Publications - Pagina 67 van 269

Drie mogelijke boetes van mededingings-, consumenten- en persoonsgegevensautoriteiten voor hetzelfde datagebruik external link

Yakovleva, S., Geursen, W,W, & Arnbak, A.

Tijdschrift Mededingingsrecht in de Praktijk, num: 2, pp: 30-37, 2020

Abstract

Door de toename van datagebruik door ondernemingen is er sprake van convergentie tussen het mededingings-, consumenten- en gegevensbeschermingsrecht. Er kan dan parallelle handhaving plaatsvinden ten aanzien van één en dezelfde handeling door dezelfde onderneming door drie verschillende autoriteiten. Dat noemen wij caleidoscopische handhaving. Dat heeft volgens ons verschillende keerzijden, waaronder het risico op overhandhaving door drie afzonderlijke procedures van drie afzonderlijke autoriteiten en mogelijk drie boetes. Wij onderzoeken in dit artikel waarom het ne-bis-in-idem-beginsel niet van toepassing is en het beginsel van eendaadse samenloop evenmin (net als in de recente Marine Harvest gun-jumping zaak), waardoor proportionaliteit overblijft.

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/MP_2020_164.pdf

Consumentenrecht, frontpage, gegevensbescherming, Mededingingsrecht, Privacy

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Yakovleva, S.
AU  - Geursen, W,W,
AU  - Arnbak, A.
PY  - 0609
DA  - 2020-06-09
T1  - Drie mogelijke boetes van mededingings-, consumenten- en persoonsgegevensautoriteiten voor hetzelfde datagebruik
JO  - Tijdschrift Mededingingsrecht in de Praktijk
NV  - 2
SP  - 30-37
AB  - Door de toename van datagebruik door ondernemingen is er sprake van convergentie tussen het mededingings-, consumenten- en gegevensbeschermingsrecht. Er kan dan parallelle handhaving plaatsvinden ten aanzien van één en dezelfde handeling door dezelfde onderneming door drie verschillende autoriteiten. Dat noemen wij caleidoscopische handhaving. Dat heeft volgens ons verschillende keerzijden, waaronder het risico op overhandhaving door drie afzonderlijke procedures van drie afzonderlijke autoriteiten en mogelijk drie boetes. Wij onderzoeken in dit artikel waarom het ne-bis-in-idem-beginsel niet van toepassing is en het beginsel van eendaadse samenloop evenmin (net als in de recente Marine Harvest gun-jumping zaak), waardoor proportionaliteit overblijft.
K1  - Consumentenrecht
K1  - frontpage
K1  - gegevensbescherming
K1  - Mededingingsrecht
K1  - Privacy
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{Yakovleva2020b,
	title = {Drie mogelijke boetes van mededingings-, consumenten- en persoonsgegevensautoriteiten voor hetzelfde datagebruik},
	author = {Yakovleva, S. and Geursen, W,W, and Arnbak, A.},
	url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/MP_2020_164.pdf},
	year = {0609},
	date = {2020-06-09},
	journal = {Tijdschrift Mededingingsrecht in de Praktijk},
	number = {2},
	pages = {30-37},
	abstract = {Door de toename van datagebruik door ondernemingen is er sprake van convergentie tussen het mededingings-, consumenten- en gegevensbeschermingsrecht. Er kan dan parallelle handhaving plaatsvinden ten aanzien van één en dezelfde handeling door dezelfde onderneming door drie verschillende autoriteiten. Dat noemen wij caleidoscopische handhaving. Dat heeft volgens ons verschillende keerzijden, waaronder het risico op overhandhaving door drie afzonderlijke procedures van drie afzonderlijke autoriteiten en mogelijk drie boetes. Wij onderzoeken in dit artikel waarom het ne-bis-in-idem-beginsel niet van toepassing is en het beginsel van eendaadse samenloop evenmin (net als in de recente Marine Harvest gun-jumping zaak), waardoor proportionaliteit overblijft.},
	keywords = {Consumentenrecht, frontpage, gegevensbescherming, Mededingingsrecht, Privacy},
}

Save .bib

Public Registers Caught between Open Government and Data Protection – Personal Data, Principles of Proportionality and the Public Interest download

Lokhorst, G. & van Eechoud, M.

