Intellectual property
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.
Trapova, A.; Quintais, J.
EU copyright law round up – first trimester of 2021 Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.
@article{Trapova2021b,
title = {EU copyright law round up \textendash first trimester of 2021},
author = {Trapova, A. and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/04/06/eu-copyright-law-round-up-first-trimester-of-2021/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-04-07},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
van Eechoud, M.
Nieuws in de platformeconomie Journal Article
In: De Hofvijver, vol. 11, no. 118, 2021.
@article{vanEechoud2021,
title = {Nieuws in de platformeconomie},
author = {van Eechoud, M.},
url = {https://www.montesquieu-instituut.nl/id/vlhef5g0pisa/nieuws/nieuws_in_de_platformeconomie},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-03-29},
journal = {De Hofvijver},
volume = {11},
number = {118},
abstract = {De media stond de afgelopen weken bol van het nieuws dat Google en Facebook op grond van een nieuwe Australische wet moeten gaan betalen voor het gebruik van ‘news content’. In de EU hebben we al een paar jaar zo’n wet, in de vorm van een richtlijn (2019/790) die inmiddels in de Wet op de naburige rechten is ge\"{i}mplementeerd. Deze zomer treed de herziene wet in werking en hebben uitgevers van perspublicaties aan het auteursrecht vergelijkbare exclusieve rechten ten aanzien van het online (commercieel) gebruik van hun digitale uitgaven. Net als in Australi\"{e} gebeurde, ging de totstandkoming van de Europese wet gepaard met groot retorisch geweld van zowel de kant van traditionele media als van platformen. Digitale platforms zouden advertentie-inkomsten stelen van kranten en rijk worden over de rug van traditionele media. Persuitgevers zouden voorstander zijn van een de-facto belasting op hyperlinks, gebrek aan innovatiekracht tonen en miskennen hoezeer sociale media en zoekmachines hun bereik exponentieel vergroten, en dat gratis.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
De media stond de afgelopen weken bol van het nieuws dat Google en Facebook op grond van een nieuwe Australische wet moeten gaan betalen voor het gebruik van ‘news content’. In de EU hebben we al een paar jaar zo’n wet, in de vorm van een richtlijn (2019/790) die inmiddels in de Wet op de naburige rechten is geïmplementeerd. Deze zomer treed de herziene wet in werking en hebben uitgevers van perspublicaties aan het auteursrecht vergelijkbare exclusieve rechten ten aanzien van het online (commercieel) gebruik van hun digitale uitgaven. Net als in Australië gebeurde, ging de totstandkoming van de Europese wet gepaard met groot retorisch geweld van zowel de kant van traditionele media als van platformen. Digitale platforms zouden advertentie-inkomsten stelen van kranten en rijk worden over de rug van traditionele media. Persuitgevers zouden voorstander zijn van een de-facto belasting op hyperlinks, gebrek aan innovatiekracht tonen en miskennen hoezeer sociale media en zoekmachines hun bereik exponentieel vergroten, en dat gratis.
Hilty, R.M.; Köklü, K.; Moscon, V.; Correa, C.; Dusollier, S.; Geiger, C.; Griffiths, J.; Grosse Ruse-Khan, H.; Kur, A.; Lin, X.; Markiewics, R.; Nérisson, S.; Peukert, A.; Senftleben, M.; Xalabarder, R.
Opinion: International Instrument on Permitted Uses in Copyright Law Journal Article
In: IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , vol. 52, pp. 62-67, 2021.
@article{Hilty2021,
title = {Opinion: International Instrument on Permitted Uses in Copyright Law},
author = {Hilty, R.M. and K\"{o}kl\"{u}, K. and Moscon, V. and Correa, C. and Dusollier, S. and Geiger, C. and Griffiths, J. and Grosse Ruse-Khan, H. and Kur, A. and Lin, X. and Markiewics, R. and N\'{e}risson, S. and Peukert, A. and Senftleben, M. and Xalabarder, R. },
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IIC_2021_opinion.pdf},
doi = {10.1007/s40319-020-00999-8},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-02-04},
journal = {IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law },
volume = {52},
pages = {62-67},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Keller, P.
Article 17: (Mis)understanding the intent of the legislator Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.
@article{Keller2021b,
title = {Article 17: (Mis)understanding the intent of the legislator},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/01/28/article-17-misunderstanding-the-intent-of-the-legislator/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-01-28},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Keller, P.
Divergence instead of guidance: the Article 17 implementation discussion in 2020 – Part 2 Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.
@article{Keller2021bb,
title = {Divergence instead of guidance: the Article 17 implementation discussion in 2020 \textendash Part 2},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/01/22/divergence-instead-of-guidance-the-article-17-implementation-discussion-in-2020-part-2/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-01-22},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Keller, P.
Divergence instead of guidance: the Article 17 implementation discussion in 2020 – Part 1 Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.
@article{Keller2021bb,
title = {Divergence instead of guidance: the Article 17 implementation discussion in 2020 \textendash Part 1},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/01/21/divergence-instead-of-guidance-the-article-17-implementation-discussion-in-2020-part-1/},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-01-21},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Keller, P.
Finnish Article 17 implementation proposal prohibits the use of automated upload filters Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020.
@article{Keller2020bb,
title = {Finnish Article 17 implementation proposal prohibits the use of automated upload filters},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/12/23/finnish-article-17-implementation-proposal-prohibits-the-use-of-automated-upload-filters/},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-12-23},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Hugenholtz, P.
Artikel 18-23 DSM-richtlijn: Exploitatiecontracten Journal Article
In: AMI, vol. 2020, no. 6, pp. 187-192, 2020.
@article{Hugenholtz2020h,
title = {Artikel 18-23 DSM-richtlijn: Exploitatiecontracten},
author = {Hugenholtz, P.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2020_6.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-12-18},
journal = {AMI},
volume = {2020},
number = {6},
pages = {187-192},
abstract = {De DSM-richtlijn van 17 april 2019 bevat een zestal bepalingen op het gebied van het auteurscontractenrecht. Artikelen 18 tot en met 23 hebben niet alleen betrekking op de ‘billijke vergoeding van auteurs en uitvoerende kunstenaars in exploitatiecontracten’, zoals het opschrift van titel IV, hoofdstuk 3 van de richtlijn belooft, maar ook op transparantie, geschillenbeslechting en het recht op herroeping van verleende rechten. Hoewel de meeste van deze onderwerpen reeds een plaats hebben gevonden in hoofdstuk 1a van de huidige Auteurswet, noopt de richtlijn op
een aantal punten tot wetswijziging. Dat geldt in het bijzonder voor de transparantieplicht, die in de huidige wet niet voorkomt. In deze bijdrage, onderdeel van een reeks van AMI-artikelen over de DSM-richtlijn, worden de auteurscontractenrechtelijke bepalingen van de richtlijn en de omzetting ervan besproken.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
De DSM-richtlijn van 17 april 2019 bevat een zestal bepalingen op het gebied van het auteurscontractenrecht. Artikelen 18 tot en met 23 hebben niet alleen betrekking op de ‘billijke vergoeding van auteurs en uitvoerende kunstenaars in exploitatiecontracten’, zoals het opschrift van titel IV, hoofdstuk 3 van de richtlijn belooft, maar ook op transparantie, geschillenbeslechting en het recht op herroeping van verleende rechten. Hoewel de meeste van deze onderwerpen reeds een plaats hebben gevonden in hoofdstuk 1a van de huidige Auteurswet, noopt de richtlijn op
een aantal punten tot wetswijziging. Dat geldt in het bijzonder voor de transparantieplicht, die in de huidige wet niet voorkomt. In deze bijdrage, onderdeel van een reeks van AMI-artikelen over de DSM-richtlijn, worden de auteurscontractenrechtelijke bepalingen van de richtlijn en de omzetting ervan besproken.
