International Law Association’s Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Private International Law (“Kyoto Guidelines”): Applicable Law external link

Ancel, M-E., Binctin, N., Drexl, J., van Eechoud, M., Ginsburg, J.C., Kono, T., Lee, G., Matulionyte, R., Treppoz, E. & Moura Vicente, D.
JIPITEC, vol. 12, num: 1, pp: 44-73, 2021

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.

frontpage, Intellectuele eigendom, internationaal privaatrecht

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

The Interplay between the Digital Services Act and Sector Regulation: How Special is Copyright? external link

Quintais, J. & Schwemer, S.
European Journal of Risk Regulation, vol. 13, iss. : 2, pp: 191-217, 2022

Abstract

On 15 December 2020, the European Commission published its proposal for a Regulation on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act). It carries out a regulatory overhaul of the 21-year- old horizontal rules on intermediary liability in the Directive and introduces new due diligence obligations for intermediary services. Our analysis illuminates an important point that has so far received little attention: how would the Digital Services Act’s rules interact with existing sector-specific lex specialis rules? In this paper, we look specifically at the intersection of the Digital Services Act with the regime for online content sharing service providers (OCSSPs) set forth in art. 17 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive). At first glance, these regimes do not appear to overlap as the rules on copyright are lex specialis to the Digital Services Act. A closer look shows a more complex and nuanced picture. Our analysis concludes that the DSA will apply to OCSSPs insofar as it contains rules that regulate matters not covered by art. 17 CDSM Directive, as well as specific rules on matters where art. 17 leaves margin of discretion to Member States. This includes, to varying degrees, rules in the DSA relating to the liability of intermediary providers and to due diligence obligations for online platforms of different sizes. Importantly, we consider that such rules apply even where art. 17 CDSM Directive contains specific (but less precise) regulation on the matter. From a normative perspective, this might be a desirable outcome, to the extent that the DSA aims to establish “uniform rules for a safe, predictable and trusted online environment, where fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter are effectively protected”. Based on our analysis, we suggest a number of clarifications that might be help achieve that goal.

Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Content moderation, Copyright, Digital Services Act (DSA), frontpage, Online platforms

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Notions of Disinformation and Related Concepts external link

Betzel, M., Fahy, R., Helberger, N., Marrazzo, F., Matějka, S., Nyakas, L. & Papp, J.
2020

Abstract

Previous work of the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) has shown that the definitions used by the European Commission, Member States and online platforms for the different phenomena of disinformation deviate and should be further clarified in order to ensure a consistent approach. The aim of this Report is to provide for clearer and more uniform definitions of disinformation to ensure optimal guidance to all actors involved and contribute to more consistency within the national approaches. The Report also aims to assist in coming to clearer definitions and ensure more consistency and uniformity regarding the notions of political advertising and issue-based advertising. The information for this report was collected through various means including an examination of existing academic research, interviews with relevant stakeholders, particularly from the civil society and media. The scope of the survey was not limited to the single notion of disinformation but also covered concepts that are usually associated with disinformation such as misinformation, malinformation, fake news, false news, false information, and foreign influence operations. Information was collected on definitions, interpretations, and understandings of disinformation and related concepts available in the legislation and other regulation including (self-regulatory) codes and guidelines of ERGA members and observers. The Report concludes with identifying key relevant elements and characteristics of the notions of disinformation, political advertising, and related concepts, and includes recommendations to assist in coming to clearer definitions regarding disinformation, political advertising and issue-based advertising.

disinformatie, Mediarecht, Online platforms

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Freedom of expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the Euopean Court of Human Rights external link

Voorhoof, D. & McGonagle, T.
2021

Abstract

This e-book provides valuable insights into the European Court of Human Rights’ extensive case-law on freedom of expression and media and journalistic freedoms. The first four editions of the e-book (2013, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2020) have proved hugely successful. The new sixth edition summarises over 339 judgments or decisions by the Court and provides hyperlinks to the full text of each of the summarised judgments or decisions (via HUDOC, the Court's online case-law database).

ECHR, frontpage, Grondrechten, Journalistiek, jurisprudentie, Mediarecht, Vrijheid van meningsuiting

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Persvrijheidsmonitor 2020 external link

Volgenant, O. & McGonagle, T.
2021

Abstract

Op maandag 3 mei wordt de Internationale Dag van de Persvrijheid gehouden. Op deze dag wordt de jaarlijkse Persvrijheidsmonitor gepresenteerd met een overzicht van de ontwikkelingen op het gebied van de persvrijheid in Nederland.

frontpage, Journalistiek, Mediarecht, persvrijheid

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

A Serpent Eating Its Tail: The Database Directive Meets the Open Data Directive external link

IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , vol. 52, num: 4, pp: 375-378, 2021

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.

Auteursrecht, Databankenrecht, frontpage

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

It’s 23 April 2021, so where is the Advocate General opinion in Case C-401/19 Poland v Parliament and Council? external link

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021

Auteursrecht, frontpage

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Annotatie bij Rb Amsterdam 10 september 2020 (Left Lane c.s. / Sony Music) external link

van Gompel, S.
Auteursrecht, num: 1, pp: 40-42, 2021

Annotaties, Auteursrecht, frontpage, licentieovereenkomsten

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

‘Non, non, rien n’a changé’: Over vergoedingsaanspraken voor makers uit hoofde van exploitatiecontracten external link

van Gompel, S.
Auteursrecht, vol. 2021, num: 1, pp: 3-9, 2021

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.

auteurscontractenrecht, Auteursrecht, frontpage, uitvoerende kunstenaars, vergoedingen

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Too Small to Matter? On the Copyright Directive’s bias in favour of big right-holders external link

Husovec, M. & Quintais, J.
Oxford University Press, 0429

Abstract

Copyright law is about recognising the author’s material and non-material interests and setting the incentives for creativity right. The legislative changes in this area increasingly look as if simple linearity governs the world: what we take away from some, we automatically give away in equal part to others. The idea of redistribution is noticeable in recent legislative developments. Art. 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (DSM Directive) is the latest policy intervention to prove this point. According to its logic, imposing stricter liability on some online gatekeepers will automatically improve the position and revenues for all right-holders. This chapter explores the flaws in such an approach by highlighting how the excessive focus of Art. 17 on big right-holders neglects and harms smaller creators. EU copyright law often uses a technical term of ‘right-holders’ to refer to a wide range of players with legal entitlements in the copyright ecosystem: authors, performers, phonogram producers, film producers, broadcasting organisations and (most recently) press publishers. Obviously, not all right-holders are created equal nor do their legal entitlements flow from identical normative justifications. We argue in this chapter that even the use of this seemingly neutral term can, due to the design of underlying legal solutions, lead to stark inequality between right-holders. Our broader goal is to demonstrate that maximising enforcement by means of Art. 17 of the DSM Directive does not simply maximise the position of every right-holder at the expense of platforms but does so disproportionality for big right-holders. Besides, we show that blind use of ‘right-holder’ and ‘user’ distinction harms the very creators that provision is supposed to protect.

Article 17, Copyright, equal treatment, frontpage, online platform

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib