2015}, date = {2015-02-26}, pages = {287 p.}, publisher = {Vossiuspers UvA / Amsterdam University Press}, abstract = { This dissertation contains nine articles with an empirical focus in copyright, telecommunication, and broadcasting. These articles address different research questions and employ a variety of methodological approaches. They all share an economic foundation and the aim to contribute to evidence based policymaking in the field of information law. Topics covered range from the welfare effects of illegal downloading, to those of public television; from the effectiveness of blocking access to The Pirate Bay to stop consumers from illegal downloading, to the effect of adequate legal online services on illegal downloading; from fixed price regulation for e-books, to text and video relay services to enable the hearing impaired to use telephony services; from the valuation of commercial radio licenses, to setting renewal fees for telecommunication spectrum based on an auction. Using these nine articles as case studies, the role and impact of economic evidence for policymaking in the field of information law is investigated. It is concluded that this role is positive rather than normative: legal or social norms maintain the upper hand as guiding principles for policy, more than the economic goal of welfare maximization. However, this does not by any means render economic analysis useless. Increasingly, politicians, judges and stakeholders require economic analysis and economic evidence to make informed decisions about new policy measures, to make optimal decisions within existing legal boundaries and to fathom the consequences of proposed legal interventions. Without empirical evidence they may simply assume the effects of a policy measure as an article of faith. ISBN 9789056297602. See here the table of contents, abstract and summary in Dutch of the dissertation.
This dissertation contains nine articles with an empirical focus in copyright, telecommunication, and broadcasting. These articles address different research questions and employ a variety of methodological approaches. They all share an economic foundation and the aim to contribute to evidence based policymaking in the field of information law. Topics covered range from the welfare effects of illegal downloading, to those of public television; from the effectiveness of blocking access to The Pirate Bay to stop consumers from illegal downloading, to the effect of adequate legal online services on illegal downloading; from fixed price regulation for e-books, to text and video relay services to enable the hearing impaired to use telephony services; from the valuation of commercial radio licenses, to setting renewal fees for telecommunication spectrum based on an auction. Using these nine articles as case studies, the role and impact of economic evidence for policymaking in the field of information law is investigated. It is concluded that this role is positive rather than normative: legal or social norms maintain the upper hand as guiding principles for policy, more than the economic goal of welfare maximization. However, this does not by any means render economic analysis useless. Increasingly, politicians, judges and stakeholders require economic analysis and economic evidence to make
informed decisions about new policy measures, to make optimal decisions within existing legal boundaries and to fathom the consequences of proposed legal interventions. Without empirical evidence they may simply assume the effects of a policy measure as an article of faith. |
| Hugenholtz, P.
De zaak Tuymans: een deontologische kwestie 24.02.2015. @misc{,
title = {De zaak Tuymans: een deontologische kwestie}, author = {P.B. Hugenholtz}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1503.pdf}, year = {2015}, date = {2015-02-24}, note = { Korte voordracht gehouden tijdens debatavond over plagiaat in de kunsten, Akademie van Kunsten, Amsterdam, 19 februari 2015. Zie ook het journalistieke verslag en de videoregistratie van deze avond. |
| Keller, P., Margoni, T., Rybicka, K., Tarkowski, A.
Re-use of public sector information in cultural heritage institutions International Free and Open Source Software Law Review, 6 (1), pp. 1-9., 2015. @article{,
title = {Re-use of public sector information in cultural heritage institutions}, author = {Keller, P. and Rybicka, K. and Tarkowski, A. and Margoni, T.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1484.pdf}, year = {2015}, date = {2015-01-13}, journal = {International Free and Open Source Software Law Review}, volume = {6}, number = {1}, pages = {1-9.}, abstract = { In 2013 the European Union amended the Directive on Public Sector Information, establishing the principle that all available information produced and collected by public sector institutions must be made available for reuse under open terms and conditions. The amended Directive also brings publicly funded libraries, museums and archives into its scope. These new rules on reuse of heritage materials, treated as public sector information (PSI), attempt for the first time to define a general framework for sharing cultural heritage information all around Europe. In this paper we argue that if Member States are not careful, the implementation of the changes required by the new Directive could do more harm than good when it comes to access to digitized cultural heritage in Europe. These concerns center on how the directive interacts with copyright legislation. The paper recommends that in order to contribute to the opening up of cultural heritage resources, Member States should ensure that all qualifying documents that are not currently covered by third party intellectual property rights fall within the scope of the Directive. Member States should also implement the Directive in a way that does not encourage or require institutions to charge for the reuse of works that they make available for reuse. For documents that are still protected by intellectual property rights but where these rights are held by the cultural heritage institutions that have these works in their collections, Member States should encourage the use of Open Definition-compliant licenses. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} }
In 2013 the European Union amended the Directive on Public Sector Information, establishing the principle that all available information produced and collected by public sector institutions must be made available for reuse under open terms and conditions. The amended Directive also brings publicly funded libraries, museums and archives into its scope. These new rules on reuse of heritage materials, treated as public sector information (PSI), attempt for the first time to define a general framework for sharing cultural heritage information all around Europe. In this paper we argue that if Member States are not careful, the implementation of the changes required by the new Directive could do more harm than good when it comes to access to digitized cultural heritage in Europe. These concerns center on how the directive interacts with copyright legislation. The paper recommends that in order to contribute to the opening up of cultural heritage resources, Member States should ensure that all qualifying documents that are not currently covered by third party intellectual property rights fall within the scope of the Directive. Member States should also implement the Directive in a way that does not encourage or require institutions to charge for the reuse of works that they make available for reuse. For documents that are still protected by intellectual property rights but where these rights are held by the cultural heritage institutions that have these works in their collections, Member States should encourage the use of Open Definition-compliant licenses.
|
| Kabel, J.
Annotatie bij Rb. Amsterdam, 27 augustus 2014 (LIRA / UPC) 2015. @misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij Rb. Amsterdam, 27 augustus 2014 (LIRA / UPC)}, author = {J.J.C. Kabel}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1473.pdf}, year = {2015}, date = {2015-01-06}, journal = {AMI}, number = {6}, pages = {208.}, abstract = { Geschil tussen collectieve beheersorganisatie Stichting Lira (Lira) en kabelbedrijven UPC, Zeelandnet en Ziggo (UPC c.s.). Lira vordert een verbod van openbaarmaking door UPC c.s. van aan Lira door de tekstschrijvers overgedragen werk. De rechtbank oordeelt dat die overdracht geldig is en dat voor zover daarbij rechten m.b.t. toekomstige werken worden overgedragen deze voldoende bepaald zijn om te kunnen worden overgedragen. Artikel 45d Auteurswet staat daaraan niet in de weg. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {misc} }
Geschil tussen collectieve beheersorganisatie Stichting Lira (Lira) en kabelbedrijven UPC, Zeelandnet en Ziggo (UPC c.s.). Lira vordert een verbod van openbaarmaking door UPC c.s. van aan Lira door de tekstschrijvers overgedragen werk. De rechtbank oordeelt dat die overdracht geldig is en dat voor zover daarbij rechten m.b.t. toekomstige werken worden overgedragen deze voldoende bepaald zijn om te kunnen worden overgedragen. Artikel 45d Auteurswet staat daaraan niet in de weg.
|
| Lavik, E.
Romantic authorship in copyright law and the uses of aesthetics pp. 45-94, 2014, (Chapter in: The Work of Authorship, M.M.M. van Eechoud (ed.), Amsterdam: AUP 2014, ISBN 9789089646354. @inbook{Lavik2014b,
title = {Romantic authorship in copyright law and the uses of aesthetics}, author = {Lavik, E.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1463.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-12-19}, pages = {45-94}, abstract = {Scholars of the arts as well as scholars of copyright law \textendash especially in the US \textendash have for decades struggled to kill off the ideology of Romantic authorship, though it is far from clear precisely what it consists of, or why and to whom it poses such danger. The situation brings to mind film historian Tom Gunning’s memorable observation in a different context that the persistent attacks ‘begin to take on something of the obsessive and possibly necrophilic pleasure of beating a dead horse’ (1998, p. xiii). This chapter is divided into two main parts. The first part critically examines the idea that the myth of Romantic authorship is deeply ingrained in copyright law and has propelled its expansion. The second part explores the broader but related issue of how insights from the humanities can usefully inform copyright scholarship. Taking as its starting point Roland Barthes’ famous essay ‘The Death of the Author’ it argues that it is extremely demanding to find common ground, for even though the disciplines overlap conceptually they are fundamentally at cross-purposes epistemologically. I maintain that we must first identify where the aims and practices of aesthetics and law actually converge, and deem it to be in the area of interpretation and evaluation, which is obviously one of the core competences of scholars of the arts, and also something that courts resort to at the infringement stage. }, note = {Chapter in: The Work of Authorship, M.M.M. van Eechoud (ed.), Amsterdam: AUP 2014, ISBN 9789089646354. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {inbook} } Scholars of the arts as well as scholars of copyright law – especially in the US – have for decades struggled to kill off the ideology of Romantic authorship, though it is far from clear precisely what it consists of, or why and to whom it poses such danger. The situation brings to mind film historian Tom Gunning’s memorable observation in a different context that the persistent attacks ‘begin to take on something of the obsessive and possibly necrophilic pleasure of beating a dead horse’ (1998, p. xiii). This chapter is divided into two main parts. The first part critically examines the idea that the myth of Romantic authorship is deeply ingrained in copyright law and has propelled its expansion. The second part explores the broader but related issue of how insights from the humanities can usefully inform copyright scholarship. Taking as its starting point Roland Barthes’ famous essay ‘The Death of the Author’ it argues that it is extremely demanding to find common ground, for even though the disciplines overlap conceptually they are fundamentally at cross-purposes epistemologically. I maintain that we must first identify where the aims and practices of aesthetics and law actually converge, and deem it to be in the area of interpretation and evaluation, which is obviously one of the core competences of scholars of the arts, and also something that courts resort to at the infringement stage.
|
| Biron, L.
Creative work and communicative norms: Perspectives from legal philosophy pp. 19-44, 2014, (Chapter in: The Work of Authorship, M.M.M. van Eechoud (ed.), Amsterdam: AUP 2014, ISBN 9789089646354. @inbook{Biron2014,
title = {Creative work and communicative norms: Perspectives from legal philosophy}, author = {Biron, L.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1469.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-12-19}, pages = {19-44}, abstract = {In consideration of the application of insights from the humanities to the interpretation of core legal concepts in copyright, this chapter examines three questions: first, what is a ‘work of authorship’, and why does copyright law place such a strong emphasis on originality for determining what counts as a work? Second, can and should we modify ‘romantic’ conceptions of authorship, to take into account the various ways in which authorial practices seem to conflict with their highly individualistic and creator-centred focus? Finally, how might copyright law make sense of the various ways in which authorship is collaborative, in light of its somewhat restrictive definitions of co-authorship? This chapter will consider the contribution that existing philosophical literature on the justification of copyright might have to these questions. It begins by outlining three categories that have application to questions about authorship \textendash labour, personality and communication \textendash and explaining a deeper distinction between proprietary and non-proprietary accounts of authorship which underlies these categories. It goes on to illustrate how these differing approaches to authorship can be applied to the three questions under consideration. For reasons of space and practicality, the focus of this chapter will reflect my expertise in Anglo-American copyright theory and doctrine. }, note = {Chapter in: The Work of Authorship, M.M.M. van Eechoud (ed.), Amsterdam: AUP 2014, ISBN 9789089646354. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {inbook} } In consideration of the application of insights from the humanities to the interpretation of core legal concepts in copyright, this chapter examines three questions: first, what is a ‘work of authorship’, and why does copyright law place such a strong emphasis on originality for determining what counts as a work? Second, can and should we modify ‘romantic’ conceptions of authorship, to take into account the various ways in which authorial practices seem to conflict with their highly individualistic and creator-centred focus? Finally, how might copyright law make sense of the various ways in which authorship is collaborative, in light of its somewhat restrictive definitions of co-authorship? This chapter will consider the contribution that existing philosophical literature on the justification of copyright might have to these questions. It begins by outlining three categories that have application to questions about authorship – labour, personality and communication – and explaining a deeper distinction between proprietary and non-proprietary accounts of authorship which underlies these categories. It goes on to illustrate how these differing approaches to authorship can be applied to the three questions under consideration. For reasons of space and practicality, the focus of this chapter will reflect my expertise in Anglo-American copyright theory and doctrine.
|
| Guibault, L., Hugenholtz, P., van Gompel, S.
Extended collective licensing: panacee voor massadigitalisering? 2014. @article{,
title = {Extended collective licensing: panacee voor massadigitalisering?}, author = {P.B. Hugenholtz and S.J. van Gompel and L. Guibault}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1471.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-12-19}, abstract = { In dit rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek wordt geanalyseerd welke voor- en nadelen de invoering van een wettelijk stelsel van \emph{extended collective licensing} (‘verruimde’ collectieve licentieovereenkomsten) kan hebben om de \emph{rights clearance} van digitaliseringsprojecten van erfgoedinstellingen te vergemakkelijken. Daarbij wordt een vergelijking gemaakt met de situatie waarin collectieve licenties zonder ondersteunende wettelijke maatregelen tot stand komen. De jurisdicties die zijn onderzocht zijn Denemarken, Noorwegen, Duitsland en Nederland. }, note = { Onderzoek in opdracht van het Ministerie van OCW, Amsterdam, 1 september 2014. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} }
In dit rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek wordt geanalyseerd welke voor- en nadelen de invoering van een wettelijk stelsel van extended collective licensing (‘verruimde’ collectieve licentieovereenkomsten) kan hebben om de rights clearance van digitaliseringsprojecten van erfgoedinstellingen te vergemakkelijken. Daarbij wordt een vergelijking gemaakt met de situatie waarin collectieve licenties zonder ondersteunende wettelijke maatregelen tot stand komen. De jurisdicties die zijn onderzocht zijn Denemarken, Noorwegen, Duitsland en Nederland.
|
|
Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 3 september 2014 (Deckmyn / Vandersteen) 2014, ( @misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 3 september 2014 (Deckmyn / Vandersteen)}, author = {J.M. Breemen}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1459.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-12-18}, journal = {European Human Rights Cases}, number = {12}, pages = {657-662.}, abstract = { Grote Kamer. Auteursrecht. Uitleg parodie-exceptie. Vrijheid van meningsuiting. Politieke spotprent. }, note = { C-201/13 }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {misc} }
Grote Kamer. Auteursrecht. Uitleg parodie-exceptie. Vrijheid van meningsuiting. Politieke spotprent.
|
| van Eechoud, M.
pp. 145-174, 2014, (Chapter in: The Work of Authorship, M.M.M. van Eechoud (ed.), Amsterdam: AUP 2014, ISBN 9789089646354. @inbook{vanEechoud2014c,
title = {Adapting the work}, author = {van Eechoud, M.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1461.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-12-18}, pages = {145-174}, abstract = {My focus in this piece is on the interplay between the legal concepts of work, copy and adaptation in light of the now ubiquitous ‘new’ forms or genres of works that online networks enabled. Can European copyright law accommodate the increased fluidity of some of these work genres? What avenues might be taken to attenuate the gap between legal and social practices? Is a more flexible system of limitations enough? Or do we need a wholesale rethink of the work concept? Might a more relaxed notion of copying and especially of adapting suffice? What would that mean for the kind of copyright infringement analysis courts engage in? My ambition is to explore potential avenues for reform, and in doing so take on board some insights from non-legal disciplines, notably genre and adaptations studies. }, note = {Chapter in: The Work of Authorship, M.M.M. van Eechoud (ed.), Amsterdam: AUP 2014, ISBN 9789089646354. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {inbook} } My focus in this piece is on the interplay between the legal concepts of work, copy and adaptation in light of the now ubiquitous ‘new’ forms or genres of works that online networks enabled. Can European copyright law accommodate the increased fluidity of some of these work genres? What avenues might be taken to attenuate the gap between legal and social practices? Is a more flexible system of limitations enough? Or do we need a wholesale rethink of the work concept? Might a more relaxed notion of copying and especially of adapting suffice? What would that mean for the kind of copyright infringement analysis courts engage in? My ambition is to explore potential avenues for reform, and in doing so take on board some insights from non-legal disciplines, notably genre and adaptations studies.
|
| van Gompel, S.
pp. 95-143, 2014, (Chapter in: The Work of Authorship, M.M.M. van Eechoud (ed.), Amsterdam: AUP 2014, ISBN 9789089646354. @inbook{vanGompel2014,
title = {Creativity, autonomy and personal touch: A critical appraisal of the CJEU's originality test for copyright}, author = {van Gompel, S.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1468.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-12-18}, pages = {95-143}, abstract = {Copyright law’s originality threshold is not a high-to-attain standard. Recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirms that copyright extends to subject-matter that is original in the sense that it is the ‘author’s own intellectual creation’ (Infopaq International, 2009, § 37; Bezpe\v{c}nostn\'{i} softwarov\'{a} asociace, 2010, § 46; Football Association Premier League, 2011, § 97; Painer, 2011, § 87; Football Dataco, 2012, § 37; and SAS, 2012, § 45) and that no other criteria may be applied to determine its eligibility for protection. In the Eva-Maria Painer case, the Court clarified that an intellectual creation is the author’s own ‘if it reflects the author’s personality’ and that this is the case ‘if the author was able to express his creative abilities in the production of the work by making free and creative choices’ (2011, §§ 88\textendash89). This was reiterated in the Football Dataco case, where it was once more emphasised that, for an intellectual creation to be original, the author must have stamped it with his ‘personal touch’ by making ‘free and creative choices’ during its production (2012, § 38). The meaning and substance of the CJEU’s originality criterion has not yet attracted much analytical scrutiny. In particular, the limits inherent in the CJEU’s originality standard have received little attention in legal doctrine \textendash let alone in court decisions (although that is probably not where one would expect a critical review of the test be conducted in the first place). This is remarkable, seeing that copyright regulates such a wide variety of cultural production and may restrict the use of even the most low-key, routine creations that surround us in everyday life. A more critical and out-of-the-box reading of the ‘free and creative choices’-language suggests that the CJEU’s originality standard may perhaps impose more limitations than is currently recognised in legal discourse. For one thing, authors are of course not autonomous creators who work in a vacuum. Creative processes are contingent on many external factors. Cultural productions are usually made with audiences in mind and individual creators operate within social, technical and institutional environments with all of the attendant constraints. This implies that, in reality, the autonomy of authors to make free and creative choices is often naturally restricted. }, note = {Chapter in: The Work of Authorship, M.M.M. van Eechoud (ed.), Amsterdam: AUP 2014, ISBN 9789089646354. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {inbook} } Copyright law’s originality threshold is not a high-to-attain standard. Recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirms that copyright extends to subject-matter that is original in the sense that it is the ‘author’s own intellectual creation’ (Infopaq International, 2009, § 37; Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace, 2010, § 46; Football Association Premier League, 2011, § 97; Painer, 2011, § 87; Football Dataco, 2012, § 37; and SAS, 2012, § 45) and that no other criteria may be applied to determine its eligibility for protection. In the Eva-Maria Painer case, the Court clarified that an intellectual creation is the author’s own ‘if it reflects the author’s personality’ and that this is the case ‘if the author was able to express his creative abilities in the production of the work by making free and creative choices’ (2011, §§ 88–89). This was reiterated in the Football Dataco case, where it was once more emphasised that, for an intellectual creation to be original, the author must have stamped it with his ‘personal touch’ by making ‘free and creative choices’ during its production (2012, § 38). The meaning and substance of the CJEU’s originality criterion has not yet attracted much analytical scrutiny. In particular, the limits inherent in the CJEU’s originality standard have received little attention in legal doctrine – let alone in court decisions (although that is probably not where one would expect a critical review of the test be conducted in the first place). This is remarkable, seeing that copyright regulates such a wide variety of cultural production and may restrict the use of even the most low-key, routine creations that surround us in everyday life. A more critical and out-of-the-box reading of the ‘free and creative choices’-language suggests that the CJEU’s originality standard may perhaps impose more limitations than is currently recognised in legal discourse. For one thing, authors are of course not autonomous creators who work in a vacuum. Creative processes are contingent on many external factors. Cultural productions are usually made with audiences in mind and individual creators operate within social, technical and institutional environments with all of the attendant constraints. This implies that, in reality, the autonomy of authors to make free and creative choices is often naturally restricted.
|
| Cooper, E.
Reassessing the challenge of the digital: An empirical perspective on authorship and copyright pp. 175-214, 2014, (Chapter in: The Work of Authorship, M.M.M. van Eechoud (ed.), Amsterdam: AUP 2014, ISBN 9789089646354. @inbook{Cooper2014,
title = {Reassessing the challenge of the digital: An empirical perspective on authorship and copyright}, author = {Cooper, E.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1467.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-12-17}, pages = {175-214}, abstract = {This chapter explores these perceived challenges of the digital for copyright, through ideas about authorship that underpin so-called creative practices today. It does so through a qualitative empirical study that involved semistructured interviews with ‘artists’ and ‘poets’ who use digital technology. The interviews sought to uncover the extent to which the participation of many people was characteristic of the interviewees’ work and their views about ‘authorship’. For example, is authorship of any significance to interviewee ‘artists’ and ‘poets’? If so, who do they consider to be the author? In situations where many have contributed, how and why do they attribute authorship to some contributors while denying it to others? Finally, why is authorship important to the interviewees, if at all, and does this bear any relation to copyright’s proprietary author? }, note = {Chapter in: The Work of Authorship, M.M.M. van Eechoud (ed.), Amsterdam: AUP 2014, ISBN 9789089646354. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {inbook} } This chapter explores these perceived challenges of the digital for copyright, through ideas about authorship that underpin so-called creative practices today. It does so through a qualitative empirical study that involved semistructured interviews with ‘artists’ and ‘poets’ who use digital technology. The interviews sought to uncover the extent to which the participation of many people was characteristic of the interviewees’ work and their views about ‘authorship’. For example, is authorship of any significance to interviewee ‘artists’ and ‘poets’? If so, who do they consider to be the author? In situations where many have contributed, how and why do they attribute authorship to some contributors while denying it to others? Finally, why is authorship important to the interviewees, if at all, and does this bear any relation to copyright’s proprietary author?
|
| L. Bently, L. Biron
pp. 237-276, 2014, (Chapter in: The Work of Authorship, M.M.M. van Eechoud (ed.), Amsterdam: AUP 2014, ISBN 9789089646354. @inbook{Bently2014,
title = {Discontinuities between legal conceptions of authorship and social practices: What, if anything, is to be done?}, author = {L. Bently and L. Biron}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1457.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-12-16}, pages = {237-276}, abstract = {Authorship is central to the operation of copyright as a regulatory tool, but copyright law’s conception of ‘authorship’ appears to be ‘out of sync’ with a wide range of social practices: either copyright makes authors-in-law out of social ‘non-authors’, or vice versa. After offering three examples (scientific credit, conceptual art and literary editing)1 this contribution considers why these differences have emerged and whether these discontinuities should be thought of as a matter of concern. It appraises a number of academic proposals as to what might be done about these discontinuities, and offers its own suggestion, namely, the deployment of a more open-textured concept of authorship, one that is able to respond flexibly to varied contexts, social understandings and practices, but limited in application to matters of attribution. }, note = {Chapter in: The Work of Authorship, M.M.M. van Eechoud (ed.), Amsterdam: AUP 2014, ISBN 9789089646354. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {inbook} } Authorship is central to the operation of copyright as a regulatory tool, but copyright law’s conception of ‘authorship’ appears to be ‘out of sync’ with a wide range of social practices: either copyright makes authors-in-law out of social ‘non-authors’, or vice versa. After offering three examples (scientific credit, conceptual art and literary editing)1 this contribution considers why these differences have emerged and whether these discontinuities should be thought of as a matter of concern. It appraises a number of academic proposals as to what might be done about these discontinuities, and offers its own suggestion, namely, the deployment of a more open-textured concept of authorship, one that is able to respond flexibly to varied contexts, social understandings and practices, but limited in application to matters of attribution.
|
| Gripsrud, J.
Creativity and the sense of collective ownership in theatre and popular music pp. 215-236, 2014, (Chapter in: The Work of Authorship, M.M.M. van Eechoud (ed.), Amsterdam: AUP 2014, ISBN 9789089646354. @inbook{Gripsrud2014,
title = {Creativity and the sense of collective ownership in theatre and popular music}, author = {Gripsrud, J.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1458.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-12-16}, pages = {215-236}, abstract = {The purpose of the research presented here has been to investigate empirically how practising artists, in art forms where production is predominantly of a collective nature, feel and think about the nature of their contribution to the finished whole. More precisely, the idea is to explore to which extent those involved in the collective production of art have a sense or feeling of ownership vis-a-vis the outcome of the creative process, and what they think this might entail in terms of financial and other rewards. On this basis, I wish to raise some questions regarding the role of current copyright law in relation to actual artistic practices. }, note = {Chapter in: The Work of Authorship, M.M.M. van Eechoud (ed.), Amsterdam: AUP 2014, ISBN 9789089646354. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {inbook} } The purpose of the research presented here has been to investigate empirically how practising artists, in art forms where production is predominantly of a collective nature, feel and think about the nature of their contribution to the finished whole. More precisely, the idea is to explore to which extent those involved in the collective production of art have a sense or feeling of ownership vis-a-vis the outcome of the creative process, and what they think this might entail in terms of financial and other rewards. On this basis, I wish to raise some questions regarding the role of current copyright law in relation to actual artistic practices.
|
| Breemen, J.
Mass-digitization and the 'dream' of universal access 2014. @techreport{,
title = {Mass-digitization and the 'dream' of universal access}, author = {J.M. Breemen}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1447.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-12-02}, note = { Panel report of session Mass-digitization and the 'dream' of universal access at the Information Influx Conference. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } |
| van Eechoud, M.
Annotatie bij Vzr. Rb. Den Haag 24 februari 2014 (SDC Verifier / Femto Engineering) 2014. @misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij Vzr. Rb. Den Haag 24 februari 2014 (SDC Verifier / Femto Engineering)}, author = {van Eechoud, M.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1435.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-11-13}, journal = {AMI}, number = {5}, pages = {169-173.}, abstract = { Vordering wapperverbod. Software door auteurs in meerdere landen gemaakt. Internationaal privaatrecht. Conflictregel. Vraag aan wie auteursrechten toekomen beheerst door recht van elk land waarvoor bescherming wordt ingeroepen (lex protectionis). }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {misc} }
Vordering wapperverbod. Software door auteurs in meerdere landen gemaakt. Internationaal privaatrecht. Conflictregel. Vraag aan wie auteursrechten toekomen beheerst door recht van elk land waarvoor bescherming wordt ingeroepen (lex protectionis).
|
| van Eechoud, M.
Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 3 april 2014 (Hi Hotel / Spoering) 2014, ( @misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 3 april 2014 (Hi Hotel / Spoering)}, author = {van Eechoud, M.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1436.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-11-13}, journal = {AMI}, number = {4}, pages = {117-120.}, abstract = { Internationale bevoegdheid rechter bij grensoverschrijdende inbreuk auteursrecht. EEX-Verordening (EG) nr. 44/2001. Bepaling van plaats waar schadebrengende feit zich heeft voorgedaan. Plaats van intreden beweerde schade. }, note = { C-387/12 }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {misc} }
Internationale bevoegdheid rechter bij grensoverschrijdende inbreuk auteursrecht. EEX-Verordening (EG) nr. 44/2001. Bepaling van plaats waar schadebrengende feit zich heeft voorgedaan. Plaats van intreden beweerde schade.
|
| Guibault, L., Quintais, J.
Copyright, technology and the exploitation of audiovisual works in the EU IRIS Plus, (4), pp. 9-24., 2014, ( @article{,
title = {Copyright, technology and the exploitation of audiovisual works in the EU}, author = {Guibault, L. and Quintais, J.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1488.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-11-01}, journal = {IRIS Plus}, number = {4}, pages = {9-24.}, note = { Lead article in IRIS plus 2014-4. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Quintais, J.
2014, ( @article{,
title = {Legalizing File-Sharing: An Idea Whose Time Has Come - Or Gone? Report from the Information Influx Conference 2014}, author = {Quintais, J. }, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2510545}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-10-24}, abstract = { On 2-4 July 2014 Information Influx, the 25th anniversary conference of the Institute for Information Law (IViR) was held in Amsterdam. Integrated in the conference, on Friday, 4 July a panel entitled “Legalizing file-sharing: an idea whose time has come \textendash or gone?” met. The panel’s moderator was Professor Bernt Hugenholtz (University of Amsterdam, IViR) and the panelists were scholars with groundbreaking research on the topic for the past decade: Professor Neil Netanel (University of California, Los Angeles), Professor Alexander Peukert (University of Frankfurt), Dr. Philippe Aigrain (La Quadrature du Net), Professor S\'{e}verine Dusollier (SciencesPo./\'{E}cole de droit). The panel was divided into four parts, which this report reflects. First, the moderator introduced the topic and the panelists. Second, IViR member Mr. Bal\'{a}zs Bod\'{o} offered a short presentation of an ongoing research project on the topic of debate. Third, each panelist commented on the topic from different perspectives. The panel discussion was then opened for comments from the audience and responses from the panel.
On 2-4 July 2014 Information Influx, the 25th anniversary conference of the Institute for Information Law (IViR) was held in Amsterdam. Integrated in the conference, on Friday, 4 July a panel entitled “Legalizing file-sharing: an idea whose time has come – or gone?” met.<br />
The panel’s moderator was Professor Bernt Hugenholtz (University of Amsterdam, IViR) and the panelists were scholars with groundbreaking research on the topic for the past decade: Professor Neil Netanel (University of California, Los Angeles), Professor Alexander Peukert (University of Frankfurt), Dr. Philippe Aigrain (La Quadrature du Net), Professor Séverine Dusollier (SciencesPo./École de droit).<br /> The panel was divided into four parts, which this report reflects. First, the moderator introduced the topic and the panelists. Second, IViR member Mr. Balázs Bodó offered a short presentation of an ongoing research project on the topic of debate. Third, each panelist commented on the topic from different perspectives. The panel discussion was then opened for comments from the audience and responses from the panel. |
| Kabel, J.
Annotatie bij Hof Amsterdam 20 mei 2014 (Telegraaf / NPO) 2014. @misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof Amsterdam 20 mei 2014 (Telegraaf / NPO)}, author = {J.J.C. Kabel}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1426.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-10-24}, journal = {AMI}, number = {5}, pages = {164-168.}, abstract = { De juridische status van omroepprogrammagegevens is voorwerp van een al van voor de Tweede Wereldoorlog daterende strijd tussen publieke omroepen en nieuwsmedia. Kunnen die omroepen het nieuwsmedia verbieden om de omroepgegevens volledig en op wekelijkse basis af te drukken? De uitspraak van het Europese Hof van Justitie in Football Dataco maakt het niet langer mogelijk dat de omroepen een beroep deden op de zogenaamde geschriftenbescherming. In de hier geannoteerde zaak ontzegt het Amsterdamse Hof de omroeporganisaties een beroep op hun auteursrecht. Zelfs als, aldus het Hof, het in elkaar zetten van omroepprogramma's een creatief proces zou zijn, beschermd door het auteursrecht, dan nog zou de weergave van dat proces in een lijst van programmagegevens niet zijn beschermd. De annotator is het niet eens met die redenering. Wanneer het maken van programma's auteursrechtelijk beschermd is, kan de maker immers de weergave daarvan verbieden op grond van zijn verveelvoudigingssrecht. De juiste vraag zou zijn geweest of er wel een auteursrechtelijke prestatie aanwezig is bij het maken van omroepprogramma's. Gegeven de hedendaagse strakke wettelijke inkadering van die programma's lijkt er weinig ruimte voor de auteursrechtelijk vereiste creativiteit. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {misc} }
De juridische status van omroepprogrammagegevens is voorwerp van een al van voor de Tweede Wereldoorlog daterende strijd tussen publieke omroepen en nieuwsmedia. Kunnen die omroepen het nieuwsmedia verbieden om de omroepgegevens volledig en op wekelijkse basis af te drukken? De uitspraak van het Europese Hof van Justitie in Football Dataco maakt het niet langer mogelijk dat de omroepen een beroep deden op de zogenaamde geschriftenbescherming. In de hier geannoteerde zaak ontzegt het Amsterdamse Hof de omroeporganisaties een beroep op hun auteursrecht. Zelfs als, aldus het Hof, het in elkaar zetten van omroepprogramma's een creatief proces zou zijn, beschermd door het auteursrecht, dan nog zou de weergave van dat proces in een lijst van programmagegevens niet zijn beschermd. De annotator is het niet eens met die redenering. Wanneer het maken van programma's auteursrechtelijk beschermd is, kan de maker immers de weergave daarvan verbieden op grond van zijn verveelvoudigingssrecht. De juiste vraag zou zijn geweest of er wel een auteursrechtelijke prestatie aanwezig is bij het maken van omroepprogramma's. Gegeven de hedendaagse strakke wettelijke inkadering van die programma's lijkt er weinig ruimte voor de auteursrechtelijk vereiste creativiteit.
|
| Poort, J.
IE-Forum, (14277), 2014. @article{,
title = {Tijd voor meer legale popcorn}, author = {J.P. Poort}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IEF_14277.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-10-16}, journal = {IE-Forum}, number = {14277}, note = { Auteursrechtdebat 14 oktober 2014, IEF 14277. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| van Gompel, S.
Het proceskostenrisico in IE-zaken: Een empirisch onderzoek naar toepassing van de indicatietarieven AMI, (5), pp. 133-138., 2014. @article{,
title = {Het proceskostenrisico in IE-zaken: Een empirisch onderzoek naar toepassing van de indicatietarieven}, author = {S.J. van Gompel}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2014_5.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-10-10}, journal = {AMI}, number = {5}, pages = {133-138.}, abstract = { De proceskostenveroordeling in IE-zaken veroorzaakt in de praktijk de nodige onrust, onzekerheid en frustratie. De rechterlijke macht heeft weliswaar indicatietarieven voor IE-zaken opgesteld, maar in de praktijk leggen rechters deze tarieven soms naast zich neer, zonder die beslissing altijd met duidelijke redenen te omkleden. Dit artikel beoogt meer inzicht te geven in de toepassing van de indicatietarieven en het proceskostenrisico in IE-zaken. Daartoe wordt empirisch onderzocht wanneer en op welke manier de indicatietarieven door rechters worden toegepast en om welke redenen deze tarieven in individuele gevallen juist niet worden nagevolgd. }, note = { Het jurisprudentieonderzoek dat ten grondslag ligt aan dit artikel is hier te downloaden. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} }
De proceskostenveroordeling in IE-zaken veroorzaakt in de praktijk de nodige onrust, onzekerheid en frustratie. De rechterlijke macht heeft weliswaar indicatietarieven voor IE-zaken opgesteld, maar in de praktijk leggen rechters deze tarieven soms naast zich neer, zonder die beslissing altijd met duidelijke redenen te omkleden. Dit artikel beoogt meer inzicht te geven in de toepassing van de indicatietarieven en het proceskostenrisico in IE-zaken. Daartoe wordt empirisch onderzocht wanneer en op welke manier de indicatietarieven door rechters worden toegepast en om welke redenen deze tarieven in individuele gevallen juist niet worden nagevolgd.
|
| Breemen, V.
'Ontmoeting en debat': Bibliotheekwet versus Auteurswet in het digitale domein AMI, (5), pp. 139-145., 2014. @article{,
title = {'Ontmoeting en debat': Bibliotheekwet versus Auteurswet in het digitale domein}, author = {V.E. Breemen}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2014_5.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-10-10}, journal = {AMI}, number = {5}, pages = {139-145.}, note = { Begin 2014 was de bibliotheek prominent in het nieuws. Zo verdween een groot aantal bibliotheekvestigingen en werd een e-booksplatform gelanceerd. Ook ging een wetsvoorstel met plannen voor een landelijke digitale bibliotheek naar de Tweede Kamer. Het auteursrecht is buiten het voorstel gehouden, terwijl digitale bibliotheekactiviteiten wel degelijk raken aan het auteursrecht. Wat zijn de auteursrechtelijke implicaties van de nieuwe Bibliotheekwet? }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Poort, J.
Elvis is Returning to the Building: Understanding a Decline in Unauthorized File Sharing 03.10.2014. @misc{,
title = {Elvis is Returning to the Building: Understanding a Decline in Unauthorized File Sharing}, author = {J.P. Poort}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/EPIP_Conference.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-10-03}, note = { Presentation at the 9th Annual Conference of the EPIP Association, Brussels, 4 September 2014. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {presentation} } |
| Schroff, S.
Transparency and the Collective Management Organisations CREATe 2014. @online{Schroff2014,
title = {Transparency and the Collective Management Organisations}, author = {Schroff, S.}, url = {http://www.create.ac.uk/blog/2014/10/01/transparency-and-the-collective-management-organisations/}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-10-01}, organization = {CREATe}, abstract = {Dr Simone Schroff, CREATe/University of East Anglia explores how Collective Management Organisations are responding to pressures to offer more clarity about how they operate. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {online} } Dr Simone Schroff, CREATe/University of East Anglia explores how Collective Management Organisations are responding to pressures to offer more clarity about how they operate.
|
| van Eechoud, M.
2014. @book{,
title = {De lokroep van open data}, author = {M.M.M. van Eechoud}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1407.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-09-26}, note = { Rede uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van hoogleraar Informatierecht, in het bijzonder met betrekking tot het recht inzake toegang tot informatie, aan de Faculteit der Rechtgeleerdheid van de Universiteit van Amsterdam op vrijdag 23 mei 2014. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {book} } |
| Guibault, L.
Documentalist-Sciences de l'Information, (2), pp. 23-25, 2014. @article{,
title = {Trouver le diamant dans la mine de donn\'{e}es ou les implications juridiques de l'exploration de donn\'{e}es}, author = {L. Guibault}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/DSI_2014_2.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-09-05}, journal = {Documentalist-Sciences de l'Information}, number = {2}, pages = {23-25}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Angelopoulos, C.
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, (10), pp. 812-821., 2014. @article{,
title = {Are blocking injunctions against ISPs allowed in Europe? Copyright enforcement in the post-Telekabel EU legal landscape}, author = {C.J. Angelopoulos}, url = {http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/content/9/10/812}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-08-19}, journal = {Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice}, number = {10}, pages = {812-821.}, abstract = { In recent years, the national courts of the EU Member States, in an attempt to stem the flow of rampant online copyright infringement, have increasingly turned to the issuance of blocking injunctions against the intermediaries whose websites and networks are used by third parties to commit infringements. This article examines the legal framework in place at the EU level with regard to the legality of such injunctive orders, making a distinction between filtering measures, used to detect copyright infringements, and blocking measures, used to put an end to them. On the basis of that analysis, a detailed examination will be made of the latest CJEU ruling to apply this framework, Case C-314/12, UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH on the lawfullness of open-ended blocking injunctions against internet access providers. }, note = { Article also published in GRUR International, 2014-11, p. 1089-1096. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} }
In recent years, the national courts of the EU Member States, in an attempt to stem the flow of rampant online copyright infringement, have increasingly turned to the issuance of blocking injunctions against the intermediaries whose websites and networks are used by third parties to commit infringements. This article examines the legal framework in place at the EU level with regard to the legality of such injunctive orders, making a distinction between filtering measures, used to detect copyright infringements, and blocking measures, used to put an end to them. On the basis of that analysis, a detailed examination will be made of the latest CJEU ruling to apply this framework, Case C-314/12, UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH on the lawfullness of open-ended blocking injunctions against internet access providers.
|
| van Gompel, S.
Annotatie bij Hof Den Haag 16 juli 2013 (Erven Endstra / Nieuw-Amsterdam c.s.) 2014. @misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof Den Haag 16 juli 2013 (Erven Endstra / Nieuw-Amsterdam c.s.)}, author = {S.J. van Gompel}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_AMI_2013_6_7.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-07-25}, journal = {AMI}, number = {6}, pages = {197-203.}, note = { Zie ook: - Reactie van F.W. Grosheide, Over wat (on)juist is, valt te twisten, AMI, 2014-2, p. 53-54; - Naschrift van S.J. van Gompel, Over vorm en inhoud gesproken, AMI, 2014-2, p. 55-56. |
| van Gompel, S.
Reintroducing Copyright Formalities: Controversies and Challenges The Copyright & New Media Law Newsletter, (2), pp. 7-9, 2014. @article{,
title = {Reintroducing Copyright Formalities: Controversies and Challenges}, author = {S.J. van Gompel}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Copyright_New_Media_2014_2.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-07-25}, journal = {The Copyright & New Media Law Newsletter}, number = {2}, pages = {7-9}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Tsoutsanis, A.
Ontwikkeling innovatierecht blijft achter bij ambities Financieel Dagblad, pp. 13, 2014. @article{,
title = {Ontwikkeling innovatierecht blijft achter bij ambities}, author = {A. Tsoutsanis}, url = {http://ssrn.com/abstract=2460344}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-07-18}, journal = {Financieel Dagblad}, pages = {13}, abstract = { Artikel in het 'FD' over de huidige staat van 'innovatierecht' en intellectuele eigendomsrecht in het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek. Hoewel er veel aandacht is voor 'innovatie', is er onvoldoende aandacht voor de juridische aspecten om die innovatie te reguleren, stimuleren en beschermen. Het artikel betoogt dat 'innovatierecht' en intellectuele eigendomsrecht achterlopen en beter moeten doen. Het artikel noemt drie uitdagingen waarvoor 'innovatierecht' en intellectuele eigendomsrecht zich vandaag gesteld zien: 1. Een gebrek aan onderzoeksubsidies voor juridisch onderzoek naar het reguleren van innovatie. 2. Rechtsonzekerheid voor gebruikers en industrie, zoals in het veld van auteursrecht t.a.v. het blokkeren van websites en in het octrooirecht inzake Aanvullende Beschermingscertificaten (ABC's). 3. Te weinig aandacht voor de juridische aspecten inzake innovatie in het hoger onderwijs. }, note = { 21 juni 2014. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} }
Artikel in het 'FD' over de huidige staat van 'innovatierecht' en intellectuele eigendomsrecht in het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek. Hoewel er veel aandacht is voor 'innovatie', is er onvoldoende aandacht voor de juridische aspecten om die innovatie te reguleren, stimuleren en beschermen. Het artikel betoogt dat 'innovatierecht' en intellectuele eigendomsrecht achterlopen en beter moeten doen. Het artikel noemt drie uitdagingen waarvoor 'innovatierecht' en intellectuele eigendomsrecht zich vandaag gesteld zien: 1. Een gebrek aan onderzoeksubsidies voor juridisch onderzoek naar het reguleren van innovatie. 2. Rechtsonzekerheid voor gebruikers en industrie, zoals in het veld van auteursrecht t.a.v. het blokkeren van websites en in het octrooirecht inzake Aanvullende Beschermingscertificaten (ABC's). 3. Te weinig aandacht voor de juridische aspecten inzake innovatie in het hoger onderwijs.
|
| Kabel, J.
AMI, (3), pp. 73-77, 2014. @article{,
title = {Voorbaat of vermoeden? De rol van artikel 45d Auteurswet: Kanttekeningen bij het arrest NORMA / NLkabel}, author = {J.J.C. Kabel}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2014_3.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-07-11}, journal = {AMI}, number = {3}, pages = {73-77}, abstract = { De Hoge Raad heeft de vraag of een overdracht bij voorbaat aan NORMA zou hebben geprevaleerd boven de in art. 45d Aw (in verbinding met art. 4 WNR) bedoelde overdracht van exploitatierechten aan de producent in het midden gelaten. Doorbreekt de laatste overdracht de eerste of gaat de eerste boven de tweede op grond van het klassieke \textit{nemo plus}-beginsel? }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} }
De Hoge Raad heeft de vraag of een overdracht bij voorbaat aan NORMA zou hebben geprevaleerd boven de in art. 45d Aw (in verbinding met art. 4 WNR) bedoelde overdracht van exploitatierechten aan de producent in het midden gelaten. Doorbreekt de laatste overdracht de eerste of gaat de eerste boven de tweede op grond van het klassieke nemo plus-beginsel?
|
| Poort, J.
"Alleen maar nette mensen": Consumentenonderzoek Downloadgedrag Films Tilburg, 2014. @techreport{,
title = {"Alleen maar nette mensen": Consumentenonderzoek Downloadgedrag Films}, author = {J.P. Poort}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/alleen_maar_nette_mensen.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-06-17}, pages = {47}, publisher = {CentERdata, IViR}, address = {Tilburg}, abstract = { In 2013 downloadde 25,8% van de Nederlanders tussen 12 en 65 jaar wel eens een film uit illegale bron en in totaal kwam ongeveer 12% van de bekeken films uit illegale bron. Het percentage Nederlanders dat films downloadt uit illegale bron neemt toe, het sterkst binnen de groep tussen 16 en 24 jaar. Gemiddeld over een representatieve steekproef leiden elke honderd downloads uit illegale bron per saldo tot 32 minder films die uit legale bron worden gezien: 11 minder op DVD of Blu-ray, 11 minder op televisie, en 10 minder als betaalde download of via video on demand. Een negatief (of positief) saldo-effect op bioscoopbezoek is niet gevonden. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} }
In 2013 downloadde 25,8% van de Nederlanders tussen 12 en 65 jaar wel eens een film uit illegale bron en in totaal kwam ongeveer 12% van de bekeken films uit illegale bron. Het percentage Nederlanders dat films downloadt uit illegale bron neemt toe, het sterkst binnen de groep tussen 16 en 24 jaar. Gemiddeld over een representatieve steekproef leiden elke honderd downloads uit illegale bron per saldo tot 32 minder films die uit legale bron worden gezien: 11 minder op DVD of Blu-ray, 11 minder op televisie, en 10 minder als betaalde download of via video on demand. Een negatief (of positief) saldo-effect op bioscoopbezoek is niet gevonden.
|
| Gorini, S.
The Protection of Cinematographic Heritage in Europe IRIS Plus, (8), 2014. @article{,
title = {The Protection of Cinematographic Heritage in Europe}, author = {S. Gorini}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1366.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-06-05}, journal = {IRIS Plus}, number = {8}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Margoni, T., van Rompuy, B.
Study on sports organisers' rights in the European Union Luxembourg, 2014, ( See also the <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="10" src="http://www.ivir.nl/images/pdf-icon.gif" width="11" /></a> <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/2014/docs/study-sor2014-executive-summary-gc-compatible_en.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color:#bc0031;"> executive summary</span></a>. @techreport{,
title = {Study on sports organisers' rights in the European Union}, author = {Van Rompuy, B. and Margoni, T.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/study_sports_organisers.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-05-06}, pages = {240 }, publisher = {Publications Office of the European Union}, address = {Luxembourg}, abstract = { The main objectives of the study were to map the legal framework applicable to the origin and ownership of rights to sports events (sports organizers' rights) in the 28 EU Member States; to analyze the nature and scope of sports organizers' rights with regard to licensing practices in the field of the media; and to examine the possibility of establishing licensing practices beyond the media field, notably in the area of gambling and betting. Following this, the study had to formulate recommendations on the opportunity of EU action to address any problems that may be identified in the abovementioned areas of analysis. }, note = { Report prepared by the T.M.C. Asser Instituut (Asser International Sport Law Centre) and the Institute for Information Law of the University of Amsterdam, for the European Commission, DG Education and Culture. See also the <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="10" src="http://www.ivir.nl/images/pdf-icon.gif" width="11" /></a> <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/2014/docs/study-sor2014-executive-summary-gc-compatible_en.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color:#bc0031;"> executive summary</span></a>.
The main objectives of the study were to map the legal framework applicable to the origin and ownership of rights to sports events (sports organizers' rights) in the 28 EU Member States; to analyze the nature and scope of sports organizers' rights with regard to licensing practices in the field of the media; and to examine the possibility of establishing licensing practices beyond the media field, notably in the area of gambling and betting. Following this, the study had to formulate recommendations on the opportunity of EU action to address any problems that may be identified in the abovementioned areas of analysis.
|
| Tsoutsanis, A.
Why copyright and linking can tango Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, (6), 2014. @article{,
title = {Why copyright and linking can tango}, author = {A. Tsoutsanis}, url = {http://ssrn.com/abstract=2333686}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-05-06}, journal = {Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice}, number = {6}, abstract = { This article discusses the legal status of links, in connection with the pending cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union in \textit{ Svensson}, \textit{C More} and \textit{BestWater}. Hyperlinks, deep links, framed links and embedded links are discussed. It focuses on the Opinion of the European Copyright Society on the \textit{Svensson} case. The ALAI Opinion is also briefly discussed. This article proposes nine angles as part of the multi-factor test to determine whether linking is actionable under European copyright law. The author concludes that properly balancing those nine factors can ensure that copyright and linking can tango, in step with existing policy goals and case-law, allowing linking in some situations, while requiring separate authorization in others. This article was also presented at the 22nd Fordham IP Conference in New York on 25 April 2014. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} }
This article discusses the legal status of links, in connection with the pending cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union in Svensson, C More and BestWater. Hyperlinks, deep links, framed links and embedded links are discussed. It focuses on the Opinion of the European Copyright Society on the Svensson case. The ALAI Opinion is also briefly discussed. This article proposes nine angles as part of the multi-factor test to determine whether linking is actionable under European copyright law. The author concludes that properly balancing those nine factors can ensure that copyright and linking can tango, in step with existing policy goals and case-law, allowing linking in some situations, while requiring separate authorization in others. This article was also presented at the 22nd Fordham IP Conference in New York on 25 April 2014.
|
| Guibault, L., Handke, C.W., Hargreaves, I., Martens, B., Valcke, P.
Luxembourg, 2014, ISBN: 9789279367434, ( @techreport{,
title = {Standardisation in the area of innovation and technological development, notably in the field of Text and Data Mining}, author = {Hargreaves, I. and Valcke, P. and Martens, B. and Guibault, L. and Handke, C.W.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/TDM_report_2014.pdf}, isbn = {9789279367434}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-04-08}, publisher = {Publications Office of the European Union}, address = {Luxembourg}, abstract = { Text and data mining (TDM) is an important technique for analysing and extracting new insights and knowledge from the exponentially increasing store of digital data ('Big Data'). It is important to understand the extent to which the EU's current legal framework encourages or obstructs this new form of research and to assess the scale of the economic issues at stake.
Text and data mining (TDM) is an important technique for analysing and extracting new insights and knowledge from the exponentially increasing store of digital data ('Big Data'). It is important to understand the extent to which the EU's current legal framework encourages or obstructs this new form of research and to assess the scale of the economic issues at stake.
|
| Dommering, E.
Annotatie bij EHRM 10 januari 2013 (Ashby Donald c.s. / Frankrijk) 2014. @misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij EHRM 10 januari 2013 (Ashby Donald c.s. / Frankrijk)}, author = {E.J. Dommering}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1527.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-03-27}, journal = {AMI}, number = {2}, pages = {57-59}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {misc} } |
| van Gompel, S.
Copyright Formalities in the Internet Age: Filters of Protection or Facilitators of Licensing Berkeley Technology Law Journal, (3), pp. 1425-1458., 2014. @article{,
title = {Copyright Formalities in the Internet Age: Filters of Protection or Facilitators of Licensing}, author = {S.J. van Gompel}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/BTLJ_2014_3.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-03-18}, journal = {Berkeley Technology Law Journal}, number = {3}, pages = {1425-1458.}, abstract = { This article examines how copyright formalities may aid in addressing the objectives of enhancing the free\underline{ }flow of information by enlarging the public domain and facilitating the licensing of copyright protected materials. For this purpose, it maps the different objectives for reintroducing copyright formalities and provides a brief overview of the types of formalities that might be imposed, including the legal consequences that can be attached to them. The article then explores in more detail which formalities, in what way, can assist in accomplishing the specific objectives of enriching the public domain and facilitating rights clearance. It concludes with a synthesis of the main findings. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} }
This article examines how copyright formalities may aid in addressing the objectives of enhancing the free flow of information by enlarging the public domain and facilitating the licensing of copyright protected materials. For this purpose, it maps the different objectives for reintroducing copyright formalities and provides a brief overview of the types of formalities that might be imposed, including the legal consequences that can be attached to them. The article then explores in more detail which formalities, in what way, can assist in accomplishing the specific objectives of enriching the public domain and facilitating rights clearance. It concludes with a synthesis of the main findings.
|
| Kabel, J.
AMI, (1), pp. 34-35, 2014. @article{Kabel2014,
title = {(Stilzwijgende) licenties in het filmauteursrecht, Annotatie bij Rb. Rotterdam 13 november 2013 (Rijneke / Stichting Rotterdam Media Fonds) en Rb. Amsterdam 18 september 2013 (Holierhoek / NTR)}, author = {Kabel, J. }, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_AMI_2014_1.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-02-28}, journal = {AMI}, number = {1}, pages = {34-35}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Kabel, J.
Annotatie bij Hof Arnhem-Leeuwarden 12 november 2013 (Gemeente Groningen / Milikowski) 2014. @misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof Arnhem-Leeuwarden 12 november 2013 (Gemeente Groningen / Milikowski)}, author = {J.J.C. Kabel}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1257.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-02-28}, journal = {AMI}, number = {1}, pages = {36}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {misc} } |
| Dommering, E.
Schilder schendt al snel auteursrecht 2014. @periodical{,
title = {Schilder schendt al snel auteursrecht}, author = {E.J. Dommering}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Volkskrant_18022014.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-02-18}, journal = {De Volkskrant}, note = { 18 februari 2014. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {periodical} } |
| van Eechoud, M.
De grensoverschrijdende inbreuk: Daad, plaats en norm na Football Dataco & Pinckney AMI, (6), pp. 169-178, 2014. @article{,
title = {De grensoverschrijdende inbreuk: Daad, plaats en norm na Football Dataco & Pinckney}, author = {M.M.M. van Eechoud}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2013_6.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-01-31}, journal = {AMI}, number = {6}, pages = {169-178}, abstract = { Het corpus uitspraken van het Hof van Justitie EU over grensoverschrijdende inbreuken op intellectuele eigendomsrechten groeit gestaag. Maar een werkelijk samenhangend antwoord op de vraag welke rechter bevoegd is en welk recht toepasselijk is valt nog niet te bespeuren. De arresten \textit{ Football Dataco} en \textit{ Pinckney} – de eersten over databankenrecht en auteursrecht inbreuk op internet – getuigen van twee verschillende benaderingen. Een materieelrechtelijke bij Football Dataco, in het voetspoor van merkinbreukzaak \textit{ L’Oréal/eBay}. En een meer traditionele internationaal privaatrechtelijke aanpak bij Pinckney, in de lijn van \textit{ Wintersteiger}. Waar gaat het Hof heen? }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} }
Het corpus uitspraken van het Hof van Justitie EU over grensoverschrijdende inbreuken op intellectuele eigendomsrechten groeit gestaag. Maar een werkelijk samenhangend antwoord op de vraag welke rechter bevoegd is en welk recht toepasselijk is valt nog niet te bespeuren. De arresten Football Dataco en Pinckney – de eersten over databankenrecht en auteursrecht inbreuk op internet – getuigen van twee verschillende benaderingen. Een materieelrechtelijke bij Football Dataco, in het voetspoor van merkinbreukzaak L’Oréal/eBay. En een meer traditionele internationaal privaatrechtelijke aanpak bij Pinckney, in de lijn van Wintersteiger. Waar gaat het Hof heen?
|
| Margoni, T.
Not for Designers: On the Inadequacies of EU Design Law and How to Fix It JIPITEC, (3), pp. 225-248, 2014. @article{,
title = {Not for Designers: On the Inadequacies of EU Design Law and How to Fix It}, author = {T. Margoni}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/JIPITEC_2013_3.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-01-24}, journal = {JIPITEC}, number = {3}, pages = {225-248}, abstract = {Design rights represent an interesting example of how the EU legislature has successfully regulated an otherwise heterogeneous field of law. Yet this type of protection is not for all. The tools created by EU intervention have been drafted paying much more attention to the industry sector rather than to designers themselves. In particular, modern, digitally based, individual or small-sized, 3D printing, open designers and their needs are largely neglected by such legislation. There is obviously nothing wrong in drafting legal tools around the needs of an industrial sector with an important role in the EU economy, on the contrary, this is a legitimate and good decision of industrial policy. However, good legislation should be fair, balanced, and (technologically) neutral in order to offer suitable solutions to all the players in the market, and all the citizens in the society, without discriminating the smallest or the newest: the cost would be to stifle innovation. The use of printing machinery to manufacture physical objects created digitally thanks to computer programs such as Computer-Aided Design (CAD) software has been in place for quite a few years, and it is actually the standard in many industrial fields, from aeronautics to home furniture. The change in recent years that has the potential to be a paradigm-shifting factor is a combination between the opularization of such technologies (price, size, usability, quality) and the diffusion of a culture based on access to and reuse of knowledge. We will call this blend Open Design. It is probably still too early, however, to say whether 3D printing will be used in the future to refer to a major event in human history, or instead will be relegated to a lonely Wikipedia entry similarly to ³Betamax² (copyright scholars are familiar with it for other reasons). It is not too early, however, to develop a legal analysis that will hopefully contribute to clarifying the major issues found in current EU design law structure, why many modern open designers will probably find better protection in copyright, and whether they can successfully rely on open licenses to achieve their goals. With regard to the latter point, we will use Creative Commons (CC) licenses to test our hypothesis due to their unique characteristic to be modular, i.e. to have different license elements (clauses) that licensors can choose in order to adapt the license to their own needs.” }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Design rights represent an interesting example of how the EU legislature has successfully regulated an otherwise heterogeneous field of law. Yet this type of protection is not for all. The tools created by EU intervention have been drafted paying much more attention to the industry sector rather than to designers themselves. In particular, modern, digitally based, individual or small-sized, 3D printing, open designers and their needs are largely neglected by such legislation. There is obviously nothing wrong in drafting legal tools around the needs of an industrial sector with an important role in the EU economy, on the contrary, this is a legitimate and good decision of industrial policy. However, good legislation should be fair, balanced, and (technologically) neutral in order to offer suitable solutions to all the players in the market, and all the citizens in the society, without discriminating the smallest or the newest: the cost would be to stifle innovation. The use of printing machinery to manufacture physical objects created digitally thanks to computer programs such as Computer-Aided Design (CAD) software has been in place for quite a few years, and it is actually the standard in many industrial fields, from aeronautics to home furniture. The change in recent years that has the potential to be a paradigm-shifting factor is a combination between the opularization of such technologies (price, size, usability, quality) and the diffusion of a culture based on access to and reuse of knowledge. We will call this blend Open Design. It is probably still too early, however, to say whether 3D printing will be used in the future to refer to a major event in human history, or instead will be relegated to a lonely Wikipedia entry similarly to ³Betamax² (copyright scholars are familiar with it for other reasons). It is not too early, however, to develop a legal analysis that will hopefully contribute to clarifying the major issues found in current EU design law structure, why many modern open designers will probably find better protection in copyright, and whether they can successfully rely on open licenses to achieve their goals. With regard to the latter point, we will use Creative Commons (CC) licenses to test our hypothesis due to their unique characteristic to be modular, i.e. to have different license elements (clauses) that licensors can choose in order to adapt the license to their own needs.”
|
| Akker, I., Poort, J., Rutten, P., Weda, J.
Perspectives of creators and performers on the digital era New Media & Society, 2014. @article{,
title = {Perspectives of creators and performers on the digital era}, author = {I. Akker and P. Rutten and J. Weda and J.P. Poort}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/New_Media_Society_2013.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-01-14}, journal = {New Media & Society}, note = {Postprint, published online 21 November 2013.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Poort, J.
Industry Analysis on Copyright Exceptions & Limitations: Europe 14.01.2014. @misc{,
title = {Industry Analysis on Copyright Exceptions & Limitations: Europe}, author = {J.P. Poort}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/WSSF_2013_transformation.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-01-14}, pages = {1-28}, note = { Presentation at Seoul International Copyright Conference 2013, 26 November 2013. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {presentation} } |
| Poort, J.
Transformation of Creativity: Perspectives of Creators and Performers on the Digital Era 14.01.2014. @misc{,
title = {Transformation of Creativity: Perspectives of Creators and Performers on the Digital Era}, author = {J.P. Poort}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/WSSF_2013_transformation.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-01-14}, pages = {1-30}, note = { Presentation at World Social Science Forum (WSSF) 2013, Montreal, 15 October 2013. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {presentation} } |
| Poort, J.
Elvis is Returning to the Building: Evidence for a Decline in Illegal File Sharing 14.01.2014. @misc{,
title = {Elvis is Returning to the Building: Evidence for a Decline in Illegal File Sharing}, author = {J.P. Poort}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/WSSF_2013_Elvis.pdf}, year = {2014}, date = {2014-01-14}, pages = {1-24}, note = { Presentation at World Social Science Forum (WSSF) 2013, 14 October 2013. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {presentation} } |