een aantal punten tot wetswijziging. Dat geldt in het bijzonder voor de transparantieplicht, die in de huidige wet niet voorkomt. In deze bijdrage, onderdeel van een reeks van AMI-artikelen over de DSM-richtlijn, worden de auteurscontractenrechtelijke bepalingen van de richtlijn en de omzetting ervan besproken.
Hugenholtz, P.; Quintais, J.; Gervais, D.J.
Trends and Developments in Artificial Intelligence: Challenges to Copyright Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020.
@article{Hugenholtz2020g,
title = {Trends and Developments in Artificial Intelligence: Challenges to Copyright},
author = {Hugenholtz, P. and Quintais, J. and Gervais, D.J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/12/16/trends-and-developments-in-artificial-intelligence-challenges-to-copyright/},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-12-17},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Bodó, B.; Antal, D.; Puha, Z.
In: PLoS ONE, vol. 15, no. 12, 2020.
@article{Bod\'{o}2020c,
title = {Can scholarly pirate libraries bridge the knowledge access gap? An empirical study on the structural conditions of book piracy in global and European academia},
author = {Bod\'{o}, B. and Antal, D. and Puha, Z.},
url = {https://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl=10.1371/journal.pone.0242509
},
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0242509},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-12-04},
journal = {PLoS ONE},
volume = {15},
number = {12},
abstract = {Library Genesis is one of the oldest and largest illegal scholarly book collections online. Without the authorization of copyright holders, this shadow library hosts and makes more than 2 million scholarly publications, monographs, and textbooks available. This paper analyzes a set of weblogs of one of the Library Genesis mirrors, provided to us by one of the service’s administrators. We reconstruct the social and economic factors that drive the global and European demand for illicit scholarly literature. In particular, we test if lower income regions can compensate for the shortcomings in legal access infrastructures by more intensive use of illicit open resources. We found that while richer regions are the most intensive users of shadow libraries, poorer regions face structural limitations that prevent them from fully capitalizing on freely accessible knowledge. We discuss these findings in the wider context of open access publishing, and point out that open access knowledge, if not met with proper knowledge absorption infrastructures, has limited usefulness in addressing knowledge access and production inequalities.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Library Genesis is one of the oldest and largest illegal scholarly book collections online. Without the authorization of copyright holders, this shadow library hosts and makes more than 2 million scholarly publications, monographs, and textbooks available. This paper analyzes a set of weblogs of one of the Library Genesis mirrors, provided to us by one of the service’s administrators. We reconstruct the social and economic factors that drive the global and European demand for illicit scholarly literature. In particular, we test if lower income regions can compensate for the shortcomings in legal access infrastructures by more intensive use of illicit open resources. We found that while richer regions are the most intensive users of shadow libraries, poorer regions face structural limitations that prevent them from fully capitalizing on freely accessible knowledge. We discuss these findings in the wider context of open access publishing, and point out that open access knowledge, if not met with proper knowledge absorption infrastructures, has limited usefulness in addressing knowledge access and production inequalities.
Hugenholtz, P.; Quintais, J.; Gervais, D.J.; Hartmann, C.; Allan, J.
Trends and Developments in Artificial Intelligence: Challenges to the Intellectual Property Rights Framework: Final Report Technical Report
2020, (Report written for the European Commission by P.B. Hugenholtz, D. Gervais, J.P. Quintais, C. Hartmann & J. Allan, completed September 2020. ISBN: 97892762244488).
@techreport{Hugenholtz2020f,
title = {Trends and Developments in Artificial Intelligence: Challenges to the Intellectual Property Rights Framework: Final Report},
author = {Hugenholtz, P. and Quintais, J. and Gervais, D.J. and Hartmann, C. and Allan, J.},
url = {https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/394345a1-2ecf-11eb-b27b-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Trends_and_Developments_in_Artificial_Intelligence-1.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-11-27},
abstract = {This report examines copyright and patent protection in Europe for AI-assisted outputs in general and in three priority domains: science (in particular, meteorology), media (journalism), and pharmaceutical research. It comprises an assessment of the state of the art of uses of AI in the three focus areas, and a legal analysis of how IP laws currently apply to AI-assisted creative and innovative outputs. The report concludes that the current state of the art in AI does not require or justify immediate substantive changes in copyright and patent law in Europe. The existing concepts of copyright and patent law are sufficiently abstract and flexible to meet the current challenges from AI. In addition, related rights regimes potentially extend to ‘authorless’ AI productions in a variety of sectors, and the sui generis database right may offer protection to AI-produced databases resulting from substantial investment. However, taking into account the practical implications of AI technologies, the report identifies specific avenues for future legal reform (if justified by empirical evidence), offers recommendations for improvements in the application of existing rules (e.g. via guidelines), and highlights the need to study the role of alternative IP regimes to protect AI-assisted outputs, such as trade secret protection, unfair competition and contract law.},
note = {Report written for the European Commission by P.B. Hugenholtz, D. Gervais, J.P. Quintais, C. Hartmann \& J. Allan, completed September 2020. ISBN: 97892762244488},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
This report examines copyright and patent protection in Europe for AI-assisted outputs in general and in three priority domains: science (in particular, meteorology), media (journalism), and pharmaceutical research. It comprises an assessment of the state of the art of uses of AI in the three focus areas, and a legal analysis of how IP laws currently apply to AI-assisted creative and innovative outputs. The report concludes that the current state of the art in AI does not require or justify immediate substantive changes in copyright and patent law in Europe. The existing concepts of copyright and patent law are sufficiently abstract and flexible to meet the current challenges from AI. In addition, related rights regimes potentially extend to ‘authorless’ AI productions in a variety of sectors, and the sui generis database right may offer protection to AI-produced databases resulting from substantial investment. However, taking into account the practical implications of AI technologies, the report identifies specific avenues for future legal reform (if justified by empirical evidence), offers recommendations for improvements in the application of existing rules (e.g. via guidelines), and highlights the need to study the role of alternative IP regimes to protect AI-assisted outputs, such as trade secret protection, unfair competition and contract law.
Quintais, J.
CIPIL Evening Webinar: 'Article 17 and the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms' Online
2020.
@online{Quintais2020d,
title = {CIPIL Evening Webinar: 'Article 17 and the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms' },
author = {Quintais, J.},
url = {https://youtu.be/f1tGV_IdueQ },
year = {2020},
date = {2020-11-17},
abstract = {This presentation addresses the hottest topic in EU copyright law and policy: Article 17 of the new Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM) Directive (2019/790). The CDSM Directive is the culmination of a controversial political and legislative process at EU level. None of its provisions has caused greater debate than Article 17, which introduces a new liability regime for "online content-sharing service providers". These include most user-generated content platforms hosting copyright-protected content accessed daily by millions of individuals in the EU and across the globe. Even before the CDSM Directive is implemented into national law, the issues surrounding Article 17 have already spilled out to the policy and judicial arenas. At the policy level, the debates taking place in a number of Commission-led Stakeholder Dialogues have laid bare many of the unresolved challenges ahead for national legislators and courts. At the judicial level, the Polish government has filed an action for annulment with the CJEU under Article 263 TFEU, focusing on the most problematic aspects of Article 17. This presentation will first place Article 17 into its broader EU policy context of the discussion on the responsibilities of online platforms \textendash from the agenda on "Tackling Illegal Content Online" to the Digital Services Act \textendash and the narrow copyright context regarding the liability of intermediary platforms for third-party content they host. This will be followed by an explanation of the complex mechanics of Article 17 and an identification of some of its fundamental problems. Finally, some tentative proposals will be advanced for how to begin to address such problems, focusing on the core issues of licensing mechanisms and fundamental rights safeguards.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}
This presentation addresses the hottest topic in EU copyright law and policy: Article 17 of the new Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM) Directive (2019/790). The CDSM Directive is the culmination of a controversial political and legislative process at EU level. None of its provisions has caused greater debate than Article 17, which introduces a new liability regime for "online content-sharing service providers". These include most user-generated content platforms hosting copyright-protected content accessed daily by millions of individuals in the EU and across the globe. Even before the CDSM Directive is implemented into national law, the issues surrounding Article 17 have already spilled out to the policy and judicial arenas. At the policy level, the debates taking place in a number of Commission-led Stakeholder Dialogues have laid bare many of the unresolved challenges ahead for national legislators and courts. At the judicial level, the Polish government has filed an action for annulment with the CJEU under Article 263 TFEU, focusing on the most problematic aspects of Article 17. This presentation will first place Article 17 into its broader EU policy context of the discussion on the responsibilities of online platforms – from the agenda on "Tackling Illegal Content Online" to the Digital Services Act – and the narrow copyright context regarding the liability of intermediary platforms for third-party content they host. This will be followed by an explanation of the complex mechanics of Article 17 and an identification of some of its fundamental problems. Finally, some tentative proposals will be advanced for how to begin to address such problems, focusing on the core issues of licensing mechanisms and fundamental rights safeguards.
Senftleben, M.
The Copyright/Trademark Interface: How the Expansion of Trademark Protection Is Stifling Cultural Creativity Book
Kluwer Law International, 2020, ISBN: 9789403523705.
@book{nokey,
title = {The Copyright/Trademark Interface: How the Expansion of Trademark Protection Is Stifling Cultural Creativity},
author = {Senftleben, M.},
isbn = {9789403523705},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-11-12},
number = {44},
publisher = {Kluwer Law International},
series = {Information Law Series},
abstract = {The Copyright/Trademark Interface is an exceptional analysis of the clash between culture and commerce, and the imbalances caused by protection overlaps arising from cumulative copyright and trademark protection. This book highlights the corrosive effect of indefinitely renewable trademark rights. It underscores the necessity to safeguard central preconditions for the proper functioning of the copyright system in society at large: the freedom to use pre-existing works as reference points for the artistic discourse and building blocks for new creations need to ensure the constant enrichment of the public domain. The registration of cultural icons as trademarks has become a standard protection strategy in contemporary cultural productions. It plays an augmented role in the area of cultural heritage. Attempts to register and ‘evergreen’ the protection of cultural signs, ranging from ‘Mickey Mouse’ to the ‘Mona Lisa’, are no longer unusual. This phenomenon, which is characterized by the EFTA Court as trademark registrations and is triggered by ‘commercial greed’, has become typical of an era where trademark law is employed strategically to restrain or eliminate cultural symbols from the public domain.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}
The Copyright/Trademark Interface is an exceptional analysis of the clash between culture and commerce, and the imbalances caused by protection overlaps arising from cumulative copyright and trademark protection. This book highlights the corrosive effect of indefinitely renewable trademark rights. It underscores the necessity to safeguard central preconditions for the proper functioning of the copyright system in society at large: the freedom to use pre-existing works as reference points for the artistic discourse and building blocks for new creations need to ensure the constant enrichment of the public domain. The registration of cultural icons as trademarks has become a standard protection strategy in contemporary cultural productions. It plays an augmented role in the area of cultural heritage. Attempts to register and ‘evergreen’ the protection of cultural signs, ranging from ‘Mickey Mouse’ to the ‘Mona Lisa’, are no longer unusual. This phenomenon, which is characterized by the EFTA Court as trademark registrations and is triggered by ‘commercial greed’, has become typical of an era where trademark law is employed strategically to restrain or eliminate cultural symbols from the public domain.
Keller, P.
CJEU hearing in the Polish challenge to Article 17: Not even the supporters of the provision agree on how it should work Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020.
@article{Keller2020d,
title = {CJEU hearing in the Polish challenge to Article 17: Not even the supporters of the provision agree on how it should work},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/11/11/cjeu-hearing-in-the-polish-challenge-to-article-17-not-even-the-supporters-of-the-provision-agree-on-how-it-should-work/},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-11-11},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Senftleben, M.; Angelopoulos, C.
2020, (Amsterdam: Institute for Information Law & Cambridge: Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
@techreport{Senftleben2020e,
title = {The Odyssey of the Prohibition on General Monitoring Obligations on the Way to the Digital Services Act: Between Article 15 of the E-Commerce Directive and Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market},
author = {Senftleben, M. and Angelopoulos, C.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3717022},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-10-29},
abstract = {EU law provides explicitly that intermediaries may not be obliged to monitor their service in a general manner in order to detect and prevent the illegal activity of their users. However, a misunderstanding of the difference between monitoring specific content and monitoring FOR specific content is a recurrent theme in the debate on intermediary liability and a central driver of the controversy surrounding it. Rightly understood, a prohibited general monitoring obligation arises whenever content \textendash no matter how specifically it is defined \textendash must be identified among the totality of the content on a platform. The moment platform content must be screened in its entirety, the monitoring obligation acquires an excessive, general nature. Against this background, a content moderation duty can only be deemed permissible if it is specific in respect of both the protected subject matter and potential infringers.