In: Data Protection and Privacy, Volume 12 : Data Protection and Democracy, Hallinan, D., Leenes, R., Gutwirth, S. & De Hert, P. (eds.), Hart Publishing, 2020, ISBN: 9781509932740

Abstract

For governments across the globe, public registers are an increasingly popular means to help achieve a range of objectives. These include safeguarding the independence of judiciary, upholding food hygiene and safety standards, fostering proper use of subsidies, and protecting the public from unqualified professionals. Most public registers are subject to data protection laws because they contain some form of personal data. In the Netherlands, the number of online public register has risen dramatically. On the basis of exploratory research on Dutch public registers, we hypothesised that governments easily assume that public registers serve their designated goals, but rarely adequately assess their effectiveness. A comprehensive analysis of registers confirms that hypothesis is correct. This is problematic from the perspective of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the human right to privacy as enshrined in, for example, Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Both require that the means used to serve a (legitimate) purpose are proportionate to the (potential) privacy harms. Based on the experience in the Netherlands, in this chapter we query to what extent and by which means policy and lawmakers actually test effectiveness of public registers and analyse the privacy implications from the perspective of proportionality. The adoption of open government policies combined with technological possibilities result in a strong growth of online public registers, and possibilities to link data from multiple sources multiply. The potential privacy impacts on individuals need to be better understood and safeguarded already at the design stages of public registers.

Links

PublicRegistersCaug_DataProtectionandPriv

Data protection, open government, Personal data, Privacy, public registers

RIS

TY  - CHAP
AU  - Lokhorst, G.
AU  - van Eechoud, M.
PY  - 2020
DA  - 2020-06-01
T1  - Public Registers Caught between Open Government and Data Protection – Personal Data, Principles of Proportionality and the Public Interest
AB  - For governments across the globe, public registers are an increasingly popular means to help achieve a range of objectives. These include safeguarding the independence of judiciary, upholding food hygiene and safety standards, fostering proper use of subsidies, and protecting the public from unqualified professionals. Most public registers are subject to data protection laws because they contain some form of personal data. In the Netherlands, the number of online public register has risen dramatically. On the basis of exploratory research on Dutch public registers, we hypothesised that governments easily assume that public registers serve their designated goals, but rarely adequately assess their effectiveness. A comprehensive analysis of registers confirms that hypothesis is correct. This is problematic from the perspective of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the human right to privacy as enshrined in, for example, Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Both require that the means used to serve a (legitimate) purpose are proportionate to the (potential) privacy harms. Based on the experience in the Netherlands, in this chapter we query to what extent and by which means policy and lawmakers actually test effectiveness of public registers and analyse the privacy implications from the perspective of proportionality. The adoption of open government policies combined with technological possibilities result in a strong growth of online public registers, and possibilities to link data from multiple sources multiply. The potential privacy impacts on individuals need to be better understood and safeguarded already at the design stages of public registers.
K1  - Data protection
K1  - open government
K1  - Personal data
K1  - Privacy
K1  - public registers
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Chapter{nokey,
	title = {Public Registers Caught between Open Government and Data Protection – Personal Data, Principles of Proportionality and the Public Interest},
	author = {Lokhorst, G. and van Eechoud, M.},
	url = {https://www.ivir.nl/nl/publications/public-registers-caught-between-open-government-and-data-protection-personal-data-principles-of-proportionality-and-the-public-interest/publicregisterscaug_dataprotectionandpriv/},
	year = {2020},
	date = {2020-06-01},
	abstract = {For governments across the globe, public registers are an increasingly popular means to help achieve a range of objectives. These include safeguarding the independence of judiciary, upholding food hygiene and safety standards, fostering proper use of subsidies, and protecting the public from unqualified professionals. Most public registers are subject to data protection laws because they contain some form of personal data. In the Netherlands, the number of online public register has risen dramatically. On the basis of exploratory research on Dutch public registers, we hypothesised that governments easily assume that public registers serve their designated goals, but rarely adequately assess their effectiveness. A comprehensive analysis of registers confirms that hypothesis is correct. This is problematic from the perspective of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the human right to privacy as enshrined in, for example, Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Both require that the means used to serve a (legitimate) purpose are proportionate to the (potential) privacy harms. Based on the experience in the Netherlands, in this chapter we query to what extent and by which means policy and lawmakers actually test effectiveness of public registers and analyse the privacy implications from the perspective of proportionality. The adoption of open government policies combined with technological possibilities result in a strong growth of online public registers, and possibilities to link data from multiple sources multiply. The potential privacy impacts on individuals need to be better understood and safeguarded already at the design stages of public registers.},
	keywords = {Data protection, open government, Personal data, Privacy, public registers},
}

Save .bib

Annotatie bij EHRM 12 november 2019 (Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft e.a. Zwitserland) external link

Hins, A.

European Human Rights Cases - Updates, 2020

Links

https://www.ehrc-updates.nl/commentaar/207262

Annotaties, EHRM, Ethiek, Journalistiek, Mediarecht, publieke omroep

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Webinar on Public and Regulatory Framework of Online Intermediaries external link

Quintais, J., Mezei, P., Harkai, I., Katzenbach, C., Magalhães, J.C., Schwemer, S. & Riis, T.

2020

Abstract

Recording of the reCreating Europe Online Workshop on Public and Private Regulatory Framework of Online Intermediaries organized on 5 May 2020. Slides and report of the event also available at the links below.

Links

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9RccSMBSjE&t=5s https://www.recreating.eu/public-and-regulatory-framework-of-online-intermediaries-workshop/ https://zenodo.org/record/3833714#.XseaZGgzbIW

frontpage, online intermediaries, Regulation, webinar

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Telecommunicatierecht external link

van Eijk, N.

Handboek Consumentenrecht, red. E.H. Hondius & V. Mak, Uitgeverij Paris, 0519, Edition: 5e druk, pp: 391-402, ISBN: 9789462512108

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Handboek_Consumentenrecht_NvE.pdf

Telecommunicatierecht

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

The legal framework on the dissemination of disinformation through Internet services and the regulation of political advertising external link

van Hoboken, J., Appelman, N., Fahy, R., Leerssen, P., McGonagle, T., van Eijk, N. & Helberger, N.

2020

Abstract

The study, commissioned by the Dutch government, focusses on the legal framework governing the dissemination of disinformation, in particular through Internet services. The study provides an extensive overview of relevant European and Dutch legal norms relating to the spread of online disinformation, and recommendations are given on how to improve this framework. Additionally, the study includes an analysis of the relevant legal framework in 6 different countries (U.K., U.S., France, Germany, Sweden and Canada). The report makes clear how the freedom of expression runs as a central theme through the legal framework, both forming the outer limit for possible regulation and a legal basis to create new regulation (e.g. protecting pluralism). The legal framework governing disinformation online is shown to be very broad, encompassing different levels of regulation, shifting depending on the context and already regulating many different types of disinformation. Further, oversight seems to be fragmented with many different supervisory authorities involved but limited cooperation. Based on this analysis, the report offers several recommendations, such as on the use of disinformation not as a legal term but a policy term, on negotiating the tensions on the different policy levels, on the regulation of internet intermediaries including transparency obligations and on increased cooperation between the relevant supervisory authorities. Previously, the interim report focussing on political advertising was published in late 2019. Both these studies have been carried out in the context of the research initiative on the Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam, focussing on questions related to AI and public values, data governance and online platforms.

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Report_Disinformation_Dec2019-1.pdf

desinformatie, frontpage, internetdiensten, Mediarecht, politieke advertenties, Regulering, Vrijheid van meningsuiting

RIS

TY  - RPRT
AU  - van Hoboken, J.
AU  - Appelman, N.
AU  - Fahy, R.
AU  - Leerssen, P.
AU  - McGonagle, T.
AU  - van Eijk, N.
AU  - Helberger, N.
PY  - 0514
DA  - 2020-05-14
T1  - The legal framework on the dissemination of disinformation through Internet services and the regulation of political advertising
AB  - The study, commissioned by the Dutch government, focusses on the legal framework governing the dissemination of disinformation, in particular through Internet services. The study provides an extensive overview of relevant European and Dutch legal norms relating to the spread of online disinformation, and recommendations are given on how to improve this framework. Additionally, the study includes an analysis of the relevant legal framework in 6 different countries (U.K., U.S., France, Germany, Sweden and Canada).  
The report makes clear how the freedom of expression runs as a central theme through the legal framework, both forming the outer limit for possible regulation and a legal basis to create new regulation (e.g. protecting pluralism). The legal framework governing disinformation online is shown to be very broad, encompassing different levels of regulation, shifting depending on the context and already regulating many different types of disinformation. Further, oversight seems to be fragmented with many different supervisory authorities involved but limited cooperation. Based on this analysis, the report offers several recommendations, such as on the use of disinformation not as a legal term but a policy term, on negotiating the tensions on the different policy levels, on the regulation of internet intermediaries including transparency obligations and on increased cooperation between the relevant supervisory authorities. 
Previously, the interim report focussing on political advertising was published in late 2019. Both these studies have been carried out in the context of the research initiative on the Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam, focussing on questions related to AI and public values, data governance and online platforms.
K1  - desinformatie
K1  - frontpage
K1  - internetdiensten
K1  - Mediarecht
K1  - politieke advertenties
K1  - Regulering
K1  - Vrijheid van meningsuiting
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Report{vanHoboken2020c,
	title = {The legal framework on the dissemination of disinformation through Internet services and the regulation of political advertising},
	author = {van Hoboken, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R. and Leerssen, P. and McGonagle, T. and van Eijk, N. and Helberger, N.},
	url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Report_Disinformation_Dec2019-1.pdf},
	year = {0514},
	date = {2020-05-14},
	abstract = {The study, commissioned by the Dutch government, focusses on the legal framework governing the dissemination of disinformation, in particular through Internet services. The study provides an extensive overview of relevant European and Dutch legal norms relating to the spread of online disinformation, and recommendations are given on how to improve this framework. Additionally, the study includes an analysis of the relevant legal framework in 6 different countries (U.K., U.S., France, Germany, Sweden and Canada).  
The report makes clear how the freedom of expression runs as a central theme through the legal framework, both forming the outer limit for possible regulation and a legal basis to create new regulation (e.g. protecting pluralism). The legal framework governing disinformation online is shown to be very broad, encompassing different levels of regulation, shifting depending on the context and already regulating many different types of disinformation. Further, oversight seems to be fragmented with many different supervisory authorities involved but limited cooperation. Based on this analysis, the report offers several recommendations, such as on the use of disinformation not as a legal term but a policy term, on negotiating the tensions on the different policy levels, on the regulation of internet intermediaries including transparency obligations and on increased cooperation between the relevant supervisory authorities. 
Previously, the interim report focussing on political advertising was published in late 2019. Both these studies have been carried out in the context of the research initiative on the Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam, focussing on questions related to AI and public values, data governance and online platforms.},
	keywords = {desinformatie, frontpage, internetdiensten, Mediarecht, politieke advertenties, Regulering, Vrijheid van meningsuiting},
}

Save .bib

Het juridisch kader voor de verspreiding van desinformatie via internetdiensten en de regulering van politieke advertenties external link

van Hoboken, J., Appelman, N., Fahy, R., Leerssen, P., McGonagle, T., van Eijk, N. & Helberger, N.

2020

Abstract

Het onderzoek, uitgevoerd in opdracht van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, analyseert het juridisch kader van toepassing op de verspreiding van desinformatie via online diensten. Het rapport biedt een uitgebreid overzicht van de relevante Europese en Nederlandse normen en doet aanbevelingen voor de verbetering van dit juridisch kader. Het onderzoek bevat daarnaast ook een analyse van het relevant wettelijke kader in de V.S., het V.K, Frankrijk, Duitsland, Canada en Zweden. Het rapport maakt duidelijk hoe de vrijheid van meningsuiting als rode draad door het wettelijke kader loopt. Dit fundamentele recht vormt zowel de buitenste grens voor regulering als een basis voor nieuwe maatregelen, bijvoorbeeld voor de bescherming van pluralisme. Het wettelijk kader van toepassing op desinformatie blijkt zeer breed, bevat verschillende reguleringsniveaus, verschuift afhankelijk van de specifieke context en omvat vele al bestaande normen voor de regulering van specifieke typen desinformatie. Verder blijkt het toezicht op dit wettelijk kader vrij gefragmenteerd te zijn. Op basis van deze analyse komt het rapport tot aan aantal aanbevelingen. De aanbevelingen hebben onder andere betrekking op het gebruik van de term desinformatie als beleidsterm, het omgaan met de spanningen op de verschillende beleidsniveaus, de regulering van internettussenpersonen door middel van transparantie verplichtingen en de samenwerking tussen de verschillende toezichthouders. Voorafgaand aan deze eindrapportage is in eind 2019 het interim-rapport gepubliceerd. Dit rapport focuste op de relatie tussen desinformatie en online politieke advertenties. Beide studies zijn onderdeel van het onderzoeksproject ‘Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam’ dat zich buigt over vraagstukken gerelateerd aan kunstmatige intelligentie en publieke waarden, data governance, en online platforms.

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Rapport_desinformatie_december2019.pdf https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Kamerbrief_desinformatie.pdf

democratie, desinformatie, frontpage, internetdiensten, Mediarecht, politieke advertenties, Regulering, Vrijheid van meningsuiting

RIS

TY  - RPRT
AU  - van Hoboken, J.
AU  - Appelman, N.
AU  - Fahy, R.
AU  - Leerssen, P.
AU  - McGonagle, T.
AU  - van Eijk, N.
AU  - Helberger, N.
PY  - 0514
DA  - 2020-05-14
T1  - Het juridisch kader voor de verspreiding van desinformatie via internetdiensten en de regulering van politieke advertenties
AB  - Het onderzoek, uitgevoerd in opdracht van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, analyseert het juridisch kader van toepassing op de verspreiding van desinformatie via online diensten.  Het rapport biedt een uitgebreid overzicht van de relevante Europese en Nederlandse normen en doet aanbevelingen voor de verbetering van dit juridisch kader. Het onderzoek bevat daarnaast ook een analyse van het relevant wettelijke kader in de V.S., het V.K, Frankrijk, Duitsland, Canada en Zweden.  
Het rapport maakt duidelijk hoe de vrijheid van meningsuiting als rode draad door het wettelijke kader loopt. Dit fundamentele recht vormt zowel de buitenste grens voor regulering als een basis voor nieuwe maatregelen, bijvoorbeeld voor de bescherming van pluralisme. Het wettelijk kader van toepassing op desinformatie blijkt zeer breed, bevat verschillende reguleringsniveaus, verschuift afhankelijk van de specifieke context en omvat vele al bestaande normen voor de regulering van specifieke typen desinformatie. Verder blijkt het toezicht op dit wettelijk kader vrij gefragmenteerd te zijn. Op basis van deze analyse komt het rapport tot aan aantal aanbevelingen. De aanbevelingen hebben onder andere betrekking op het gebruik van de term desinformatie als beleidsterm, het omgaan met de spanningen op de verschillende beleidsniveaus, de regulering van internettussenpersonen door middel van transparantie verplichtingen en de samenwerking tussen de verschillende toezichthouders. 
