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

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2024

Copyright, streaming services

Bibtex

Online publication{nokey, title = {Additional Remuneration Rights for Online Streaming on Reference to the CJEU}, author = {Izyumenko, E.}, url = {https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/09/30/additional-remuneration-rights-for-online-streaming-on-reference-to-the-cjeu/}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-09-30}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {Copyright, streaming services}, }

EU copyright law roundup – third trimester of 2024 external link

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

Copyright

Bibtex

Online publication{nokey, title = {EU copyright law roundup – third trimester of 2024}, author = {Trapova, A. and Quintais, J.}, url = {https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/10/02/eu-copyright-law-roundup-third-trimester-of-2024/}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-10-02}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {Copyright}, }

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

Bibtex

Online publication{nokey, title = {The Implications of Generative AI in the EU Data and Copyright Protection Frameworks}, author = {Kosta, E. and Quintais, J. and Kuru, T.}, url = {https://www.humanrightshere.com/post/the-implications-of-generative-ai-in-the-eu-data-and-copyright-protection-frameworks}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-10-01}, journal = {Human Rights Here}, }

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

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Fashion Upcycling as Protected Free Speech in Trademark Law}, author = {Senftleben, M.}, url = {https://repository.law.miami.edu/umiclr/vol31/iss2/5/}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-04-06}, journal = {University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review}, volume = {31}, issue = {2}, pages = {349-387}, 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.}, keywords = {Fashion, Freedom of Speech, Trademark law}, }

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

Bibtex

Case note{nokey, title = {Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 19 december 2023}, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publications/annotatie-bij-hoge-raad-19-december-2023/annotatie_nj_2024_234/}, year = {}, date = {DATE ERROR: pub_date = }, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, issue = {26}, number = {234}, 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.}, keywords = {annotatie}, }

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.

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Explaining and Contesting Judicial Profiling Systems: Beyond a Procedural Right to an Explanation}, author = {Metikoš, L.}, url = {https://techreg.org/article/view/14217/21326}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-09-11}, journal = {Technology and Regulation}, 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.}, }

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

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2024

Bibtex

Online publication{nokey, title = {Silence can be as explicit as words. The AG’s Opinion in Kwantum v. Vitra}, author = {Hugenholtz, P.}, url = {https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/09/13/silence-can-be-as-explicit-as-words-the-ags-opinion-in-kwantum-v-vitra/}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-09-13}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, }

From Encryption to Quantum Computing – The Governance of Information Security and Human Rights external link

T.M.C. Asser Press, 2024, Series: Information Technology and Law (IT&Law) Series, Edition: 38, ISBN: 978-94-6265-634-5

encryption, Human rights, Information security

Bibtex

Book{nokey, title = {From Encryption to Quantum Computing – The Governance of Information Security and Human Rights}, author = {van Daalen, O.}, url = {https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-6265-635-2}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-09-10}, keywords = {encryption, Human rights, Information security}, }

Brave New World: Out-Of-Court Dispute Settlement Bodies and the Struggle to Adjudicate Platforms in Europe external link

Ruschemeier, H., Quintais, J., Nenadić, I., De Gregorio, G. & Eder, N.
Verfassungsblog, 2024

Bibtex

Online publication{nokey, title = {Brave New World: Out-Of-Court Dispute Settlement Bodies and the Struggle to Adjudicate Platforms in Europe}, author = {Ruschemeier, H. and Quintais, J. and Nenadić, I. and De Gregorio, G. and Eder, N.}, url = {https://verfassungsblog.de/ods-dsa-user-rights-content-moderatin-out-of-court-dispute-settlement/}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.59704/46b8611eb2d96a84}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-09-10}, journal = {Verfassungsblog}, }

Prompts tussen vorm en inhoud: de eerste rechtspraak over generatieve AI en het werk download

Auteursrecht, iss. : 3, pp: 129-134, 2024

Abstract

Kan het gebruik van generatieve AI-systemen een auteursrechtelijk beschermd werk opleveren? Twee jaar na de introductie van Dall-E en ChatGPT begint zich enige jurisprudentie te vormen. Daarbij is de kernvraag of het aansturen van dergelijke systemen door middel van prompts (instructies) voldoende is om de output als ‘werk’ te kwalificeren. Dit artikel gaat, mede aan de hand van de vroegste rechtspraak in de Verenigde Staten, China en Europa, dieper in op deze lastige kwestie.

ai, Copyright

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Prompts tussen vorm en inhoud: de eerste rechtspraak over generatieve AI en het werk}, author = {Hugenholtz, P.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publications/prompts-tussen-vorm-en-inhoud-de-eerste-rechtspraak-over-generatieve-ai-en-het-werk/auteursrecht2024_3/}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-08-30}, journal = {Auteursrecht}, issue = {3}, abstract = {Kan het gebruik van generatieve AI-systemen een auteursrechtelijk beschermd werk opleveren? Twee jaar na de introductie van Dall-E en ChatGPT begint zich enige jurisprudentie te vormen. Daarbij is de kernvraag of het aansturen van dergelijke systemen door middel van prompts (instructies) voldoende is om de output als ‘werk’ te kwalificeren. Dit artikel gaat, mede aan de hand van de vroegste rechtspraak in de Verenigde Staten, China en Europa, dieper in op deze lastige kwestie.}, keywords = {ai, Copyright}, }