Old Volumes Never Die. IViR and Kluwer Launch Archive of Information Law Series Back Issues external link

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2024

Copyright, information law, Kluwer Information Law Series

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Written evidence to the UK House of Lords’ International Agreement Committee inquiry into Data and Digital Trade external link

Abstract

Written evidence by Emily Jones, Philippa Collins, Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan, Albert Sanchez-Graells, Kristina Irion, Cosmina Dorobantu, Burcu Kilic , and Daria Onitiu to the House of Lords’ International Agreement Committee inquiry into Data and Digital Trade. This written evidence addresses the question: How do you think the government should balance issues such as the right to regulate to protect data privacy or to access source code, with commitments in treaties protecting free flows of data or intellectual property of software developers? What has its approach been to date and how do you think it should approach these issues in future? Source code provisions in concluded UK Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and digital economy agreements do not take sufficient account of the need of governments to introduce a range of measures that will regulate algorithmic and artificial intelligence (AI) systems, mitigate risks associated with the use of AI systems and ensure their developers and providers are held accountable for any harms that arise.

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

The Unproductive “Overconstitutionalization” of EU Copyright and Trademark Law – Fundamental Rights Rhetoric and Reality in CJEU Jurisprudence external link

IIC, vol. 55, iss. : 9, pp: 1471-1514, 2024

Abstract

In EU copyright and trademark law, the protection of the right to intellectual property is the rule, and breathing space for competing fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression and the right to a healthy environment, is the exception. While formally recognizing the need to balance protection interests against other fundamental rights and values, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) fails to use competing fundamental rights productively. Instead, the Court has developed a meaningless fundamental rights rhetoric that produces the false impression that there is sufficient room for all competing rights and interests within the existing copyright and trademark systems. However, the current configuration of EU copyright and trademark law fails to offer users the chance of meeting right holders as equals, even if their fundamental rights are of equal ranking in the Charter. By adding fundamental rights cosmetics to imbalanced protection systems, the CJEU only cements and further stabilizes the existing rule/exception edifice that is strongly in favour of right holders. Introducing the mantra of internal balancing – requiring the reconciliation of competing rights and interests within the confines of secondary copyright and trademark legislation – the Court has even created a considerable risk of sacrificing competing fundamental rights on the altar of the EU harmonization agenda. By letting the harmonization objective reign supreme, the CJEU has also given the three-step test in copyright law and the honest practices proviso in trademark law a quasi-constitutional status. As a result, these open-ended provisions undermine limitations of exclusive rights that could support competing fundamental rights. To remove the imbalances in current EU copyright and trademark law, it would be necessary to introduce upfront gatekeeper requirements that prevent illegitimate infringement claims from the outset when competing fundamental rights are at stake.

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Additional Remuneration Rights for Online Streaming on Reference to the CJEU external link

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2024

Copyright, streaming services

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

EU copyright law roundup – third trimester of 2024 external link

Trapova, A. & Quintais, J.
Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2024

Copyright

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

The Implications of Generative AI in the EU Data and Copyright Protection Frameworks external link

Kosta, E., Quintais, J. & Kuru, T.
Human Rights Here, 2024

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Fashion Upcycling as Protected Free Speech in Trademark Law external link

University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review, vol. 31, iss. : 2, pp: 349-387, 2024

Abstract

Fashion upcycling offers unprecedented opportunities for the sustainable reuse of clothing. Using second-hand garments as raw material for new creations, upcyclers transform used pieces of clothing into new fashion products that may become even more sought-after than the original source material. The more fashion elements enjoy trademark protection; however, the more legal obstacles arise. Fashion upcycling may trigger allegations of consumer confusion, brand dilution, and unfair freeriding. As the Introduction will explain, the exhaustion of trademark rights after the first sale does not necessarily dispel concerns about trademark infringement. The rearrangement of branded garment components in the upcycling process may render the first sale doctrine inapplicable and give the trademark proprietor ammunition to oppose the resale. Against this background, the analysis explores other strategies to assure fashion upcyclers that, as long as they do not specifically aim at misleading consumers or damaging and exploiting protected brand insignia, they can rework trademarked fashion items without risking the verdict of infringement. To lay groundwork for this approach, Section I focuses on trademark theory that stresses the need to develop a specific set of rules capable of shielding the expressive use of trademarks against allegations of trademark infringement. In the light of cultural sciences, Section II demonstrates that fashion upcycling constitutes a specific form of artistic speech – and a specific form of expressive trademark use – that has particular societal value in the current environmental crisis. It offers a vision of alternative, more sustainable production and consumption patterns. Therefore, fashion upcycling should benefit from breathing space for free speech in trademark law. Taking this insight as a starting point, Section III discusses two avenues for supporting fashion upcycling in trademark contexts: first, the option of adopting a strict test of use as a trademark that could immunize sustainable fashion reuse from allegations of trademark infringement on the ground that consumers will understand the specific reuse context and perceive third-party trademarks on circular economy products as mere decorative elements. Second, the option of strengthening defenses, in particular the referential use defense, by developing labelling guidelines that allow upcyclers to ensure compliance with the requirement of honest practices in industrial or commercial matters. The Conclusion offers concluding remarks. The EU trademark system – the Trade Mark Regulation (“EUTMR”) and the Trade Mark Directive (“TMD”) – will serve as a reference point for the discussion.

Fashion, Freedom of Speech, Trademark law

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 19 december 2023 download

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, iss. : 26, num: 234, pp: 5261-5262,

Abstract

Demonstratie in vliegtuig tegen uitzetting vreemdeling. 1. Art. 46 lid 2 onder b Vreemdelingenwet 2000 heeft ook betrekking op regels voor het beheersbaar maken en houden van de situatie ten behoeve van de grensbewaking, en art. 4.6 Vreemdelingenbesluit 2000 omvat de bevoegdheid om een aanwijzing te geven vanwege het zich op een voor de uitoefening van de grensbewaking hinderlijke wijze ophouden op of nabij een grensdoorlaatpost. 2. De verwerping van het verweer dat de verdachte moet worden ontslagen van alle rechtsvervolging vanwege onverenigbaarheid van de strafvervolging met art. 10 en art. 11 EVRM is niet onjuist en ook niet onbegrijpelijk.

annotatie

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Explaining and Contesting Judicial Profiling Systems: Beyond a Procedural Right to an Explanation external link

Technology and Regulation, pp: 188-208, 2024

Abstract

This paper argues that a right to an explanation can enable litigants to contest judicial profiling systems on various grounds. However, the technical opacity of certain types of systems, integrity concerns, and the rights and interests of third parties, can hinder the ability of courts to provide an explanation. To overcome these obstacles, a number of technical and organizational measures can be taken before and during the development of these systems, to ensure that they are contestable. This paper also critically interprets EU Data Protection Law, the right to a fair trial, and the AI-Act. It shows how these laws (partially) protect contestation by design, as well as their limitations and potential loopholes.

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Silence can be as explicit as words. The AG’s Opinion in Kwantum v. Vitra external link

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2024

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib