Intellectual property
Derclaye E.; van Eechoud, M.; Husovec, M.; Senftleben, M.
Opinion of the European Copyright Society on selected aspects of the proposed Data Act Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.
@article{nokey,
title = {Opinion of the European Copyright Society on selected aspects of the proposed Data Act},
author = {Derclaye E. and van Eechoud, M. and Husovec, M. and Senftleben, M.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/05/16/opinion-of-the-european-copyright-society-on-selected-aspects-of-the-proposed-data-act/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-05-16},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Quintais, J.
Between Filters and Fundamental Rights: How the Court of Justice saved Article 17 in C-401/19 - Poland v. Parliament and Council Journal Article
In: Verfassungsblog, 2022.
@article{nokey,
title = {Between Filters and Fundamental Rights: How the Court of Justice saved Article 17 in C-401/19 - Poland v. Parliament and Council},
author = {Quintais, J.},
url = {https://verfassungsblog.de/filters-poland/?s=09},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-05-16},
journal = {Verfassungsblog},
abstract = {On 26 April 2022, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU or Court) delivered its much awaited judgement in Case C-401/19 \textendash Poland v Parliament and Council. The case focuses on the validity of Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (CDSMD) in light of fundamental rights. The judgment marks the climax of a turbulent journey in the area of copyright law, with potential implications for the future of platform regulation and content moderation in EU law.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
On 26 April 2022, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU or Court) delivered its much awaited judgement in Case C-401/19 – Poland v Parliament and Council. The case focuses on the validity of Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (CDSMD) in light of fundamental rights. The judgment marks the climax of a turbulent journey in the area of copyright law, with potential implications for the future of platform regulation and content moderation in EU law.
Keller, P.; Reda, F.; Quintais, J.; Giorello, M.
Video recording of the COMMUNIA Salon on the CJEU decision on Article 17 (Case C-401/19) Presentation
04.05.2022.
@misc{nokey,
title = {Video recording of the COMMUNIA Salon on the CJEU decision on Article 17 (Case C-401/19)},
author = {Keller, P. and Reda, F. and Quintais, J. and Giorello, M.},
url = {https://www.communia-association.org/2022/05/04/video-recording-of-the-communia-salon-on-the-cjeu-decision-on-article-17/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-05-04},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {presentation}
}
Bulayenko, O.; Poort, J.; Quintais, J.; Gervais, D.J.
AI Music Outputs: Challenges to the Copyright Legal Framework – Part II Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.
@article{nokey,
title = {AI Music Outputs: Challenges to the Copyright Legal Framework \textendash Part II},
author = {Bulayenko, O. and Poort, J. and Quintais, J. and Gervais, D.J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/04/25/ai-music-outputs-challenges-to-the-copyright-legal-framework-part-ii/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-05-02},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Reda, F.; Keller, P.
CJEU upholds Article 17, but not in the form (most) Member States imagined Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.
@article{nokey,
title = {CJEU upholds Article 17, but not in the form (most) Member States imagined},
author = {Reda, F. and Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/04/28/cjeu-upholds-article-17-but-not-in-the-form-most-member-states-imagined/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-04-28},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Hugenholtz, P.
Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 8 september 2020 (Recorded Artists Actors Performers / Phonographic Performance (Ireland)) Journal Article
In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, iss. 15, no. 126, pp. 2384-2386, 2022.
@article{nokey,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 8 september 2020 (Recorded Artists Actors Performers / Phonographic Performance (Ireland))},
author = {Hugenholtz, P.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/annotatie_nj_2022_126/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-04-19},
journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie},
number = {126},
issue = {15},
pages = {2384-2386},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Quintais, J.; Trapova, A.
EU copyright law round up – first trimester of 2022 Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.
@article{nokey,
title = {EU copyright law round up \textendash first trimester of 2022},
author = {Quintais, J. and Trapova, A.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/04/06/eu-copyright-law-round-up-first-trimester-of-2022/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-04-07},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Peukert, A.; Husovec, M.; Kretschmer, M.; Mezei, P.; Quintais, J.
European Copyright Society – Comment on Copyright and the Digital Services Act Proposal Journal Article
In: IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , vol. 53, iss. 3, pp. 358-376, 2022, (Opinion).
@article{nokey,
title = {European Copyright Society \textendash Comment on Copyright and the Digital Services Act Proposal},
author = {Peukert, A. and Husovec, M. and Kretschmer, M. and Mezei, P. and Quintais, J.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/iic_2022/},
doi = {10.1007/s40319-022-01154-1},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-03-14},
urldate = {2022-03-14},
journal = {IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law },
volume = {53},
issue = {3},
pages = {358-376},
note = {Opinion},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
van Gompel, S.; Schumacher, L.D.; Senftleben, M.
Web harvesting: auteursrechtelijke implicaties en oplossingsrichtingen Journal Article
In: Auteursrecht, iss. 1, pp. 3-14, 2022.
@article{nokey,
title = {Web harvesting: auteursrechtelijke implicaties en oplossingsrichtingen},
author = {van Gompel, S. and Schumacher, L.D. and Senftleben, M.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/auteursrecht_2022_1/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-03-03},
journal = {Auteursrecht},
issue = {1},
pages = {3-14},
abstract = {‘Web harvesting’ is het proces waarbij een web crawler \textendash een gespecialiseerd computerprogramma \textendash wordt ingezet om websites en internetpagina’s op geautomatiseerde wijze te verzamelen en toe te voegen aan een webarchief. Nederlandse erfgoedinstellingen gebruiken deze techniek bijvoorbeeld om websites aan hun collecties toe te voegen die op het Nederlandse publiek zijn gericht (‘nationale domeincrawl’). Web harvesting kan ook beperkt zijn tot specifiek geselecteerde websites die met een bepaald onderwerp of gebeurtenis samenhangen (‘beredeneerde selectie’). In Nederland gebeurt web harvesting thans enkel nog op kleine schaal. Web crawling gaat namelijk gepaard met talloze reproductiehandelingen, waarvoor vanuit auteursrechtelijk perspectief toestemming kan zijn vereist. Voor het herhaaldelijk en systematisch harvesten van grote hoeveelheden materiaal op het web is het verkrijgen van individuele toestemming een schier onmogelijke taak. Daarnaast willen erfgoedinstellingen het geharveste materiaal ook op een of andere manier ontsluiten om het gebruik voor algemene zin \textendash toegang tot het digitale culturele erfgoed te bieden. Dit artikel onderzoekt tegen deze achtergrond, mede aan de hand van een rechtsvergelijking met het buitenland, welke oplossingsrichtingen er binnen het huidige auteursrechtelijke kader bestaan om web harvesting-activiteiten door erfgoedinstellingen op grotere schaal mogelijk te maken. Dit is nodig om gaten in de archivering van het online Nederlands erfgoed te voorkomen en het digitale culturele erfgoed voor het nageslacht te bewaren en beschikbaar te stellen. },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
‘Web harvesting’ is het proces waarbij een web crawler – een gespecialiseerd computerprogramma – wordt ingezet om websites en internetpagina’s op geautomatiseerde wijze te verzamelen en toe te voegen aan een webarchief. Nederlandse erfgoedinstellingen gebruiken deze techniek bijvoorbeeld om websites aan hun collecties toe te voegen die op het Nederlandse publiek zijn gericht (‘nationale domeincrawl’). Web harvesting kan ook beperkt zijn tot specifiek geselecteerde websites die met een bepaald onderwerp of gebeurtenis samenhangen (‘beredeneerde selectie’). In Nederland gebeurt web harvesting thans enkel nog op kleine schaal. Web crawling gaat namelijk gepaard met talloze reproductiehandelingen, waarvoor vanuit auteursrechtelijk perspectief toestemming kan zijn vereist. Voor het herhaaldelijk en systematisch harvesten van grote hoeveelheden materiaal op het web is het verkrijgen van individuele toestemming een schier onmogelijke taak. Daarnaast willen erfgoedinstellingen het geharveste materiaal ook op een of andere manier ontsluiten om het gebruik voor algemene zin – toegang tot het digitale culturele erfgoed te bieden. Dit artikel onderzoekt tegen deze achtergrond, mede aan de hand van een rechtsvergelijking met het buitenland, welke oplossingsrichtingen er binnen het huidige auteursrechtelijke kader bestaan om web harvesting-activiteiten door erfgoedinstellingen op grotere schaal mogelijk te maken. Dit is nodig om gaten in de archivering van het online Nederlands erfgoed te voorkomen en het digitale culturele erfgoed voor het nageslacht te bewaren en beschikbaar te stellen.
Quintais, J.; Angelopoulos, C.
Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 22 juni 2021 Frank Peterson / Google & YouTube (C 682/18) & Elsevier / Cyando AG (C 683/18) Journal Article
In: Auteursrecht, iss. 1, no. 1, pp. 46-51, 2022.
@article{nokey,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 22 juni 2021 Frank Peterson / Google \& YouTube (C 682/18) \& Elsevier / Cyando AG (C 683/18)},
author = {Quintais, J. and Angelopoulos, C.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/annotatie_auteursrecht_2022_1/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-03-03},
journal = {Auteursrecht},
number = {1},
issue = {1},
pages = {46-51},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
van Eechoud, M.
Annotatie bij Rechtbank Midden-Nederland 22 december 2021 (VVZBI/KVK) Journal Article
In: Auteursrecht, iss. 1, pp. 71-72, 2022.
@article{nokey,
title = {Annotatie bij Rechtbank Midden-Nederland 22 december 2021 (VVZBI/KVK)},
author = {van Eechoud, M.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/annotatie_auteursrecht_2022_71/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-03-03},
journal = {Auteursrecht},
issue = {1},
pages = {71-72},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Hugenholtz, P.
DJs are Phonogram Producers, says Dutch Supreme Court Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.
@article{nokey,
title = {DJs are Phonogram Producers, says Dutch Supreme Court},
author = {Hugenholtz, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/01/31/djs-are-phonogram-producers-says-dutch-supreme-court/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-01-31},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Keller, P.
Article 17, the year in review (2021 edition) Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.
@article{nokey,
title = {Article 17, the year in review (2021 edition)},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/01/24/article-17-the-year-in-review-2021-edition/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-01-24},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Peukert, A.; Husovec, M.; Kretschmer, M.; Mezei, P.; Quintais, J.
European Copyright Society (ECS): Comment on Copyright and the Digital Services Act Proposal Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.
@article{nokey,
title = {European Copyright Society (ECS): Comment on Copyright and the Digital Services Act Proposal},
author = {Peukert, A. and Husovec, M. and Kretschmer, M. and Mezei, P. and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/01/18/european-copyright-society-ecs-comment-on-copyright-and-the-digital-services-act-proposal/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-01-18},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Trapova, A.; Quintais, J.
EU copyright law round up – fourth trimester of 2021 Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.
@article{nokey,
title = {EU copyright law round up \textendash fourth trimester of 2021},
author = {Trapova, A. and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/12/27/eu-copyright-law-round-up-fourth-trimester-of-2021/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-12-27},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Keller, P.
YouTube Copyright Transparency Report: Overblocking is real Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.
@article{nokey,
title = {YouTube Copyright Transparency Report: Overblocking is real},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/12/09/youtube-copyright-transparency-report-overblocking-is-real/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-12-10},
urldate = {2021-12-10},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
van Eechoud, M.
Annotatie bij Hof Arnhem-Leeuwarden 25 mei 2021 (Atlantic/Marell Boats) Journal Article
In: Auteursrecht, no. 4, pp. 228-229, 2021.
@article{nokey,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof Arnhem-Leeuwarden 25 mei 2021 (Atlantic/Marell Boats)},
author = {van Eechoud, M.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_Auteursrecht_2021_4.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-12-02},
journal = {Auteursrecht},
number = {4},
pages = {228-229},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Senftleben, M.; Poort, J.; van Eechoud, M.; van Gompel, S.; Helberger, N.
Introduction: An Information Law Approach to Intellectual Property and Sports Book Chapter
In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 3-11, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.
@inbook{nokey,
title = {Introduction: An Information Law Approach to Intellectual Property and Sports},
author = {Senftleben, M. and Poort, J. and van Eechoud, M. and van Gompel, S. and Helberger, N.},
isbn = {9789403537337},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-11-30},
urldate = {2021-11-30},
booktitle = {Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz},
pages = {3-11},
publisher = {Wolters Kluwer},
series = {Information Law Series},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
van Gompel, S.
Sports as Policy Levers in Intellectual Property Lawmaking Book Chapter
In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 119-130, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.
@inbook{nokey,
title = {Sports as Policy Levers in Intellectual Property Lawmaking},
author = {van Gompel, S.},
isbn = {9789403537337},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-11-30},
urldate = {2021-11-30},
booktitle = {Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz},
pages = {119-130},
publisher = {Wolters Kluwer},
series = {Information Law Series},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Quintais, J.
Do We Need More Copyright Protection for Sports Events? Book Chapter
In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 143-156, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.
@inbook{nokey,
title = {Do We Need More Copyright Protection for Sports Events?},
author = {Quintais, J.},
isbn = {9789403537337},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-11-30},
booktitle = {Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz},
pages = {143-156},
publisher = {Wolters Kluwer},
series = {Information Law Series},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Poort, J.
An Economic Note on Reselling Tickets Book Chapter
In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 211-216, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.
@inbook{nokey,
title = {An Economic Note on Reselling Tickets},
author = {Poort, J.},
isbn = {9789403537337},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-11-30},
booktitle = {Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz},
pages = {211-216},
publisher = {Wolters Kluwer},
series = {Information Law Series},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Senftleben, M.
Sacrificing the Gods on the Altar of Sports: The Redefinition of Cultural Symbols in the Sports Sector Book Chapter
In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 233-247, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.
@inbook{nokey,
title = {Sacrificing the Gods on the Altar of Sports: The Redefinition of Cultural Symbols in the Sports Sector},
author = {Senftleben, M.},
isbn = {9789403537337},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-11-30},
booktitle = {Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz},
pages = {233-247},
publisher = {Wolters Kluwer},
series = {Information Law Series},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
van Eechoud, M.
Database Rights in the EU's Data Strategy: A Question of Sport? Book Chapter
In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 251-261, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.
@inbook{nokey,
title = {Database Rights in the EU's Data Strategy: A Question of Sport?},
author = {van Eechoud, M.},
isbn = {9789403537337},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-11-30},
booktitle = {Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz},
pages = {251-261},
publisher = {Wolters Kluwer},
series = {Information Law Series},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Helberger, N.; Zarouali, B.
'Voetbal Hoort niet bij Robots': Attitudes Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Refereeing Book Chapter
In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 395-409, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.
@inbook{nokey,
title = {'Voetbal Hoort niet bij Robots': Attitudes Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Refereeing},
author = {Helberger, N. and Zarouali, B.},
isbn = {9789403537337},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-11-30},
booktitle = {Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz},
pages = {395-409},
publisher = {Wolters Kluwer},
series = {Information Law Series},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Gervais, D.J.
AI-JAX Book Chapter
In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 437-448, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.
@inbook{nokey,
title = {AI-JAX},
author = {Gervais, D.J.},
isbn = {9789403537337},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-11-30},
booktitle = {Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz},
pages = {437-448},
publisher = {Wolters Kluwer},
series = {Information Law Series},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Bulayenko, O.; van Gompel, S.; and Handke, C.; Peeters, R.; Poort, J.; Quintais, J.; Regeczi, D.
Study on emerging issues on collective licensing practices in the digital environment Technical Report
2021, ISBN: 978-92-76-39981-0, (Study written by Ecorys, IViR and Erasmus University Rotterdam, commissioned by the European Commission.).
@techreport{nokey,
title = {Study on emerging issues on collective licensing practices in the digital environment},
author = {Bulayenko, O. and van Gompel, S. and and Handke, C. and Peeters, R. and Poort, J. and Quintais, J. and Regeczi, D.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Study_on_collective_practices_in_the_digital_environment.pdf
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/reports-collective-management-and-extended-licensing},
doi = {10.2759/611658},
isbn = {978-92-76-39981-0},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-11-25},
abstract = {Collective management of copyright and related rights is an important element of the copyright system. First and foremost, it can ensure that rightholders reap greater rewards. By exploiting economies of scale and network effects, collective management can also make markets for copyright licences more efficient, to benefit users and other stakeholders. This study examines two central aspects of collective management of copyright and related rights in Europe.
Part I documents the development of multi-territorial licensing of online rights in musical works in the European Economic Area (EEA) under Title III of Directive 2014/26/EU on Collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market (CRM Directive). It highlights the consequences of legal and regulatory reform, based on pervasive quantitative and qualitative data \textendash produced in surveys, interviews and a workshop with stakeholders \textendash and collected among collective management organisations (CMOs), rightholders, online music service providers, and national competent authorities.
Part II examines national mechanisms of collective licensing with an extended effect and comprehensive network of national experts, complemented by surveys of CMOs, as well as interviews with national competent authorities.
The present study provides a legal and economic analysis that can serve as input for the European Commission to draft the reports required by Article 40 of the CRM Directive and Article 12(6) of the Directive 2019/790/EU on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (DSM Directive).
},
note = {Study written by Ecorys, IViR and Erasmus University Rotterdam, commissioned by the European Commission.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
Collective management of copyright and related rights is an important element of the copyright system. First and foremost, it can ensure that rightholders reap greater rewards. By exploiting economies of scale and network effects, collective management can also make markets for copyright licences more efficient, to benefit users and other stakeholders. This study examines two central aspects of collective management of copyright and related rights in Europe.
Part I documents the development of multi-territorial licensing of online rights in musical works in the European Economic Area (EEA) under Title III of Directive 2014/26/EU on Collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market (CRM Directive). It highlights the consequences of legal and regulatory reform, based on pervasive quantitative and qualitative data – produced in surveys, interviews and a workshop with stakeholders – and collected among collective management organisations (CMOs), rightholders, online music service providers, and national competent authorities.
Part II examines national mechanisms of collective licensing with an extended effect and comprehensive network of national experts, complemented by surveys of CMOs, as well as interviews with national competent authorities.
The present study provides a legal and economic analysis that can serve as input for the European Commission to draft the reports required by Article 40 of the CRM Directive and Article 12(6) of the Directive 2019/790/EU on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (DSM Directive).
Part I documents the development of multi-territorial licensing of online rights in musical works in the European Economic Area (EEA) under Title III of Directive 2014/26/EU on Collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market (CRM Directive). It highlights the consequences of legal and regulatory reform, based on pervasive quantitative and qualitative data – produced in surveys, interviews and a workshop with stakeholders – and collected among collective management organisations (CMOs), rightholders, online music service providers, and national competent authorities.
Part II examines national mechanisms of collective licensing with an extended effect and comprehensive network of national experts, complemented by surveys of CMOs, as well as interviews with national competent authorities.
The present study provides a legal and economic analysis that can serve as input for the European Commission to draft the reports required by Article 40 of the CRM Directive and Article 12(6) of the Directive 2019/790/EU on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (DSM Directive).
Senftleben, M.; van Gompel, S.; Helmond, A.; Schumacher, L.D.; Ausloos, J.; van Hoboken, J.; Quintais, J.
Webharvesting Technical Report
2021, (Onderzoek in opdracht van het Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC), 20 september 2021, WODC rapport 3142.).
@techreport{nokey,
title = {Webharvesting},
author = {Senftleben, M. and van Gompel, S. and Helmond, A. and Schumacher, L.D. and Ausloos, J. and van Hoboken, J. and Quintais, J.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Webharvesting_WODC.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-11-25},
urldate = {2021-11-25},
abstract = {Aan het volgende onderzoeksrapport ligt de doelstelling ten grondslag om te inventariseren wat juridisch, beleidsmatig en technisch nodig is om webharvesting mogelijk te maken, onder meer in de vorm van een zogenaamde nationale “domeincrawl”: het systematische kopi\"{e}ren en archiveren van webpagina’s die een afspiegeling vormen van de Nederlandse sociale, culturele, economische, juridische, politieke en wetenschappelijke geschiedenis online.},
note = {Onderzoek in opdracht van het Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC), 20 september 2021, WODC rapport 3142.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
Aan het volgende onderzoeksrapport ligt de doelstelling ten grondslag om te inventariseren wat juridisch, beleidsmatig en technisch nodig is om webharvesting mogelijk te maken, onder meer in de vorm van een zogenaamde nationale “domeincrawl”: het systematische kopiëren en archiveren van webpagina’s die een afspiegeling vormen van de Nederlandse sociale, culturele, economische, juridische, politieke en wetenschappelijke geschiedenis online.
Quintais, J.; Kowalewska Jahromi, H.; Mezei, P.; Priora, G.; Reda, J.; Riis, T.; Schwemer, S.; Szkalej, K.
The Regulatory Landscape for Copyright Content Moderation: Evaluation and Future Trajectories Online
2021, (Webinar ReCreating Europe 16 November 2021).
@online{nokey,
title = {The Regulatory Landscape for Copyright Content Moderation: Evaluation and Future Trajectories},
author = {Quintais, J. and Kowalewska Jahromi, H. and Mezei, P. and Priora, G. and Reda, J. and Riis, T. and Schwemer, S. and Szkalej, K.},
url = {https://www.recreating.eu/2021/10/19/webinar-16-november-the-regulatory-landscape-for-copyright-content-moderation-evaluation-and-future-trajectories/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HketusMjEFk},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-11-25},
abstract = {This webinar took place on 16 November 2021 and addressed the current status and future avenues for copyright content moderation in EU law, including a discussion on the rules on liability for online content-sharing service providers.},
note = {Webinar ReCreating Europe 16 November 2021},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
This webinar took place on 16 November 2021 and addressed the current status and future avenues for copyright content moderation in EU law, including a discussion on the rules on liability for online content-sharing service providers.
van Eechoud, M.
Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 8 september 2020 (RAAP/PPI) Journal Article
In: Auteursrecht, vol. 2021, no. 2, pp. 77-79, 2021.
@article{nokey,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 8 september 2020 (RAAP/PPI)},
author = {van Eechoud, M.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_Auteursrecht_2021_2.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-11-23},
journal = {Auteursrecht},
volume = {2021},
number = {2},
pages = {77-79},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Hugenholtz, P.; Quintais, J.
Copyright and Artificial Creation: Does EU Copyright Law Protect AI-Assisted Output? Journal Article
In: IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 1190-1216, 2021.
@article{Hugenholtz2021d,
title = {Copyright and Artificial Creation: Does EU Copyright Law Protect AI-Assisted Output?},
author = {Hugenholtz, P. and Quintais, J.},
url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-021-01115-0},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01115-0},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-10-07},
urldate = {2021-10-07},
journal = {IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law },
volume = {52},
number = {9},
pages = {1190-1216},
abstract = {This article queries whether and to what extent works produced with the aid of AI systems \textendash AI-assisted output \textendash are protected under EU copyright standards. We carry out a doctrinal legal analysis to scrutinise the concepts of “work”, “originality” and “creative freedom”, as well as the notion of authorship, as set forth in the EU copyright acquis and developed in the case-law of the Court of Justice. On this basis, we develop a four-step test to assess whether AI-assisted output qualifies as an original work of authorship under EU law, and how the existing rules on authorship may apply. Our conclusion is that current EU copyright rules are generally suitable and sufficiently flexible to deal with the challenges posed by AI-assisted output.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
This article queries whether and to what extent works produced with the aid of AI systems – AI-assisted output – are protected under EU copyright standards. We carry out a doctrinal legal analysis to scrutinise the concepts of “work”, “originality” and “creative freedom”, as well as the notion of authorship, as set forth in the EU copyright acquis and developed in the case-law of the Court of Justice. On this basis, we develop a four-step test to assess whether AI-assisted output qualifies as an original work of authorship under EU law, and how the existing rules on authorship may apply. Our conclusion is that current EU copyright rules are generally suitable and sufficiently flexible to deal with the challenges posed by AI-assisted output.
Trapova, A.; Quintais, J.
EU copyright law round up – third trimester of 2021 Online
2021.
@online{Trapova2021c,
title = {EU copyright law round up \textendash third trimester of 2021},
author = {Trapova, A. and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/10/07/eu-copyright-law-round-up-third-trimester-of-2021/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-10-07},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
Reda, J.; Keller, P.
A Proposal to leverage Article 17 to build a public repository of Public Domain and openly licensed works Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.
@article{Reda2021bb,
title = {A Proposal to leverage Article 17 to build a public repository of Public Domain and openly licensed works},
author = {Reda, J. and Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/09/23/a-proposal-to-leverage-article-17-to-build-a-public-repository-of-public-domain-and-openly-licensed-works/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-09-23},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Angelopoulos, C.; Senftleben, M.; Thije, P. ten
De reikwijdte van artikel 17 DSM-richtlijn in het licht van het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen: een Odyssee Journal Article
In: Auteursrecht, no. 3, pp. 120-142, 2021.
@article{Angelopoulos2021,
title = {De reikwijdte van artikel 17 DSM-richtlijn in het licht van het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen: een Odyssee},
author = {Angelopoulos, C. and Senftleben, M. and Thije, P. ten},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Auteursrecht_2021_3.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-09-21},
journal = {Auteursrecht},
number = {3},
pages = {120-142},
abstract = {Met de Richtlijn auteursrechten en naburige rechten in de digitale eengemaakte markt (‘DSM-RL’) zijn nieuwe wettelijke verplichtingen op het terrein van het filteren van online content ontstaan. Aanbieders van onlinediensten voor het delen van content (‘OCSSPs’) dienen \textendash op basis van door rechthebbenden verstrekte informatie \textendash ervoor te zorgen dat beschermd materiaal niet beschikbaar is op hun platforms. Tegelijkertijd bevestigt artikel 17 lid 8 DSM-RL dat de nieuwe auteursrechtelijke regels niet tot een algemene toezichtverplichting moeten leiden. Ondanks de nieuwe filterverplichtingen heeft de Uniewetgever het traditionele verbod op een algemene toezichtverplichting \textendash dat al 20 jaar deel uitmaakt van de regeling van aansprakelijkheidsprivileges in de Richtlijn inzake elektronische handel (‘REH’) \textendash uitdrukkelijk overeind gehouden. Ook het voorstel van de Europese Commissie voor een Digital Services Act (‘DSA’) houdt het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen in stand. Tegen deze achtergrond rijst de vraag hoe de nieuwe auteursrechtelijke filterverplichtingen moeten worden uitgelegd om een verboden algemene toezichtverplichting te voorkomen. De volgende analyse geeft antwoord op deze vraag op basis van een nadere bespreking van het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen in de REH, de DSM-RL en het DSA-voorstel. Naast relevante rechtspraak van het HvJ EU komt het nauwe verband tussen het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen en fundamentele rechten aan de orde.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Met de Richtlijn auteursrechten en naburige rechten in de digitale eengemaakte markt (‘DSM-RL’) zijn nieuwe wettelijke verplichtingen op het terrein van het filteren van online content ontstaan. Aanbieders van onlinediensten voor het delen van content (‘OCSSPs’) dienen – op basis van door rechthebbenden verstrekte informatie – ervoor te zorgen dat beschermd materiaal niet beschikbaar is op hun platforms. Tegelijkertijd bevestigt artikel 17 lid 8 DSM-RL dat de nieuwe auteursrechtelijke regels niet tot een algemene toezichtverplichting moeten leiden. Ondanks de nieuwe filterverplichtingen heeft de Uniewetgever het traditionele verbod op een algemene toezichtverplichting – dat al 20 jaar deel uitmaakt van de regeling van aansprakelijkheidsprivileges in de Richtlijn inzake elektronische handel (‘REH’) – uitdrukkelijk overeind gehouden. Ook het voorstel van de Europese Commissie voor een Digital Services Act (‘DSA’) houdt het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen in stand. Tegen deze achtergrond rijst de vraag hoe de nieuwe auteursrechtelijke filterverplichtingen moeten worden uitgelegd om een verboden algemene toezichtverplichting te voorkomen. De volgende analyse geeft antwoord op deze vraag op basis van een nadere bespreking van het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen in de REH, de DSM-RL en het DSA-voorstel. Naast relevante rechtspraak van het HvJ EU komt het nauwe verband tussen het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen en fundamentele rechten aan de orde.
Senftleben, M.; Poort, J.; van Eechoud, M.; van Gompel, S.; Helberger, N.
Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz Book
Kluwer Law International, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.
@book{ils2021,
title = {Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz},
author = {Senftleben, M. and Poort, J. and van Eechoud, M. and van Gompel, S. and Helberger, N.},
url = {https://lrus.wolterskluwer.com/store/product/intellectual-property-and-sports-essays-in-honour-of-p-bernt-hugenholtz/},
isbn = {9789403537337},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-09-09},
urldate = {2021-09-09},
volume = {46},
publisher = {Kluwer Law International},
series = {Information Law Series},
abstract = {Intellectual Property and Sports celebrates the enormous achievements of Professor Bernt Hugenholtz in the field of intellectual property and information law. Renowned intellectual property law expert Bernt Hugenholtz once warned, chiding the voracity of copyright, that reducing the subject matter test to mere originality and personal stamp might lead to ‘infinite expansion of the concept of the work of authorship. Anything touched by human hand, including for instance sports performances, would be deemed a work’. Focus on sports-related intellectual property issues offers an ideal starting point for exploring core questions on information law. Legal rules in sports and intellectual property evolve in a climate pervaded by powerful lobby pressures with new technologies that have a profound impact on developments in the sports arena. Indeed, the applicability of copyright law on sports events and players’ moves is one of the many topics discussed in this volume, which spans issues from those related to players and their performances and achievements, via those relevant to sports event organisers and clubs, to questions concerning event reporting and data and the growing role of AI technologies in sports.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}
Intellectual Property and Sports celebrates the enormous achievements of Professor Bernt Hugenholtz in the field of intellectual property and information law. Renowned intellectual property law expert Bernt Hugenholtz once warned, chiding the voracity of copyright, that reducing the subject matter test to mere originality and personal stamp might lead to ‘infinite expansion of the concept of the work of authorship. Anything touched by human hand, including for instance sports performances, would be deemed a work’. Focus on sports-related intellectual property issues offers an ideal starting point for exploring core questions on information law. Legal rules in sports and intellectual property evolve in a climate pervaded by powerful lobby pressures with new technologies that have a profound impact on developments in the sports arena. Indeed, the applicability of copyright law on sports events and players’ moves is one of the many topics discussed in this volume, which spans issues from those related to players and their performances and achievements, via those relevant to sports event organisers and clubs, to questions concerning event reporting and data and the growing role of AI technologies in sports.
van Eechoud, M.
Please share nicely — From Database directive to Data (governance) acts Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.
@article{vanEechoud2021bb,
title = {Please share nicely \textemdash From Database directive to Data (governance) acts},
author = {van Eechoud, M.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/08/18/please-share-nicely-from-database-directive-to-data-governance-acts/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-08-24},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Reda, J.; Keller, P.
What Member States can learn from the AG opinion on Article 17 Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.
@article{Reda2021b,
title = {What Member States can learn from the AG opinion on Article 17},
author = {Reda, J. and Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/07/26/what-member-states-can-learn-from-the-ag-opinion-on-article-17/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-07-27},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
van Eechoud, M.; Ausloos, J.; Loos, M.; Mak, C.; Reinhartz, B.; Schumacher, L.D.; Pol, L.
Data na de dood - juridische aspecten van digitale nalatenschappen Technical Report
2021, (Onderzoek in opdracht van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, April 2021, Bijlage bij Kamerstuk 2020-2021, 30696 nr. 52.
Auteurs: M.M.M. van Eechoud, J. Ausloos, M. Loos, C. Mak, B. Reinhartz, L. Schumacher & L. Pol.).
@techreport{vanEechoud2021bb,
title = {Data na de dood - juridische aspecten van digitale nalatenschappen},
author = {van Eechoud, M. and Ausloos, J. and Loos, M. and Mak, C. and Reinhartz, B. and Schumacher, L.D. and Pol, L. },
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Data-na-de-dood.pdf
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Datanadedood_summary.pdf
https://www.sectorplandls.nl/wordpress/news/data-after-death-legal-aspects-of-digital-inheritances/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-07-08},
urldate = {2021-07-08},
abstract = {Jaarlijks overlijden ruim 150.000 mensen en worden er dus ook ongeveer evenveel nalatenschappen afgewikkeld. Vrijwel zonder uitzondering laten overledenen digitale ‘bezittingen’ achter, zoals sociale media-accounts, e-mails, documenten opgeslagen in de cloud en (gebruiksrechten op) allerlei media en entertainment. De vraag is of het huidige Nederlandse wettelijk kader voldoende handvatten biedt om de bij afwikkeling van digitale nalatenschappen gemoeide private en publieke belangen te behartigen. De centrale onderzoeksvraag van deze studie is: Welke eventuele aanpassingen van het Nederlandse wettelijke kader zijn wenselijk met het oog op de adequate bescherming van private en publieke belangen gemoeid met het regelen en afwikkelen van digitale nalatenschappen?
Voor de beantwoording van deze vraag is om te beginnen een analyse gedaan van het beleid van aanbieders van veelgebruikte informatiediensten rond overlijden, en van de relevante voorwaarden die zij hanteren. Bronnen voor de analyse zijn gebruikersovereenkomsten, algemene voorwaarden, privacy policies en andere (openbare) documenten zoals FAQ’s. Informatiediensten aanbieders zijn onderscheiden in digitale mediadiensten (commercieel aanbod zoals streaming video of -muziek), communicatiediensten (waaronder sociale media en berichtendiensten) en ICT-diensten (o.a. cloudopslag en digitale kluizen). Vervolgens is het relevante wettelijke kader beschreven en zijn onduidelijkheden daarin ge\"{i}dentificeerd. Naast het erfrecht, betreft dit het overeenkomstenrecht en dan in het bijzonder consumentenrecht, intellectuele eigendomsrechten (met name auteursrecht), persoonlijkheidsrechten en gegevensbeschermingsrecht (Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming). Ook het algemene vermogensrecht is van belang, voor zover betrekking hebbend op de vraag welk digitaal ‘bezit’ in de nalatenschap valt. Tot slot is met het oog op het formuleren van oplossingsrichtingen, naar een selectie van wetgeving in andere landen gekeken.},
note = {Onderzoek in opdracht van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, April 2021, Bijlage bij Kamerstuk 2020-2021, 30696 nr. 52.
Auteurs: M.M.M. van Eechoud, J. Ausloos, M. Loos, C. Mak, B. Reinhartz, L. Schumacher \& L. Pol.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
Jaarlijks overlijden ruim 150.000 mensen en worden er dus ook ongeveer evenveel nalatenschappen afgewikkeld. Vrijwel zonder uitzondering laten overledenen digitale ‘bezittingen’ achter, zoals sociale media-accounts, e-mails, documenten opgeslagen in de cloud en (gebruiksrechten op) allerlei media en entertainment. De vraag is of het huidige Nederlandse wettelijk kader voldoende handvatten biedt om de bij afwikkeling van digitale nalatenschappen gemoeide private en publieke belangen te behartigen. De centrale onderzoeksvraag van deze studie is: Welke eventuele aanpassingen van het Nederlandse wettelijke kader zijn wenselijk met het oog op de adequate bescherming van private en publieke belangen gemoeid met het regelen en afwikkelen van digitale nalatenschappen?