Voorafgaand aan deze eindrapportage is in eind 2019 het interim-rapport gepubliceerd. Dit rapport focuste op de relatie tussen desinformatie en online politieke advertenties. Beide studies zijn onderdeel van het onderzoeksproject ‘Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam’  dat zich buigt over vraagstukken gerelateerd aan kunstmatige intelligentie en publieke waarden,  data governance, en online platforms.
K1  - democratie
K1  - desinformatie
K1  - frontpage
K1  - internetdiensten
K1  - Mediarecht
K1  - politieke advertenties
K1  - Regulering
K1  - Vrijheid van meningsuiting
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Report{vanHoboken2020b,
	title = {Het juridisch kader voor de verspreiding van desinformatie via internetdiensten en de regulering van politieke advertenties},
	author = {van Hoboken, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R. and Leerssen, P. and McGonagle, T. and van Eijk, N. and Helberger, N.},
	url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Rapport_desinformatie_december2019.pdf
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Kamerbrief_desinformatie.pdf},
	year = {0514},
	date = {2020-05-14},
	abstract = {Het onderzoek, uitgevoerd in opdracht van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, analyseert het juridisch kader van toepassing op de verspreiding van desinformatie via online diensten.  Het rapport biedt een uitgebreid overzicht van de relevante Europese en Nederlandse normen en doet aanbevelingen voor de verbetering van dit juridisch kader. Het onderzoek bevat daarnaast ook een analyse van het relevant wettelijke kader in de V.S., het V.K, Frankrijk, Duitsland, Canada en Zweden.  
Het rapport maakt duidelijk hoe de vrijheid van meningsuiting als rode draad door het wettelijke kader loopt. Dit fundamentele recht vormt zowel de buitenste grens voor regulering als een basis voor nieuwe maatregelen, bijvoorbeeld voor de bescherming van pluralisme. Het wettelijk kader van toepassing op desinformatie blijkt zeer breed, bevat verschillende reguleringsniveaus, verschuift afhankelijk van de specifieke context en omvat vele al bestaande normen voor de regulering van specifieke typen desinformatie. Verder blijkt het toezicht op dit wettelijk kader vrij gefragmenteerd te zijn. Op basis van deze analyse komt het rapport tot aan aantal aanbevelingen. De aanbevelingen hebben onder andere betrekking op het gebruik van de term desinformatie als beleidsterm, het omgaan met de spanningen op de verschillende beleidsniveaus, de regulering van internettussenpersonen door middel van transparantie verplichtingen en de samenwerking tussen de verschillende toezichthouders. 
Voorafgaand aan deze eindrapportage is in eind 2019 het interim-rapport gepubliceerd. Dit rapport focuste op de relatie tussen desinformatie en online politieke advertenties. Beide studies zijn onderdeel van het onderzoeksproject ‘Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam’  dat zich buigt over vraagstukken gerelateerd aan kunstmatige intelligentie en publieke waarden,  data governance, en online platforms.},
	keywords = {democratie, desinformatie, frontpage, internetdiensten, Mediarecht, politieke advertenties, Regulering, Vrijheid van meningsuiting},
}