This requirement of 'double specificity' is of particular importance because it prevents encroachments upon fundamental rights. The jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union has shed light on the anchorage of the general monitoring ban in primary EU law, in particular the right to the protection of personal data, the freedom of expression and information, the freedom to conduct a business, and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market. Due to their higher rank in the norm hierarchy, these legal guarantees constitute common ground for the application of the general monitoring prohibition in secondary EU legislation, namely Article 15(1) of the E-Commerce Directive ('ECD') and Article 17(8) of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market ('CDSMD').
With regard to the Digital Services Act (‘DSA’), this result of the analysis implies that any further manifestation of the general monitoring ban in the DSA would have to be construed and applied \textendash in the light of applicable CJEU case law \textendash as a safeguard against encroachments upon the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms. If the final text of the DSA does not contain a reiteration of the prohibition of general monitoring obligations known from Article 15(1) ECD and Article 17(8) CDSMD, the regulation of internet service provider liability, duties of care and injunctions would still have to avoid inroads into the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms and observe the principle of proportionality. The double specificity requirement plays a central role in this respect.},
note = {Amsterdam: Institute for Information Law \& Cambridge: Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
EU law provides explicitly that intermediaries may not be obliged to monitor their service in a general manner in order to detect and prevent the illegal activity of their users. However, a misunderstanding of the difference between monitoring specific content and monitoring FOR specific content is a recurrent theme in the debate on intermediary liability and a central driver of the controversy surrounding it. Rightly understood, a prohibited general monitoring obligation arises whenever content – no matter how specifically it is defined – must be identified among the totality of the content on a platform. The moment platform content must be screened in its entirety, the monitoring obligation acquires an excessive, general nature. Against this background, a content moderation duty can only be deemed permissible if it is specific in respect of both the protected subject matter and potential infringers.
This requirement of 'double specificity' is of particular importance because it prevents encroachments upon fundamental rights. The jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union has shed light on the anchorage of the general monitoring ban in primary EU law, in particular the right to the protection of personal data, the freedom of expression and information, the freedom to conduct a business, and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market. Due to their higher rank in the norm hierarchy, these legal guarantees constitute common ground for the application of the general monitoring prohibition in secondary EU legislation, namely Article 15(1) of the E-Commerce Directive ('ECD') and Article 17(8) of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market ('CDSMD').
With regard to the Digital Services Act (‘DSA’), this result of the analysis implies that any further manifestation of the general monitoring ban in the DSA would have to be construed and applied – in the light of applicable CJEU case law – as a safeguard against encroachments upon the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms. If the final text of the DSA does not contain a reiteration of the prohibition of general monitoring obligations known from Article 15(1) ECD and Article 17(8) CDSMD, the regulation of internet service provider liability, duties of care and injunctions would still have to avoid inroads into the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms and observe the principle of proportionality. The double specificity requirement plays a central role in this respect.
van Gompel, S.; Hugenholtz, P.; Poort, J.; Schumacher, L.D.; Visser, D.
Evaluatie Wet Auteurscontractenrecht: Eindrapport Technical Report
2020.
@techreport{vanGompel2020b,
title = {Evaluatie Wet Auteurscontractenrecht: Eindrapport},
author = {van Gompel, S. and Hugenholtz, P. and Poort, J. and Schumacher, L.D. and Visser, D.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/evaluatie_wet_auteurscontractenrecht_2020.pdf
},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-10-29},
urldate = {2020-10-29},
abstract = {Onderzoek in opdracht van het Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC), ministerie van Justitie \& Veiligheid.
Van de Wet Auteurscontractenrecht, die ten doel heeft om de contractuele positie van auteurs en uitvoerende kunstenaars te versterken, wordt in de praktijk nog weinig gebruik gemaakt. De Wet, die in 2015 als een nieuw onderdeel van de Auteurswet werd ingevoerd, belooft auteurs en artiesten die met exploitanten in zee gaan een ‘billijke vergoeding', geeft makers de kans om contracten open te breken en verbiedt oneerlijke contractsbepalingen. Auteurs en artiesten blijken maar zelden op de bepalingen van de Wet een beroep te doen. Daarbij lijkt de angst voor verlies aan opdrachten of om op een zwarte lijst te komen een belangrijke rol te spelen. Ook blijkt de door de Wet in het leven geroepen laagdrempelige geschillenprocedure nauwelijks te functioneren. Dit zijn enkele van de conclusies van een praktijkevaluatie van de Wet Auteurscontractenrecht die door onderzoekers van de Universiteit van Amsterdam en de Universiteit Leiden in opdracht van het WODC is uitgevoerd.
See also the summary and conclusions in English here:
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Evaluatie-ACR-Eindrapport-Summary-and-conclusions.pdf
https://www.wodc.nl/wodc-nieuws-2020/auteurscontractenrecht.aspx},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
Onderzoek in opdracht van het Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC), ministerie van Justitie & Veiligheid.
Van de Wet Auteurscontractenrecht, die ten doel heeft om de contractuele positie van auteurs en uitvoerende kunstenaars te versterken, wordt in de praktijk nog weinig gebruik gemaakt. De Wet, die in 2015 als een nieuw onderdeel van de Auteurswet werd ingevoerd, belooft auteurs en artiesten die met exploitanten in zee gaan een ‘billijke vergoeding', geeft makers de kans om contracten open te breken en verbiedt oneerlijke contractsbepalingen. Auteurs en artiesten blijken maar zelden op de bepalingen van de Wet een beroep te doen. Daarbij lijkt de angst voor verlies aan opdrachten of om op een zwarte lijst te komen een belangrijke rol te spelen. Ook blijkt de door de Wet in het leven geroepen laagdrempelige geschillenprocedure nauwelijks te functioneren. Dit zijn enkele van de conclusies van een praktijkevaluatie van de Wet Auteurscontractenrecht die door onderzoekers van de Universiteit van Amsterdam en de Universiteit Leiden in opdracht van het WODC is uitgevoerd.
See also the summary and conclusions in English here:
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Evaluatie-ACR-Eindrapport-Summary-and-conclusions.pdf
https://www.wodc.nl/wodc-nieuws-2020/auteurscontractenrecht.aspx
Hugenholtz, P.
Annotatie bij HvJ EU 29 juli 2019, C-469/17 (Funke), C-516/17 (Spiegel) & C-4476/17 (Pelham) Journal Article
In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, no. 43, pp. 6068-6073, 2020.
@article{Hugenholtz2020e,
title = {Annotatie bij HvJ EU 29 juli 2019, C-469/17 (Funke), C-516/17 (Spiegel) \& C-4476/17 (Pelham)},
author = {Hugenholtz, P.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2020_354.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-10-23},
journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie},
number = {43},
pages = {6068-6073},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Senftleben, M.
Institutionalized Algorithmic Enforcement - The Pros and Cons of the EU Approach to UGC Platform Liability Journal Article
In: Florida International University Law Review, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 299-328, 2020.
@article{Senftleben2020,
title = {Institutionalized Algorithmic Enforcement - The Pros and Cons of the EU Approach to UGC Platform Liability},
author = {Senftleben, M.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3565175
https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/lawreview/vol14/iss2/11/},
doi = {10.25148/lawrev.14.2.11},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-10-20},
journal = {Florida International University Law Review},
volume = {14},
number = {2},
pages = {299-328},
abstract = {Algorithmic copyright enforcement \textendash the use of automated filtering tools to detect infringing content before it appears on the internet \textendash has a deep impact on the freedom of users to upload and share information. Instead of presuming that user-generated content ("UGC") does not amount to infringement unless copyright owners take action and provide proof, the default position of automated filtering systems is that every upload is suspicious and that copyright owners are entitled to ex ante control over the sharing of information online. If platform providers voluntarily introduce algorithmic enforcement measures, this may be seen as a private decision following from the freedom of companies to run their business as they wish. If, however, copyright legislation institutionalizes algorithmic enforcement and imposes a legal obligation on platform providers to employ automated filtering tools, the law itself transforms copyright into a censorship and filtering instrument. Nonetheless, the new EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (“DSM Directive”) follows this path and requires the employment of automated filtering tools to ensure that unauthorized protected content does not populate UGC platforms. The new EU rules on UGC licensing and screening will inevitably lead to the adoption of algorithmic enforcement measures in practice. Without automated content control, UGC platforms will be unable to escape liability for infringing user uploads.
To provide a complete picture, however, it is important to also shed light on counterbalances which may distinguish this new, institutionalized form of algorithmic enforcement from known content filtering tools that have evolved as voluntary measures in the private sector. The DSM Directive underlines the necessity to safeguard user freedoms that support transformative, creative remixes and mash-ups of pre-existing content. This feature of the new legislation may offer important incentives to develop algorithmic tools that go beyond the mere identification of unauthorized takings from protected works. It has the potential to encourage content assessment mechanisms that factor the degree of transformative effort and user creativity into the equation. As a result, more balanced content filtering tools may emerge in the EU. Against this background, the analysis shows that the new EU legislation not only escalates the use of algorithmic enforcement measures that already commenced in the private sector years ago. If rightly implemented, it may also add an important nuance to existing content identification tools and alleviate the problems arising from reliance on automated filtering mechanisms.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Algorithmic copyright enforcement – the use of automated filtering tools to detect infringing content before it appears on the internet – has a deep impact on the freedom of users to upload and share information. Instead of presuming that user-generated content ("UGC") does not amount to infringement unless copyright owners take action and provide proof, the default position of automated filtering systems is that every upload is suspicious and that copyright owners are entitled to ex ante control over the sharing of information online. If platform providers voluntarily introduce algorithmic enforcement measures, this may be seen as a private decision following from the freedom of companies to run their business as they wish. If, however, copyright legislation institutionalizes algorithmic enforcement and imposes a legal obligation on platform providers to employ automated filtering tools, the law itself transforms copyright into a censorship and filtering instrument. Nonetheless, the new EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (“DSM Directive”) follows this path and requires the employment of automated filtering tools to ensure that unauthorized protected content does not populate UGC platforms. The new EU rules on UGC licensing and screening will inevitably lead to the adoption of algorithmic enforcement measures in practice. Without automated content control, UGC platforms will be unable to escape liability for infringing user uploads.
To provide a complete picture, however, it is important to also shed light on counterbalances which may distinguish this new, institutionalized form of algorithmic enforcement from known content filtering tools that have evolved as voluntary measures in the private sector. The DSM Directive underlines the necessity to safeguard user freedoms that support transformative, creative remixes and mash-ups of pre-existing content. This feature of the new legislation may offer important incentives to develop algorithmic tools that go beyond the mere identification of unauthorized takings from protected works. It has the potential to encourage content assessment mechanisms that factor the degree of transformative effort and user creativity into the equation. As a result, more balanced content filtering tools may emerge in the EU. Against this background, the analysis shows that the new EU legislation not only escalates the use of algorithmic enforcement measures that already commenced in the private sector years ago. If rightly implemented, it may also add an important nuance to existing content identification tools and alleviate the problems arising from reliance on automated filtering mechanisms.
To provide a complete picture, however, it is important to also shed light on counterbalances which may distinguish this new, institutionalized form of algorithmic enforcement from known content filtering tools that have evolved as voluntary measures in the private sector. The DSM Directive underlines the necessity to safeguard user freedoms that support transformative, creative remixes and mash-ups of pre-existing content. This feature of the new legislation may offer important incentives to develop algorithmic tools that go beyond the mere identification of unauthorized takings from protected works. It has the potential to encourage content assessment mechanisms that factor the degree of transformative effort and user creativity into the equation. As a result, more balanced content filtering tools may emerge in the EU. Against this background, the analysis shows that the new EU legislation not only escalates the use of algorithmic enforcement measures that already commenced in the private sector years ago. If rightly implemented, it may also add an important nuance to existing content identification tools and alleviate the problems arising from reliance on automated filtering mechanisms.
Senftleben, M.; Buijtelaar, L.D.
Robot Creativity: An Incentive-Based Neighbouring Rights Approach Journal Article Forthcoming
In: European Intellectual Property Review, vol. 42, no. 12, Forthcoming.
@article{Senftleben2020d,
title = {Robot Creativity: An Incentive-Based Neighbouring Rights Approach},
author = {Senftleben, M. and Buijtelaar, L.D.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3707741},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-10-13},
journal = {European Intellectual Property Review},
volume = {42},
number = {12},
abstract = {Today texts, paintings and songs need no longer be the result of human creativity. Advanced artificial intelligence (AI) systems are capable of generating creations that can hardly be distinguished from those of authors of flesh and blood. This development raises the question whether AI-generated works could be eligible for copyright protection. In the following analysis, we explore this question. After a discussion of the traditional copyright requirement of human creativity, the rationales underlying copyright protection \textendash in particular the utilitarian incentive theory \textendash will serve as a compass to decide on the grant of protection and delineate the scope of exclusive rights. In addition, the analysis will address the question who the owner of protected AI creations should be. Finally, the discussion of pros and cons of protection will be placed in the broader context of competing policy goals and legal obligations, such as the prospect of enriching the public domain and the question of liability for AI creations that infringe the rights of third parties.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {forthcoming},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Today texts, paintings and songs need no longer be the result of human creativity. Advanced artificial intelligence (AI) systems are capable of generating creations that can hardly be distinguished from those of authors of flesh and blood. This development raises the question whether AI-generated works could be eligible for copyright protection. In the following analysis, we explore this question. After a discussion of the traditional copyright requirement of human creativity, the rationales underlying copyright protection – in particular the utilitarian incentive theory – will serve as a compass to decide on the grant of protection and delineate the scope of exclusive rights. In addition, the analysis will address the question who the owner of protected AI creations should be. Finally, the discussion of pros and cons of protection will be placed in the broader context of competing policy goals and legal obligations, such as the prospect of enriching the public domain and the question of liability for AI creations that infringe the rights of third parties.
Hugenholtz, P.
De kunstmatige maker: over de gevolgen van het Endstra-arrest voor de bescherming van artificiële creaties Journal Article
In: Intellectuele Eigendom & Reclamerecht (IER), no. 5, pp. 276-280, 2020.
@article{Hugenholtz2020d,
title = {De kunstmatige maker: over de gevolgen van het Endstra-arrest voor de bescherming van artifici\"{e}le creaties},
author = {Hugenholtz, P.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IER_2020_5.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-10-01},
journal = {Intellectuele Eigendom \& Reclamerecht (IER)},
number = {5},
pages = {276-280},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Husovec, M.; Quintais, J.
How to License Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms Journal Article
In: 2020.
@article{Husovec2020c,
title = {How to License Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms},
author = {Husovec, M. and Quintais, J.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3463011},
doi = {10.2139/ssrn.3463011},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-09-29},
abstract = {Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive is a major Internet policy experiment of our decade. The provision fundamentally changes copyright regulation of certain digital platforms. However, the precise nature of art. 17 is far from clear. How does it fit the existing structure of EU copyright law and doctrine? How can the Member States implement it? These are the questions at the heart of this article. To answer them, we start by examining the nature and structure of the right prescribed in art. 17. The exact qualification brings important legal consequences. Among others, it determines the conditions imposed by EU law and international law on national implementations. After reviewing different interpretation options, we conclude that art. 17 introduces either a special or a new sui generis right, both of which allow significant margin of discretion for Member States, especially as regards licensing mechanisms and exceptions.
[This is a revised and updated version of a working paper first published in October 2019]},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive is a major Internet policy experiment of our decade. The provision fundamentally changes copyright regulation of certain digital platforms. However, the precise nature of art. 17 is far from clear. How does it fit the existing structure of EU copyright law and doctrine? How can the Member States implement it? These are the questions at the heart of this article. To answer them, we start by examining the nature and structure of the right prescribed in art. 17. The exact qualification brings important legal consequences. Among others, it determines the conditions imposed by EU law and international law on national implementations. After reviewing different interpretation options, we conclude that art. 17 introduces either a special or a new sui generis right, both of which allow significant margin of discretion for Member States, especially as regards licensing mechanisms and exceptions.
[This is a revised and updated version of a working paper first published in October 2019]
Husovec, M.; Quintais, J.
Article 17 of the Copyright Directive: Why the German implementation proposal is compatible with EU law – Part 2 Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020.
@article{Husovec2020b,
title = {Article 17 of the Copyright Directive: Why the German implementation proposal is compatible with EU law \textendash Part 2},
author = {Husovec, M. and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/08/28/article-17-of-the-copyright-directive-why-the-german-implementation-proposal-is-compatible-with-eu-law-part-2/?doing_wp_cron=1598609159.3323481082916259765625},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-08-28},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Husovec, M.; Quintais, J.
Article 17 of the Copyright Directive: Why the German implementation proposal is compatible with EU law – Part 1 Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020.
@article{Husovec2020,
title = {Article 17 of the Copyright Directive: Why the German implementation proposal is compatible with EU law \textendash Part 1},
author = {Husovec, M. and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/08/26/article-17-of-the-copyright-directive-why-the-german-implementation-proposal-is-compatible-with-eu-law-part-1/},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-08-27},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Cooper Dreyfuss, R.; van Eechoud, M.
Choice of Law in EU Trade Secrecy Cases Book Chapter
In: Chapter 10, pp. 171-191, 2020.
@inbook{Dreyfuss2020,
title = {Choice of Law in EU Trade Secrecy Cases},
author = {Cooper Dreyfuss, R. and van Eechoud, M.},
url = {https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781788973335/9781788973335.xml},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788973342},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-08-27},
pages = {171-191},
chapter = {10},
abstract = {Chapter in: The Harmonization and Protection of Trade Secrets in the EU: An Appraisal of the EU Directive, J. Schovsbo, T. Minssen \& T. Riis eds., Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020. ISBN: 9781788973335.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}
Chapter in: The Harmonization and Protection of Trade Secrets in the EU: An Appraisal of the EU Directive, J. Schovsbo, T. Minssen & T. Riis eds., Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020. ISBN: 9781788973335.
Buijtelaar, L.D.; Senftleben, M.
Auteursrecht op robotcreaties? Een analyse op basis van de incentivetheorie Journal Article
In: AMI, no. 3-4, pp. 77-93, 2020.
@article{Buijtelaar2020,
title = {Auteursrecht op robotcreaties? Een analyse op basis van de incentivetheorie},
author = {Buijtelaar, L.D. and Senftleben, M.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2020_3_4_77.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-07-24},
journal = {AMI},
number = {3-4},
pages = {77-93},
abstract = {Vandaag de dag zijn teksten, schilderijen en liedjes niet noodzakelijkerwijs het resultaat van menselijke creativiteit. Geavanceerde robotsystemen zijn in staat om output te genereren die nauwelijks te onderscheiden is van de werken van makers van vlees en bloed. Dit doet de vraag rijzen of door robots gegenereerde creaties in aanmerking kunnen komen voor auteursrechtelijke bescherming. In de volgende analyse staat deze vraag centraal. Na een inleidende bespreking van het traditionele vereiste van menselijke creativiteit in het auteursrecht dienen de ratio’s van auteursrechtelijke bescherming \textendash met name de economische incentivetheorie \textendash als maatstaf om over nut en noodzaak van de toekenning van bescherming te beslissen. Voorts wordt aandacht besteed aan de vraag wie de houder van rechten op robotcreaties zou kunnen zijn. Ten slotte vindt een afweging plaats van de voor- en nadelen van bescherming, mede in het licht van de mogelijkheid om robotcreaties vrij te laten en het publieke domein te verrijken.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Vandaag de dag zijn teksten, schilderijen en liedjes niet noodzakelijkerwijs het resultaat van menselijke creativiteit. Geavanceerde robotsystemen zijn in staat om output te genereren die nauwelijks te onderscheiden is van de werken van makers van vlees en bloed. Dit doet de vraag rijzen of door robots gegenereerde creaties in aanmerking kunnen komen voor auteursrechtelijke bescherming. In de volgende analyse staat deze vraag centraal. Na een inleidende bespreking van het traditionele vereiste van menselijke creativiteit in het auteursrecht dienen de ratio’s van auteursrechtelijke bescherming – met name de economische incentivetheorie – als maatstaf om over nut en noodzaak van de toekenning van bescherming te beslissen. Voorts wordt aandacht besteed aan de vraag wie de houder van rechten op robotcreaties zou kunnen zijn. Ten slotte vindt een afweging plaats van de voor- en nadelen van bescherming, mede in het licht van de mogelijkheid om robotcreaties vrij te laten en het publieke domein te verrijken.
Hugenholtz, P.
Annotatie bij Rb Amsterdam 1 november 2019 (Van Uem / De Persgroep) Journal Article
In: AMI, no. 3-4, pp. 101-105, 2020.
@article{Hugenholtz2020c,
title = {Annotatie bij Rb Amsterdam 1 november 2019 (Van Uem / De Persgroep)},
author = {Hugenholtz, P.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_AMI_2020_3_4.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-07-24},
journal = {AMI},
number = {3-4},
pages = {101-105},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Keller, P.
Hungary’s fast tracked implementation of Article 5 CDSM directive in response to the pandemic Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020.
@article{Keller2020c,
title = {Hungary’s fast tracked implementation of Article 5 CDSM directive in response to the pandemic},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/06/23/hungarys-fast-tracked-implementation-of-article-5-cdsm-directive-in-response-to-the-pandemic/?doing_wp_cron=1593173611.1108019351959228515625},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-06-26},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Senftleben, M.
Flexibility Grave – Partial Reproduction Focus and Closed System Fetishism in CJEU, Pelham Journal Article
In: IIC, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 751-769, 2020.
@article{Senftleben2020c,
title = {Flexibility Grave \textendash Partial Reproduction Focus and Closed System Fetishism in CJEU, Pelham},
author = {Senftleben, M.},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-020-00940-z},
doi = {10.1007/s40319-020-00940-z},
year = {2020},
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 = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
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.
Flynn, S.; Geiger, C.; Quintais, J.; Margoni, T.; Sag, M.; Guibault, L.; Carroll, M.
Implementing User Rights for Research in the Field of Artificial Intelligence: A Call for International Action Journal Article Forthcoming
In: European Intellectual Property Review, vol. 2020, no. 7, Forthcoming.
@article{Flynn2020b,
title = {Implementing User Rights for Research in the Field of Artificial Intelligence: A Call for International Action},
author = {Flynn, S. and Geiger, C. and Quintais, J. and Margoni, T. and Sag, M. and Guibault, L. and Carroll, M.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3578819},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-04-21},
journal = {European Intellectual Property Review},
volume = {2020},
number = {7},
abstract = {Last year, before the onset of a global pandemic highlighted the critical and urgent need for technology-enabled scientific research, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) launched an inquiry into issues at the intersection of intellectual property (IP) and artificial intelligence (AI). We contributed comments to that inquiry, with a focus on the application of copyright to the use of text and data mining (TDM) technology. This article describes some of the most salient points of our submission and concludes by stressing the need for international leadership on this important topic. WIPO could help fill the current gap on international leadership, including by providing guidance on the diverse mechanisms that countries may use to authorize TDM research and serving as a forum for the adoption of rules permitting cross-border TDM projects.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {forthcoming},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Last year, before the onset of a global pandemic highlighted the critical and urgent need for technology-enabled scientific research, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) launched an inquiry into issues at the intersection of intellectual property (IP) and artificial intelligence (AI). We contributed comments to that inquiry, with a focus on the application of copyright to the use of text and data mining (TDM) technology. This article describes some of the most salient points of our submission and concludes by stressing the need for international leadership on this important topic. WIPO could help fill the current gap on international leadership, including by providing guidance on the diverse mechanisms that countries may use to authorize TDM research and serving as a forum for the adoption of rules permitting cross-border TDM projects.
Flynn, S.; Geiger, C.; Quintais, J.
Implementing User Rights for Research in the Field of Artificial Intelligence: A Call for Action at International Level Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020.
@article{Flynn2020c,
title = {Implementing User Rights for Research in the Field of Artificial Intelligence: A Call for Action at International Level},
author = {Flynn, S. and Geiger, C. and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/04/21/implementing-user-rights-for-research-in-the-field-of-artificial-intelligence-a-call-for-action-at-international-level/
http://infojustice.org/archives/42260},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-04-21},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
abstract = {A version of this post was also published on the InfoJustice website: http://infojustice.org/archives/42260},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
A version of this post was also published on the InfoJustice website: http://infojustice.org/archives/42260
Flynn, S.; Carroll, M.; Sag, M.; Guibault, L.; Margoni, T.; Butler, B.; Rocha de Souza, A.; Bogataj Jancic, M.; Jaszi, P.; Quintais, J.; Geiger, C.; Ncube, C.; White, B.; Scaria, A.G.; Botero, C.; Craig, C.
Joint Comment to WIPO on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Journal Article
In: 2020.
@article{Flynn2020,
title = {Joint Comment to WIPO on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence},
author = {Flynn, S. and Carroll, M. and Sag, M. and Guibault, L. and Margoni, T. and Butler, B. and Rocha de Souza, A. and Bogataj Jancic, M. and Jaszi, P. and Quintais, J. and Geiger, C. and Ncube, C. and White, B. and Scaria, A.G. and Botero, C. and Craig, C.},
url = {http://infojustice.org/archives/42009},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-02-25},
abstract = {On December 13, 2019, WIPO invited member states and all other interested parties to provide comments and suggestions to help define the issues related to intellectual property (IP) and artificial intelligence (AI) based on a Draft Issues Paper on IP Policy and AI. These comments will be used to prepare a revised issues paper for discussion at the second session of the WIPO Conversation on IP and AI. This Joint Comment is made in response to WIPO’s Public Consultation on AI and IP Policy and is endorsed by 16 members of the Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights. },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
On December 13, 2019, WIPO invited member states and all other interested parties to provide comments and suggestions to help define the issues related to intellectual property (IP) and artificial intelligence (AI) based on a Draft Issues Paper on IP Policy and AI. These comments will be used to prepare a revised issues paper for discussion at the second session of the WIPO Conversation on IP and AI. This Joint Comment is made in response to WIPO’s Public Consultation on AI and IP Policy and is endorsed by 16 members of the Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights.
Hugenholtz, P.
In Memoriam Jan Kabel Journal Article
In: AMI, no. 1, pp. 1-2, 2020.
@article{Hugenholtz2020b,
title = {In Memoriam Jan Kabel},
author = {Hugenholtz, P.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2020_1.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-02-20},
journal = {AMI},
number = {1},
pages = {1-2},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
van Gompel, S.
Artikelen 8 tot en met 11 DSM-richtlijn: Niet of niet meer in de handel zijnde werken en andere materialen Journal Article
In: AMI, no. 1, pp. 3-10, 2020.
@article{vanGompel2020,
title = {Artikelen 8 tot en met 11 DSM-richtlijn: Niet of niet meer in de handel zijnde werken en andere materialen},
author = {van Gompel, S.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2020_1_VanGompel.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-02-20},
journal = {AMI},
number = {1},
pages = {3-10},
abstract = {In Hoofdstuk 1 van Titel III van de DSM-richtlijn, die maatregelen voorschrijft om de licentieverlening te verbeteren en een ruimere toegang tot content te verzekeren, wordt een regeling ge\"{i}ntroduceerd voor het gebruik door cultureel erfgoedinstellingen van werken en andere materialen die niet of niet meer in de handel zijn, kortgezegd: van out-of-commerce werken (hierna: OOC-werken). In dit artikel wordt
eerst de achtergrond van deze regeling geschetst. Daarna wordt ingegaan op de definitie van OOC-werken, de juridische instrumenten die worden ingezet om het gebruik van OOC-werken toe te staan (een licentiemechanisme plus terugvalbeperking), de grensoverschrijdende werking ervan, en de publiciteitsmaatregelen die de richtlijn voorschrijft. Het artikel sluit af met een conclusie.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
In Hoofdstuk 1 van Titel III van de DSM-richtlijn, die maatregelen voorschrijft om de licentieverlening te verbeteren en een ruimere toegang tot content te verzekeren, wordt een regeling geïntroduceerd voor het gebruik door cultureel erfgoedinstellingen van werken en andere materialen die niet of niet meer in de handel zijn, kortgezegd: van out-of-commerce werken (hierna: OOC-werken). In dit artikel wordt
eerst de achtergrond van deze regeling geschetst. Daarna wordt ingegaan op de definitie van OOC-werken, de juridische instrumenten die worden ingezet om het gebruik van OOC-werken toe te staan (een licentiemechanisme plus terugvalbeperking), de grensoverschrijdende werking ervan, en de publiciteitsmaatregelen die de richtlijn voorschrijft. Het artikel sluit af met een conclusie.
eerst de achtergrond van deze regeling geschetst. Daarna wordt ingegaan op de definitie van OOC-werken, de juridische instrumenten die worden ingezet om het gebruik van OOC-werken toe te staan (een licentiemechanisme plus terugvalbeperking), de grensoverschrijdende werking ervan, en de publiciteitsmaatregelen die de richtlijn voorschrijft. Het artikel sluit af met een conclusie.
Keller, P.
Article 17 stakeholder dialogue: What we have learned so far - Part 1 Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020.
@article{Keller2020,
title = {Article 17 stakeholder dialogue: What we have learned so far - Part 1},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/01/13/article-17-stakeholder-dialogue-what-we-have-learned-so-far-part-1/},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-16},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Keller, P.
Article 17 stakeholder dialogue: What we have learned so far - Part 2 Journal Article
In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020.
@article{Keller2020b,
title = {Article 17 stakeholder dialogue: What we have learned so far - Part 2},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/01/14/article-17-stakeholder-dialogue-what-we-have-learned-so-far-part-2/},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-16},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Dommering, E.
De arresten Funke Medien, Spiegel Onlineen Pelham van het HvJ EU van 29 juli 2019 Journal Article
In: AMI, vol. 2019, no. 6, pp. 185-191, 2020.
@article{Dommering2020,
title = {De arresten Funke Medien, Spiegel Onlineen Pelham van het HvJ EU van 29 juli 2019},
author = {Dommering, E.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2019_6.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-07},
journal = {AMI},
volume = {2019},
number = {6},
pages = {185-191},
abstract = {29 juli 2019 was het D-Day voor het Europese auteursrecht. Toen deed een Grote Kamer van het Hof van Justitie uitspraak in drie zaken waarin het Duitse Bundesgerichtshof prejudici\"{e}le vragen had gesteld over de uitleg en toepassing van de Auteursrechtrichtlijn (Richtlijn 2001/29/EG) in relatie tot het Europese Handvest en indirect ook tot het Europese Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens. Het waren
alledrie ‘borderline cases’. In de zaak Funke Medien gaat het om de perspublicatie van een proces-verbaal van een periodieke verslaggeving van de buitenlandse interventies van de Bundeswehr, bedoeld voor beperkt gebruik voor bepaalde afgevaardigden in de Bondsdag. Een van deze rapportages was uitgelekt en de Bondsregering probeerde verspreiding tegen te gaan met een beroep op haar auteursrecht; het proces-verbaal zou een ‘werk’ zijn in de zin van het door de richtlijn geharmoniseerde Duitse auteursrecht. In de Spiegel Online-zaak gaat het om de reikwijdte van het citaatrecht in het geval dat er door middel van een hyperlink op het web naar het werk wordt verwezen. De zaak bevat ook de vraag of het werk waaruit werd geciteerd op geoorloofde manier openbaar was gemaakt en of dat een omstandigheid was die citeren kon verhinderen. In de Pelham-zaak gaat het om de vraag of het gebruik van zeer korte muziekfragmenten (‘soundsampling’) moet worden aangemerkt als een geoorloofd citaat in de zin van artikel 5 lid 3 onder d van de richtlijn (beperking van het muziekreproductierecht).},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
29 juli 2019 was het D-Day voor het Europese auteursrecht. Toen deed een Grote Kamer van het Hof van Justitie uitspraak in drie zaken waarin het Duitse Bundesgerichtshof prejudiciële vragen had gesteld over de uitleg en toepassing van de Auteursrechtrichtlijn (Richtlijn 2001/29/EG) in relatie tot het Europese Handvest en indirect ook tot het Europese Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens. Het waren
alledrie ‘borderline cases’. In de zaak Funke Medien gaat het om de perspublicatie van een proces-verbaal van een periodieke verslaggeving van de buitenlandse interventies van de Bundeswehr, bedoeld voor beperkt gebruik voor bepaalde afgevaardigden in de Bondsdag. Een van deze rapportages was uitgelekt en de Bondsregering probeerde verspreiding tegen te gaan met een beroep op haar auteursrecht; het proces-verbaal zou een ‘werk’ zijn in de zin van het door de richtlijn geharmoniseerde Duitse auteursrecht. In de Spiegel Online-zaak gaat het om de reikwijdte van het citaatrecht in het geval dat er door middel van een hyperlink op het web naar het werk wordt verwezen. De zaak bevat ook de vraag of het werk waaruit werd geciteerd op geoorloofde manier openbaar was gemaakt en of dat een omstandigheid was die citeren kon verhinderen. In de Pelham-zaak gaat het om de vraag of het gebruik van zeer korte muziekfragmenten (‘soundsampling’) moet worden aangemerkt als een geoorloofd citaat in de zin van artikel 5 lid 3 onder d van de richtlijn (beperking van het muziekreproductierecht).
alledrie ‘borderline cases’. In de zaak Funke Medien gaat het om de perspublicatie van een proces-verbaal van een periodieke verslaggeving van de buitenlandse interventies van de Bundeswehr, bedoeld voor beperkt gebruik voor bepaalde afgevaardigden in de Bondsdag. Een van deze rapportages was uitgelekt en de Bondsregering probeerde verspreiding tegen te gaan met een beroep op haar auteursrecht; het proces-verbaal zou een ‘werk’ zijn in de zin van het door de richtlijn geharmoniseerde Duitse auteursrecht. In de Spiegel Online-zaak gaat het om de reikwijdte van het citaatrecht in het geval dat er door middel van een hyperlink op het web naar het werk wordt verwezen. De zaak bevat ook de vraag of het werk waaruit werd geciteerd op geoorloofde manier openbaar was gemaakt en of dat een omstandigheid was die citeren kon verhinderen. In de Pelham-zaak gaat het om de vraag of het gebruik van zeer korte muziekfragmenten (‘soundsampling’) moet worden aangemerkt als een geoorloofd citaat in de zin van artikel 5 lid 3 onder d van de richtlijn (beperking van het muziekreproductierecht).