Voor de beantwoording van deze vraag is om te beginnen een analyse gedaan van het beleid van aanbieders van veelgebruikte informatiediensten rond overlijden, en van de relevante voorwaarden die zij hanteren. Bronnen voor de analyse zijn gebruikersovereenkomsten, algemene voorwaarden, privacy policies en andere (openbare) documenten zoals FAQ’s. Informatiediensten aanbieders zijn onderscheiden in digitale mediadiensten (commercieel aanbod zoals streaming video of -muziek), communicatiediensten (waaronder sociale media en berichtendiensten) en ICT-diensten (o.a. cloudopslag en digitale kluizen). Vervolgens is het relevante wettelijke kader beschreven en zijn onduidelijkheden daarin geïdentificeerd. Naast het erfrecht, betreft dit het overeenkomstenrecht en dan in het bijzonder consumentenrecht, intellectuele eigendomsrechten (met name auteursrecht), persoonlijkheidsrechten en gegevensbeschermingsrecht (Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming). Ook het algemene vermogensrecht is van belang, voor zover betrekking hebbend op de vraag welk digitaal ‘bezit’ in de nalatenschap valt. Tot slot is met het oog op het formuleren van oplossingsrichtingen, naar een selectie van wetgeving in andere landen gekeken.
Voor de beantwoording van deze vraag is om te beginnen een analyse gedaan van het beleid van aanbieders van veelgebruikte informatiediensten rond overlijden, en van de relevante voorwaarden die zij hanteren. Bronnen voor de analyse zijn gebruikersovereenkomsten, algemene voorwaarden, privacy policies en andere (openbare) documenten zoals FAQ’s. Informatiediensten aanbieders zijn onderscheiden in digitale mediadiensten (commercieel aanbod zoals streaming video of -muziek), communicatiediensten (waaronder sociale media en berichtendiensten) en ICT-diensten (o.a. cloudopslag en digitale kluizen). Vervolgens is het relevante wettelijke kader beschreven en zijn onduidelijkheden daarin geïdentificeerd. Naast het erfrecht, betreft dit het overeenkomstenrecht en dan in het bijzonder consumentenrecht, intellectuele eigendomsrechten (met name auteursrecht), persoonlijkheidsrechten en gegevensbeschermingsrecht (Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming). Ook het algemene vermogensrecht is van belang, voor zover betrekking hebbend op de vraag welk digitaal ‘bezit’ in de nalatenschap valt. Tot slot is met het oog op het formuleren van oplossingsrichtingen, naar een selectie van wetgeving in andere landen gekeken.
Hugenholtz, P.; Quintais, J.
Auteursrecht en artificiële creatie Journal Article
In: Auteursrecht, no. 2, pp. 47-52, 2021.
@article{Hugenholtz2021b,
title = {Auteursrecht en artifici\"{e}le creatie},
author = {Hugenholtz, P. and Quintais, J.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Auteursrecht-2021-2.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-06-17},
journal = {Auteursrecht},
number = {2},
pages = {47-52},
abstract = {In dit artikel wordt de vraag gesteld of voortbrengselen die met behulp van AI-systemen tot stand zijn gebracht auteursrechtelijk beschermd kunnen zijn. Centraal in deze analyse staat niet de machine, maar de rol van de mens in het door het AI-systeem ondersteunde creatieve proces. Is deze rol voldoende om het resultaat als auteursrechtelijke beschermd werk te kwalificeren? En wie heeft in dat geval te gelden als maker(s)? Deze vragen worden aan de hand van het Unierecht en de jurisprudentie van het HvJ EU beantwoord. Dit artikel is gebaseerd op een studie die in opdracht van de Europese Commissie is verricht en aan de basis ligt van het door de Commissie in het Actieplan IE geformuleerde
beleidsstandpunt over AI-creaties.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
In dit artikel wordt de vraag gesteld of voortbrengselen die met behulp van AI-systemen tot stand zijn gebracht auteursrechtelijk beschermd kunnen zijn. Centraal in deze analyse staat niet de machine, maar de rol van de mens in het door het AI-systeem ondersteunde creatieve proces. Is deze rol voldoende om het resultaat als auteursrechtelijke beschermd werk te kwalificeren? En wie heeft in dat geval te gelden als maker(s)? Deze vragen worden aan de hand van het Unierecht en de jurisprudentie van het HvJ EU beantwoord. Dit artikel is gebaseerd op een studie die in opdracht van de Europese Commissie is verricht en aan de basis ligt van het door de Commissie in het Actieplan IE geformuleerde
beleidsstandpunt over AI-creaties.
beleidsstandpunt over AI-creaties.
Hugenholtz, P.
Three Cheers for the DSM Directive’s Rules on Author’s Contracts – and a Cautionary Note from the Netherlands Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.
@article{Hugenholtz2021bb,
title = {Three Cheers for the DSM Directive’s Rules on Author’s Contracts \textendash and a Cautionary Note from the Netherlands},
author = {Hugenholtz, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/06/14/three-cheers-for-the-dsm-directives-rules-on-authors-contracts-and-a-cautionary-note-from-the-netherlands/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-06-14},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Quintais, J.
Commission’s Guidance on Art. 17 CDSM Directive: the authorisation dimension Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.
@article{Quintais2021,
title = {Commission’s Guidance on Art. 17 CDSM Directive: the authorisation dimension},
author = {Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/06/10/commissions-guidance-on-art-17-cdsm-directive-the-authorisation-dimension/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-06-10},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Hugenholtz, P.
Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 11 juni 2020 (Brompton Bicycle / Chedech/Get2Get Journal Article
In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, no. 22, pp. 3136-3138, 2021.
@article{Hugenholtz2021,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 11 juni 2020 (Brompton Bicycle / Chedech/Get2Get},
author = {Hugenholtz, P.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2021_175.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-06-04},
journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie},
number = {22},
pages = {3136-3138},
abstract = {Verzoek om een prejudici\"{e}le beslissing krachtens artikel 267 VWEU, ingediend door de tribunal de l’entreprise de Li\`{e}ge (ondernemingsrechtbank Luik, Belgi\"{e}) bij beslissing van 18 december 2018. Intellectuele en industri\"{e}le eigendom, auteursrecht en naburige rechten. Vouwfiets. Bescherming van werken op grond van het auteursrecht. Voor het bereiken van een technisch resultaat noodzakelijke vorm.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Verzoek om een prejudiciële beslissing krachtens artikel 267 VWEU, ingediend door de tribunal de l’entreprise de Liège (ondernemingsrechtbank Luik, België) bij beslissing van 18 december 2018. Intellectuele en industriële eigendom, auteursrecht en naburige rechten. Vouwfiets. Bescherming van werken op grond van het auteursrecht. Voor het bereiken van een technisch resultaat noodzakelijke vorm.
Reda, J.; Keller, P.
European Commission back-tracks on user rights in Article 17 Guidance Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.
@article{Reda2021,
title = {European Commission back-tracks on user rights in Article 17 Guidance},
author = {Reda, J. and Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/06/04/european-commission-back-tracks-on-user-rights-in-article-17-guidance/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-06-04},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Dommering, E.