Save .bib

Flexibility Grave – Partial Reproduction Focus and Closed System Fetishism in CJEU, Pelham external link

Senftleben, M.

IIC, vol. 51, num: 6, pp: 751-769, 2020

Abstract

In the ongoing discussion about the impact of fundamental rights on EU copyright law, the Pelham judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has received much attention. However, the decision also raises important legal-doctrinal issues. The CJEU employs the harmonized right of reproduction as a vehicle to regulate adaptations of pre-existing source material. Moreover, the Court insists on a balancing of interests within the EU matrix of exclusive rights and limitations. The closed list of limitations in EU copyright law, however, can hardly be expected to offer sufficient breathing space for adaptation scenarios. As the Information Society Directive did not harmonize the right of adaptation, there was no need to include indispensable free adaptation rules that have evolved at the national level, such as the German “free use” doctrine. Instead of embracing national rules of equity and fairness to fill the gap, the CJEU is reluctant to borrow from the legal traditions of EU Member States and misses an important opportunity to provide guidance for the regulation of adaptations outside the sound sampling arena. After an introduction to the German “Metall auf Metall” saga that led to the Pelham decision, the following analysis sheds light on these developments in EU copyright law and discusses problems arising from the approach taken by the CJEU.

Links

Auteursrecht, frontpage, Naburige rechten, Pelham, soundsampling

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Senftleben, M.
PY  - 0512
DA  - 2020-05-12
T1  - Flexibility Grave – Partial Reproduction Focus and Closed System Fetishism in CJEU, Pelham
JO  - IIC
VL  - 51
NV  - 6
SP  - 751-769
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-020-00940-z
AB  - In the ongoing discussion about the impact of fundamental rights on EU copyright law, the Pelham judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has received much attention. However, the decision also raises important legal-doctrinal issues. The CJEU employs the harmonized right of reproduction as a vehicle to regulate adaptations of pre-existing source material. Moreover, the Court insists on a balancing of interests within the EU matrix of exclusive rights and limitations. The closed list of limitations in EU copyright law, however, can hardly be expected to offer sufficient breathing space for adaptation scenarios. As the Information Society Directive did not harmonize the right of adaptation, there was no need to include indispensable free adaptation rules that have evolved at the national level, such as the German “free use” doctrine. Instead of embracing national rules of equity and fairness to fill the gap, the CJEU is reluctant to borrow from the legal traditions of EU Member States and misses an important opportunity to provide guidance for the regulation of adaptations outside the sound sampling arena. After an introduction to the German “Metall auf Metall” saga that led to the Pelham decision, the following analysis sheds light on these developments in EU copyright law and discusses problems arising from the approach taken by the CJEU.
K1  - Auteursrecht
K1  - frontpage
K1  - Naburige rechten
K1  - Pelham
K1  - soundsampling
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{Senftleben2020c,
	title = {Flexibility Grave – Partial Reproduction Focus and Closed System Fetishism in CJEU, Pelham},
	author = {Senftleben, M.},
	url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-020-00940-z},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-020-00940-z},
	year = {0512},
	date = {2020-05-12},
	journal = {IIC},
	volume = {51},
	number = {6},
	pages = {751-769},
	abstract = {In the ongoing discussion about the impact of fundamental rights on EU copyright law, the Pelham judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has received much attention. However, the decision also raises important legal-doctrinal issues. The CJEU employs the harmonized right of reproduction as a vehicle to regulate adaptations of pre-existing source material. Moreover, the Court insists on a balancing of interests within the EU matrix of exclusive rights and limitations. The closed list of limitations in EU copyright law, however, can hardly be expected to offer sufficient breathing space for adaptation scenarios. As the Information Society Directive did not harmonize the right of adaptation, there was no need to include indispensable free adaptation rules that have evolved at the national level, such as the German “free use” doctrine. Instead of embracing national rules of equity and fairness to fill the gap, the CJEU is reluctant to borrow from the legal traditions of EU Member States and misses an important opportunity to provide guidance for the regulation of adaptations outside the sound sampling arena. After an introduction to the German “Metall auf Metall” saga that led to the Pelham decision, the following analysis sheds light on these developments in EU copyright law and discusses problems arising from the approach taken by the CJEU.},
	keywords = {Auteursrecht, frontpage, Naburige rechten, Pelham, soundsampling},
}

Save .bib

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

Voorhoof, D. & McGonagle, T.

0508

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 and 2017) have proved hugely successful. The new fifth edition summarises over 315 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). For an optimal navigational experience, one should download the e-book and read the technical tips on p. 3.

Links

https://rm.coe.int/iris-themes-vol-iii-ed-2020-en-2/16809e45e7

EHRM, frontpage, Journalistiek, jurisprudentie, Mediarecht, Vrijheid van meningsuiting

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Selected Aspects of Implementing Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market into National Law – Comment of the European Copyright Society external link

Metzger, A., Senftleben, M., Derclaye E., Dreier, T., Geiger, C., Griffiths, J., Hilty, R., Hugenholtz, P.B., Riis, T., Rognstad, O.A., Strowel, A.M., Synodinou, T. & Xalabarder, R.

2020

Abstract

The national implementation of Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSMD) poses particular challenges. Article 17 is one of the most complex – and most controversial – provisions of the new legislative package which EU Member States must transpose into national law by 7 June 2021. Seeking to contribute to the debate on implementation options, the European Copyright Society addresses several core aspects of Article 17 that may play an important role in the national implementation process. It deals with the concept of online content-sharing service providers (OCSSPs) before embarking on a discussion of the licensing and content moderation duties which OCSSPs must fulfil in accordance with Article 17(1) and (4). The analysis also focuses on the copyright limitations mentioned in Article 17(7) that support the creation and dissemination of transformative user-generated content (UGC). It also discusses the appropriate configuration of complaint and redress mechanisms set forth in Article 17(9) that seek to reduce the risk of unjustified content removals. Finally, the European Copyright Society addresses the possibility of implementing direct remuneration claims for authors and performers, and explores the private international law aspect of applicable law – an impact factor that is often overlooked in the debate.

