Neigbouring rights
| Buijtelaar, L.D., Senftleben, M.
Robot Creativity: An Incentive-Based Neighbouring Rights Approach European Intellectual Property Review, 42 (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.
|
| Senftleben, M.
Flexibility Grave – Partial Reproduction Focus and Closed System Fetishism in CJEU, Pelham IIC, 51 (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.
|
| Hugenholtz, P.
The WIPO Broadcasting Treaty. A Conceptual Conundrum 2018. @misc{Hugenholtz2018g,
title = {The WIPO Broadcasting Treaty. A Conceptual Conundrum}, author = {Hugenholtz, P.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Keynote_WIPO_Broadcasting_Treaty_2018.pdf}, year = {2018}, date = {2018-10-24}, abstract = {Keynote at KEI Seminar, Appraising the WIPO Broadcast Treaty and its Implications on Access to Culture, Geneva 3-4 October 2018}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {misc} } Keynote at KEI Seminar, Appraising the WIPO Broadcast Treaty and its Implications on Access to Culture, Geneva 3-4 October 2018
|
| Hugenholtz, P.
Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, 2018 (13), pp. 1672-1674, 2018. @article{Hugenholtz2018b,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 27 maart 2014 (UPC Telekabel Wien / Constantin Film Verleih & Wega Filmproduktionsgesellschaft) en Hoge Raad 13 november 2015 (Stichting Brein / Ziggo & XS4ALL)}, author = {Hugenholtz, P.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2018_110.pdf}, year = {2018}, date = {2018-04-03}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, volume = {2018}, number = {13}, pages = {1672-1674}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Ramalho, A.
Beyond the Cover Story - An Enquiry into the EU Competence to Introduce a Right for Publishers IIC (International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law), 2017 , pp. 71-91, 2017. @article{Ramalho2017,
title = {Beyond the Cover Story - An Enquiry into the EU Competence to Introduce a Right for Publishers}, author = {Ramalho, A.}, url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40319-016-0540-3}, doi = {10.1007/s40319-016-0540-3}, year = {2017}, date = {2017-01-26}, journal = {IIC (International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law)}, volume = {2017}, pages = {71-91}, abstract = {This paper examines the competence of the EU to introduce a neighbouring right for publishers (including a neighbouring right for press publishers, also called "ancillary copyright"). The assessment of competence is carried out following a step-by-step approach, which involves an analysis of the applicable Treaty norms and an assessment of subsidiarity and proportionality. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } This paper examines the competence of the EU to introduce a neighbouring right for publishers (including a neighbouring right for press publishers, also called "ancillary copyright"). The assessment of competence is carried out following a step-by-step approach, which involves an analysis of the applicable Treaty norms and an assessment of subsidiarity and proportionality.
|
| Hugenholtz, P.
Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 12 november 2015 (HP Belgium / Reprobel) Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (39), pp. 4962-4964, 2016. @article{Hugenholtz2016b,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 12 november 2015 (HP Belgium / Reprobel)}, author = {Hugenholtz, P.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2016_370.pdf}, year = {2016}, date = {2016-10-18}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, number = {39}, pages = {4962-4964}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Hugenholtz, P.
Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 3 september 2014 (Deckmyn / Vandersteen c.s.) Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (37), pp. 4661-4667, 2016, (nr. 351.). @article{Hugenholtz2016b,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 3 september 2014 (Deckmyn / Vandersteen c.s.)}, author = {Hugenholtz, P. }, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2016_351.pdf}, year = {2016}, date = {2016-10-06}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, number = {37}, pages = {4661-4667}, note = {nr. 351.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Hugenholtz, P.
Say Nay to the Neighbouring Right! Kluwer Copyright Blog 2016, (Kluwer Copyright Blog, 14 April 2016). @online{Hugenholtz2016b,
title = {Say Nay to the Neighbouring Right!}, author = {Hugenholtz, P.}, url = {http://kluwercopyrightblog.com/2016/04/14/say-nay-to-the-neighbouring-right/}, year = {2016}, date = {2016-04-14}, organization = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, note = {Kluwer Copyright Blog, 14 April 2016}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {online} } |
| Hugenholtz, P.
Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 28 maart 2014 (Norma / NLKabel) 2015. @misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 28 maart 2014 (Norma / NLKabel)}, author = {P.B. Hugenholtz}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1641.pdf}, year = {2015}, date = {2015-10-20}, journal = {NJ}, number = {42}, pages = {4822-4825.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {misc} } |
| Hugenholtz, P.
2013. @misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 15 maart 2012 (Societ\`{a} Consortile Fonografici / Marco del Corso en Phonographic Performance (Ireland) Limited / Ierland)}, author = {P.B. Hugenholtz}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2013_197_198.pdf}, year = {2013}, date = {2013-04-25}, journal = {NJ}, number = {16}, pages = {2273-2276.}, note = { Zaak C-135/10 en C-162/10. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {misc} } |
| Guibault, L.
Annotatie bij Rb. Amsterdam 20 mei 2009 (Iglesias & Jungle Aire / Sony BMG) 2010. @misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij Rb. Amsterdam 20 mei 2009 (Iglesias & Jungle Aire / Sony BMG)}, author = {L. Guibault}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_AMI_2010_2.pdf}, year = {2010}, date = {2010-10-14}, journal = {AMI}, number = {2}, pages = {70-75}, abstract = { Overdracht en licentiëring van naburige rechten. Aanhoudende contractuele verhouding tussen uitvoerend kunstenaar en platenmaatschappij waarbij een reeks overeenkomsten werd gesloten voor en na de inwerkingtreding van de WNR. Vraag of deze overeenkomsten ook betrekking hebben op digital exploitatiemogelijkheden. Uit de aard en strekking van de overeenkomsten volgt geen rechtenoverdracht, maar wel een onbeperkte en exclusieve licentie, die ook op de digitale exploitatiemogelijkheden betrekking heeft. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {misc} }
Overdracht en licentiëring van naburige rechten. Aanhoudende contractuele verhouding tussen uitvoerend kunstenaar en platenmaatschappij waarbij een reeks overeenkomsten werd gesloten voor en na de inwerkingtreding van de WNR. Vraag of deze overeenkomsten ook betrekking hebben op digital exploitatiemogelijkheden. Uit de aard en strekking van de overeenkomsten volgt geen rechtenoverdracht, maar wel een onbeperkte en exclusieve licentie, die ook op de digitale exploitatiemogelijkheden betrekking heeft.
|
| Mom, G.J.H.M.
Uitvoering in (strikt) besloten kring AMI, (3), pp. 81-91, 2010. @article{,
title = {Uitvoering in (strikt) besloten kring}, author = {Mom, G.J.H.M.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2010_3.pdf}, year = {2010}, date = {2010-05-27}, journal = {AMI}, number = {3}, pages = {81-91}, abstract = { Uitvoering van beschermde werken in een besloten kring is in beginsel aan toestemming van de betrokken rechthebbenden onderworpen, daar dit door wetsduiding geacht wordt 'in het openbaar' te geschieden. Een uitvoering in een familie-, vrienden- of daaraan gelijk te stellen besloten kring mag echter zonder toestemming plaats vinden. In deze bijdrage staat de uit de greep van rechthebbenden blijvende voordrachten, op- en uitvoeringen en voorstellingen binnen deze drie 'strikt' besloten kringen centraal. De wettelijke regeling terzake is gecompliceerd en roept in de rechtspraktijk, meestal in zaken waar het gaat om het ten gehore brengen van beschermde muziek, steevast vragen op als: is wel van een 'uitvoering' sprake en zo ja, speelt die zich af in een strikt besloten kring? Is de situatie in landen om ons heen vergelijkbaar met de onze? }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} }
Uitvoering van beschermde werken in een besloten kring is in beginsel aan toestemming van de betrokken rechthebbenden onderworpen, daar dit door wetsduiding geacht wordt 'in het openbaar' te geschieden. Een uitvoering in een familie-, vrienden- of daaraan gelijk te stellen besloten kring mag echter zonder toestemming plaats vinden. In deze bijdrage staat de uit de greep van rechthebbenden blijvende voordrachten, op- en uitvoeringen en voorstellingen binnen deze drie 'strikt' besloten kringen centraal. De wettelijke regeling terzake is gecompliceerd en roept in de rechtspraktijk, meestal in zaken waar het gaat om het ten gehore brengen van beschermde muziek, steevast vragen op als: is wel van een 'uitvoering' sprake en zo ja, speelt die zich af in een strikt besloten kring? Is de situatie in landen om ons heen vergelijkbaar met de onze?
|
| Hugenholtz, P.
Annotatie bij Gerechtshof Amsterdam 23 december 2008 (Intersong Basart / Hans van Hemert) 2009. @misc{,
title = {Annotatie bij Gerechtshof Amsterdam 23 december 2008 (Intersong Basart / Hans van Hemert)}, author = {P.B. Hugenholtz}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/noot_intersong_basart-hans_van_hemert.pdf}, year = {2009}, date = {2009-06-23}, journal = {AMI}, number = {2}, pages = {61-64}, abstract = { Ontbinding van muziekuitgavecontract wegens wanprestatie muziekuitgever. Het gedurende vele jaren niet of nauwelijks promoten van de werken van de muziekauteur; het niet onderhouden van contact met de auteur en het niet-betalen van vergoedingen zijn aan te merken als wanprestatie en rechtvaardigen ontbinding van de overeenkomst. (art. 6:265 BW). }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {misc} }
Ontbinding van muziekuitgavecontract wegens wanprestatie muziekuitgever. Het gedurende vele jaren niet of nauwelijks promoten van de werken van de muziekauteur; het niet onderhouden van contact met de auteur en het niet-betalen van vergoedingen zijn aan te merken als wanprestatie en rechtvaardigen ontbinding van de overeenkomst. (art. 6:265 BW).
|
| van Gompel, S.
Another 45 miles to go? Kritisch commentaar op het richtlijnvoorstel duurverlenging naburige rechten AMI, (6), pp. 169-180, 2008. @article{,
title = {Another 45 miles to go? Kritisch commentaar op het richtlijnvoorstel duurverlenging naburige rechten}, author = {S.J. van Gompel}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_6_2008.pdf}, year = {2008}, date = {2008-12-10}, journal = {AMI}, number = {6}, pages = {169-180}, abstract = { Dit artikel zet kritisch uiteen waarom het richtlijnvoorstel dat door de Europese Commissie is ingediend om de beschermingsduur van naburige rechten op fonogrammen en de daarop vastgelegde uitvoeringen te verlengen van 50 naar 95 jaar, onwenselijk is en de problemen waarmee de fonogrammenindustrie en uitvoerende kunstenaars te maken hebben niet, of nauwelijks, oplost. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} }
Dit artikel zet kritisch uiteen waarom het richtlijnvoorstel dat door de Europese Commissie is ingediend om de beschermingsduur van naburige rechten op fonogrammen en de daarop vastgelegde uitvoeringen te verlengen van 50 naar 95 jaar, onwenselijk is en de problemen waarmee de fonogrammenindustrie en uitvoerende kunstenaars te maken hebben niet, of nauwelijks, oplost.
|
| Guibault, L.
Halleluja: Buma's aansluitvoorwaarden krijgen zegen van NMa! AMI, (4), pp. 85-93, 2008. @article{,
title = {Halleluja: Buma's aansluitvoorwaarden krijgen zegen van NMa!}, author = {L. Guibault}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/buma_cc_pilot.pdf}, year = {2008}, date = {2008-07-27}, journal = {AMI}, number = {4}, pages = {85-93}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Helberger, N., Hugenholtz, P., van Gompel, S.
Never Forever: Why Extending the Term of Protection for Sound Recordings is a Bad Idea European Intellectual Property Review, (5), pp. 174-181, 2008. @article{,
title = {Never Forever: Why Extending the Term of Protection for Sound Recordings is a Bad Idea}, author = {N. Helberger and S.J. van Gompel and P.B. Hugenholtz}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/EIPR_2008_5.pdf}, year = {2008}, date = {2008-06-04}, journal = {European Intellectual Property Review}, number = {5}, pages = {174-181}, abstract = { This article critically examines the arguments put forward in favour of a term extension of related rights of phonogram producers. The authors conclude that there are no convincing reasons to extend the existing term of protection. The article also explains why the popular argument that a term extension would improve the situation of performers is probably a fallacy. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} }
This article critically examines the arguments put forward in favour of a term extension of related rights of phonogram producers. The authors conclude that there are no convincing reasons to extend the existing term of protection. The article also explains why the popular argument that a term extension would improve the situation of performers is probably a fallacy.
|
| Helberger, N.
2000. @techreport{,
title = {Report for the Council of Europe on the Neighbouring Rights Protection of Broadcasting Organisations: Current Problems and Possible Lines of Action}, author = {N. Helberger}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/262.pdf}, year = {2000}, date = {2000-11-29}, abstract = { This report analyses to what extent the Rome Convention (1961) and relevant instruments of the Council of Europe in the intellectual property field provide for sufficient protection of broadcasters in Europe. Background to the report is the changing technological environment over the last 40 years, particularly as regards convergence of the telecommunications, media and information technologies, piracy and the development of new services such as digital broadcasting services. The situation will be compared to current legal developments at EC and WIPO level. The aim of the report was to examine eventual gaps in protection where existing regulations are applied in modern times and to investigate in further activities which could be undertaken within the framework of the Council of Europe to ensure the satisfactory protection of the rights of broadcasting organisations. The study was commissioned by the Council of Europe. Views expressed in the report are not those of the Organisation. }, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} }
This report analyses to what extent the Rome Convention (1961) and relevant instruments of the Council of Europe in the intellectual property field provide for sufficient protection of broadcasters in Europe. Background to the report is the changing technological environment over the last 40 years, particularly as regards convergence of the telecommunications, media and information technologies, piracy and the development of new services such as digital broadcasting services. The situation will be compared to current legal developments at EC and WIPO level. The aim of the report was to examine eventual gaps in protection where existing regulations are applied in modern times and to investigate in further activities which could be undertaken within the framework of the Council of Europe to ensure the satisfactory protection of the rights of broadcasting organisations. The study was commissioned by the Council of Europe. Views expressed in the report are not those of the Organisation.
|