In: pp. 59-69, 2021, (Hoofdstuk in 'Plagiaat in onderzoek en onderwijs', red. J. Soeharno & K. Algra, VSNU: Den Haag 2021. Ook beschikbaar in het Engels, zie link hieronder, ''Standing on the shoulders of giants'. Truthful citation is the social responsibility of academics.').
@inbook{Dommering2021e,
title = {'Staan op de schouders van reuzen'. Waarheidsgetrouw citeren als maatschappelijke verantwoordelijkheid van de wetenschapper},
author = {Dommering, E.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Staan-op-de-schouders-van-reuzen.pdf
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Plagiarism-in-Academic-Research-and-Education.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-05-28},
pages = {59-69},
note = {Hoofdstuk in 'Plagiaat in onderzoek en onderwijs', red. J. Soeharno \& K. Algra, VSNU: Den Haag 2021. Ook beschikbaar in het Engels, zie link hieronder, ''Standing on the shoulders of giants'. Truthful citation is the social responsibility of academics.'},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Bostyn, S.
Why a COVID IP Waiver Is not a Good Strategy Journal Article
In: 2021.
@article{Bostyn2021,
title = {Why a COVID IP Waiver Is not a Good Strategy},
author = {Bostyn, S.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3843327},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-05-17},
abstract = {The COVID-19 pandemic has a profound influence on all aspects of society. The development of successful vaccines in record speed is almost a miracle. But despite the successful development and approval of multiple vaccines, many people still die of this terrible disease, and there is an urgent need to see more vaccines manufactured and distributed across the globe.
The proposed COVID-19 IP waiver has been touted by some to be the perfect solution to a terrible problem. We all agree that there is a terrible problem of insufficient vaccines to inoculate the world population.
An IP waiver is not a good strategy however, to tackle this crisis. There are multiple more effective solution conceivable which do not require a very disruptive IP waiver.
The problem of insufficient supply is much more complicated than a simple IP waiver suggests. This is a complex ecosystem, and there are many moving parts. Moreover, IP rights are only part of the problem relating to more supply of vaccine or therapeutics. In view of the complexities, it will probably take many months to negotiate any kind of IP waiver system that would be acceptable to all WTO member states, if consensus could be reached at all. And the end result is likely to satisfy very few if any countries.
The legality of an IP waiver can be doubted, and it would require retro-active effect, a concept that should be extremely sparingly used.
A multitude of complex issues needs to be sorted out. There are hundreds of patents to navigate. A waiver to the equally patented vaccine platform technology (covering many patents), which may be used to develop any other vaccine, will make those companies who have invested heavily into developing it very nervous indeed, to say the least.
Crucial manufacturing know-how is often not protected by IP rights, but is kept secret, and it will be difficult to force companies to disclose that information, also because one does not know what to ask for.
The present IP waiver proposal also provides for a disclosure of commercially very sensitive information. Companies did not have a chance to adapt their regulatory disclosure strategies to this new reality, which means that information which will be disclosed under the waiver could very well have a major negative impact on future innovation strategies, and may also hamper competitive advantage or leverage.
Market exclusivity is arguably not covered by the IP waiver, which means that separate national statutory intervention will be required to ensure that this market exclusivity is set aside, absent of which the IP waiver cannot have any practical effect.
A quick and determined use of compulsory licensing could be a better way forward, as they have the potential to be a powerful tool. There are inefficiencies in using the instrument however, and invoking them when the need is high will require a relatively long lead time before they sort practical effect. They also require additional statutory intervention to ensure that regulatory exclusivities do not block their practical effect. And they might not necessarily work as well with low and middle-income countries, who would have less leverage in the negotiations.
More efficient solutions can be arrived at by introducing hard clauses into contracts in the context of push and pull mechanisms. Those obligations are much more likely to result in more supply in the shorter to medium term if they are agreed upon long before the vaccine enters the market. It is obviously too late for the contracts that have been concluded in the past, but it should be a template for the future.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The COVID-19 pandemic has a profound influence on all aspects of society. The development of successful vaccines in record speed is almost a miracle. But despite the successful development and approval of multiple vaccines, many people still die of this terrible disease, and there is an urgent need to see more vaccines manufactured and distributed across the globe.
The proposed COVID-19 IP waiver has been touted by some to be the perfect solution to a terrible problem. We all agree that there is a terrible problem of insufficient vaccines to inoculate the world population.
An IP waiver is not a good strategy however, to tackle this crisis. There are multiple more effective solution conceivable which do not require a very disruptive IP waiver.
The problem of insufficient supply is much more complicated than a simple IP waiver suggests. This is a complex ecosystem, and there are many moving parts. Moreover, IP rights are only part of the problem relating to more supply of vaccine or therapeutics. In view of the complexities, it will probably take many months to negotiate any kind of IP waiver system that would be acceptable to all WTO member states, if consensus could be reached at all. And the end result is likely to satisfy very few if any countries.
The legality of an IP waiver can be doubted, and it would require retro-active effect, a concept that should be extremely sparingly used.
A multitude of complex issues needs to be sorted out. There are hundreds of patents to navigate. A waiver to the equally patented vaccine platform technology (covering many patents), which may be used to develop any other vaccine, will make those companies who have invested heavily into developing it very nervous indeed, to say the least.
Crucial manufacturing know-how is often not protected by IP rights, but is kept secret, and it will be difficult to force companies to disclose that information, also because one does not know what to ask for.
The present IP waiver proposal also provides for a disclosure of commercially very sensitive information. Companies did not have a chance to adapt their regulatory disclosure strategies to this new reality, which means that information which will be disclosed under the waiver could very well have a major negative impact on future innovation strategies, and may also hamper competitive advantage or leverage.
Market exclusivity is arguably not covered by the IP waiver, which means that separate national statutory intervention will be required to ensure that this market exclusivity is set aside, absent of which the IP waiver cannot have any practical effect.
A quick and determined use of compulsory licensing could be a better way forward, as they have the potential to be a powerful tool. There are inefficiencies in using the instrument however, and invoking them when the need is high will require a relatively long lead time before they sort practical effect. They also require additional statutory intervention to ensure that regulatory exclusivities do not block their practical effect. And they might not necessarily work as well with low and middle-income countries, who would have less leverage in the negotiations.
More efficient solutions can be arrived at by introducing hard clauses into contracts in the context of push and pull mechanisms. Those obligations are much more likely to result in more supply in the shorter to medium term if they are agreed upon long before the vaccine enters the market. It is obviously too late for the contracts that have been concluded in the past, but it should be a template for the future.
The proposed COVID-19 IP waiver has been touted by some to be the perfect solution to a terrible problem. We all agree that there is a terrible problem of insufficient vaccines to inoculate the world population.
An IP waiver is not a good strategy however, to tackle this crisis. There are multiple more effective solution conceivable which do not require a very disruptive IP waiver.
The problem of insufficient supply is much more complicated than a simple IP waiver suggests. This is a complex ecosystem, and there are many moving parts. Moreover, IP rights are only part of the problem relating to more supply of vaccine or therapeutics. In view of the complexities, it will probably take many months to negotiate any kind of IP waiver system that would be acceptable to all WTO member states, if consensus could be reached at all. And the end result is likely to satisfy very few if any countries.
The legality of an IP waiver can be doubted, and it would require retro-active effect, a concept that should be extremely sparingly used.
A multitude of complex issues needs to be sorted out. There are hundreds of patents to navigate. A waiver to the equally patented vaccine platform technology (covering many patents), which may be used to develop any other vaccine, will make those companies who have invested heavily into developing it very nervous indeed, to say the least.
Crucial manufacturing know-how is often not protected by IP rights, but is kept secret, and it will be difficult to force companies to disclose that information, also because one does not know what to ask for.
The present IP waiver proposal also provides for a disclosure of commercially very sensitive information. Companies did not have a chance to adapt their regulatory disclosure strategies to this new reality, which means that information which will be disclosed under the waiver could very well have a major negative impact on future innovation strategies, and may also hamper competitive advantage or leverage.
Market exclusivity is arguably not covered by the IP waiver, which means that separate national statutory intervention will be required to ensure that this market exclusivity is set aside, absent of which the IP waiver cannot have any practical effect.
A quick and determined use of compulsory licensing could be a better way forward, as they have the potential to be a powerful tool. There are inefficiencies in using the instrument however, and invoking them when the need is high will require a relatively long lead time before they sort practical effect. They also require additional statutory intervention to ensure that regulatory exclusivities do not block their practical effect. And they might not necessarily work as well with low and middle-income countries, who would have less leverage in the negotiations.
More efficient solutions can be arrived at by introducing hard clauses into contracts in the context of push and pull mechanisms. Those obligations are much more likely to result in more supply in the shorter to medium term if they are agreed upon long before the vaccine enters the market. It is obviously too late for the contracts that have been concluded in the past, but it should be a template for the future.
Ancel, M-E.; Binctin, N.; Drexl, J.; van Eechoud, M.; Ginsburg, J.C.; Kono, T.; Lee, G.; Matulionyte, R.; Treppoz, E.; Moura Vicente, D.
International Law Association’s Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Private International Law (“Kyoto Guidelines”): Applicable Law Journal Article
In: JIPITEC, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 44-73, 2021.
@article{Ancel2021,
title = {International Law Association’s Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Private International Law (“Kyoto Guidelines”): Applicable Law},
author = {Ancel, M-E. and Binctin, N. and Drexl, J. and van Eechoud, M. and Ginsburg, J.C. and Kono, T. and Lee, G. and Matulionyte, R. and Treppoz, E. and Moura Vicente, D.},
url = {https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-12-1-2021/5247/jipitec%20-12_1_2021_applicable_law.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-05-11},
journal = {JIPITEC},
volume = {12},
number = {1},
pages = {44-73},
abstract = {The chapter “Applicable Law” of the International Law Association’s Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Private International Law (“Kyoto Guidelines”) provides principles on the choice of law in international intellectual property matters. The Guidelines confirm the traditional principle of the lex loci protection is for the existence, transferability, scope and infringement of intellectual property rights. The law applicable to the initial ownership of registered rights is governed by the lex loci protection is whereas the law of the closest connection is applied to determine the ownership of copyright. For contracts, freedom of choice is acknowledged. With regard to ubiquitous or multi-state infringement and collective rights management in the field of copyright, the Guidelines suggest innovative solutions. Finally, the chapter contains a Guideline on the law applicable to the arbitrability of disputes.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
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.
van Eechoud, M.; as part of ILA Committee:
Annex Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Private International Law (“Kyoto Guidelines”) Journal Article
In: JIPITEC, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 86-93, 2021.
@article{onProperty2021,
title = {Annex Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Private International Law (“Kyoto Guidelines”)},
author = {van Eechoud, M. and as part of ILA Committee:},
url = {https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-12-1-2021/5252},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-05-11},
journal = {JIPITEC},
volume = {12},
number = {1},
pages = {86-93},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
van Gompel, S.
‘Non, non, rien n’a changé’: Over vergoedingsaanspraken voor makers uit hoofde van exploitatiecontracten Journal Article
In: Auteursrecht, vol. 2021, no. 1, pp. 3-9, 2021.
@article{vanGompel2021,
title = {‘Non, non, rien n’a chang\'{e}’: Over vergoedingsaanspraken voor makers uit hoofde van exploitatiecontracten},
author = {van Gompel, S.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Auteursrecht-2021-1.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-04-29},
journal = {Auteursrecht},
volume = {2021},
number = {1},
pages = {3-9},
abstract = {‘Auteurs en artiesten profiteren nog weinig van Wet Auteurscontractenrecht’, zo luidt de titel van het persbericht van het WODC bij de publicatie van het evaluatierapport van genoemde wet in oktober 2020. Makers geven onder meer aan dat zij hun aanspraak op een billijke vergoeding (art. 25c lid 1 Aw) of de aanvullende billijke vergoeding bij exploitatiesucces (art. 25d Aw) niet durven in te roepen of te handhaven jegens exploitanten. Het is daarom de vraag of de vergoeding die makers van exploitanten ontvangen voor de contractueel verleende exploitatiebevoegdheid van hun werken wel altijd ‘billijk’ is. Mede in het licht van art. 18 e.v. DSM-richtlijn, die eveneens beogen een passende en evenredige vergoeding voor auteurs en uitvoerende kunstenaars in exploitatiecontracten te waarborgen, bespreekt dit artikel juridische en praktische maatregelen om makers makkelijker in staat te stellen hun vergoedingsaanspraken uit exploitatiecontracten te effectueren.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
‘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.
van Gompel, S.
Annotatie bij Rb Amsterdam 10 september 2020 (Left Lane c.s. / Sony Music) Journal Article
In: Auteursrecht, no. 1, pp. 40-42, 2021.
@article{vanGompel2021b,
title = {Annotatie bij Rb Amsterdam 10 september 2020 (Left Lane c.s. / Sony Music)},
author = {van Gompel, S.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_Auteursrecht_2021-1.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-04-29},
journal = {Auteursrecht},
number = {1},
pages = {40-42},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Keller, P.
It’s 23 April 2021, so where is the Advocate General opinion in Case C-401/19 Poland v Parliament and Council? Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.
@article{Keller2021,
title = {It’s 23 April 2021, so where is the Advocate General opinion in Case C-401/19 Poland v Parliament and Council?},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/04/23/its-23-april-2021-so-where-is-the-advocate-general-opinion-in-case-c-401-19-poland-v-parliament-and-council/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-04-23},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
van Eechoud, M.
A Serpent Eating Its Tail: The Database Directive Meets the Open Data Directive Journal Article
In: IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 375-378, 2021, (Editorial).
@article{vanEechoud2021b,
title = {A Serpent Eating Its Tail: The Database Directive Meets the Open Data Directive},
author = {van Eechoud, M.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IIC_2021.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01049-7},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-04-14},
journal = {IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law },
volume = {52},
number = {4},
pages = {375-378},
abstract = {As part of its broader digital strategy, the European Commission has articulated a data strategy. Its aim is to help grow “the use of, and demand for, data and data-enabled products and services throughout the Single Market”. In the eyes of the EC, promoting wider availability and use of data would stimulate not just “greater productivity and competitive markets, but also improvements in health and well-being, environment, transparent governance and convenient public services”. That is quite a shopping list. The data strategy has ramifications for intellectual property law, especially for the sui generis database right enshrined in the 1996 Database Directive.},
note = {Editorial},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
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.