Links

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3589323

algorithmic enforcement, applicable law, collective copyright management, content hosting, Content moderation, copyright contract law, EU copyright law, filtering mechanisms, Freedom of expression, Licensing, notice-and-takedown, private international law, transformative use, user-generated content

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Metzger, A.
AU  - Senftleben, M.
AU  - Derclaye E.
AU  - Dreier, T.
AU  - Geiger, C.
AU  - Griffiths, J.
AU  - Hilty, R.
AU  - Hugenholtz, P.B.
AU  - Riis, T.
AU  - Rognstad, O.A.
AU  - Strowel, A.M.
AU  - Synodinou, T.
AU  - Xalabarder, R.
PY  - 0507
DA  - 2020-05-07
T1  - Selected Aspects of Implementing Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market into National Law – Comment of the European Copyright Society
AB  - The national implementation of Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSMD) poses particular challenges. Article 17 is one of the most complex – and most controversial – provisions of the new legislative package which EU Member States must transpose into national law by 7 June 2021. Seeking to contribute to the debate on implementation options, the European Copyright Society addresses several core aspects of Article 17 that may play an important role in the national implementation process. It deals with the concept of online content-sharing service providers (OCSSPs) before embarking on a discussion of the licensing and content moderation duties which OCSSPs must fulfil in accordance with Article 17(1) and (4). The analysis also focuses on the copyright limitations mentioned in Article 17(7) that support the creation and dissemination of transformative user-generated content (UGC). It also discusses the appropriate configuration of complaint and redress mechanisms set forth in Article 17(9) that seek to reduce the risk of unjustified content removals. Finally, the European Copyright Society addresses the possibility of implementing direct remuneration claims for authors and performers, and explores the private international law aspect of applicable law – an impact factor that is often overlooked in the debate.
K1  - algorithmic enforcement
K1  - applicable law
K1  - collective copyright management
K1  - content hosting
K1  - Content moderation
K1  - copyright contract law
K1  - EU copyright law
K1  - filtering mechanisms
K1  - Freedom of expression
K1  - Licensing
K1  - notice-and-takedown
K1  - private international law
K1  - transformative use
K1  - user-generated content
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{Metzger2020,
	title = {Selected Aspects of Implementing Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market into National Law – Comment of the European Copyright Society},
	author = {Metzger, A. and Senftleben, M. and Derclaye E. and Dreier, T. and Geiger, C. and Griffiths, J. and Hilty, R. and Hugenholtz, P.B. and Riis, T. and Rognstad, O.A. and Strowel, A.M. and Synodinou, T. and Xalabarder, R.},
	url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3589323},
	year = {0507},
	date = {2020-05-07},
	abstract = {The national implementation of Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSMD) poses particular challenges. Article 17 is one of the most complex – and most controversial – provisions of the new legislative package which EU Member States must transpose into national law by 7 June 2021. Seeking to contribute to the debate on implementation options, the European Copyright Society addresses several core aspects of Article 17 that may play an important role in the national implementation process. It deals with the concept of online content-sharing service providers (OCSSPs) before embarking on a discussion of the licensing and content moderation duties which OCSSPs must fulfil in accordance with Article 17(1) and (4). The analysis also focuses on the copyright limitations mentioned in Article 17(7) that support the creation and dissemination of transformative user-generated content (UGC). It also discusses the appropriate configuration of complaint and redress mechanisms set forth in Article 17(9) that seek to reduce the risk of unjustified content removals. Finally, the European Copyright Society addresses the possibility of implementing direct remuneration claims for authors and performers, and explores the private international law aspect of applicable law – an impact factor that is often overlooked in the debate.},
	keywords = {algorithmic enforcement, applicable law, collective copyright management, content hosting, Content moderation, copyright contract law, EU copyright law, filtering mechanisms, Freedom of expression, Licensing, notice-and-takedown, private international law, transformative use, user-generated content},
}

Save .bib

Top Keywords

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex