Intermediary Liability and Trade Mark Infringement – Proliferation of Filter Obligations in Civil Law Jurisdictions?

Intermediary Liability and Trade Mark Infringement – Proliferation of Filter Obligations in Civil Law Jurisdictions? external link

1126, pp: 381-403

Abstract

The erosion of the safe harbour for hosting in the EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive) leads to a remarkable climate change in the field of EU copyright law and the civil law jurisdictions of continental EU Member States. Inevitably, it raises the question of potential repercussions on the safe harbour for hosting and filtering standards in trademark cases. Even though online marketplaces are explicitly exempted from the new copyright rules and the CDSM Directive is not intended to neutralize the safe harbour for hosting in trademark cases, the adoption of a more restrictive approach in copyright law may quicken the appetite of trademark proprietors for similar measures in trademark law. The extension of the new copyright approach to trademark cases, however, is unlikely to yield satisfactory results.Due to the different conceptual contours of trademark rights, a system mimicking the filtering obligations following from the CDSM Directive would give trademark proprietors excessive control over the use of their trademarks in the digital environment. Such an overbroad system of automated, algorithmic filtering would encroach upon the fundamental guarantee of freedom of expression and freedom of competition. It is likely to have a chilling effect on legitimate descriptive use of trademarks, comparative advertising, advertising by resellers, information about alternative offers in the marketplace, and use criticizing or commenting upon trademarked products. As a result, consumers would receive less diverse information on goods and services and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market would be curtailed. The reliability of the internet as an independent source of trademark-related information would be put at risk. The analysis, thus, leads to the insight that a proliferation of the new filtering obligations in copyright law is undesirable and should be avoided.

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Intermediary_Liability_and_Trade_Mark_Infringement.pdf https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3736919 https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780198837138

algorithmic enforcement, confusion, Content moderation, descriptive use, dilution, exhaustion of trademark rights, filtering obligations, free movement of goods and services, freedom of commercial expression, freedom of competition, frontpage, market transparency, Merkenrecht, parallel imports, platform economy

RIS

TY  - CHAP
AU  - Senftleben, M.
PY  - 1126
DA  - 2020-11-26
T1  - Intermediary Liability and Trade Mark Infringement – Proliferation of Filter Obligations in Civil Law Jurisdictions?
SP  - 381-403
UR  - https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Intermediary_Liability_and_Trade_Mark_Infringement.pdf
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3736919
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780198837138
AB  - The erosion of the safe harbour for hosting in the EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive) leads to a remarkable climate change in the field of EU copyright law and the civil law jurisdictions of continental EU Member States. Inevitably, it raises the question of potential repercussions on the safe harbour for hosting and filtering standards in trademark cases. Even though online marketplaces are explicitly exempted from the new copyright rules and the CDSM Directive is not intended to neutralize the safe harbour for hosting in trademark cases, the adoption of a more restrictive approach in copyright law may quicken the appetite of trademark proprietors for similar measures in trademark law.
The extension of the new copyright approach to trademark cases, however, is unlikely to yield satisfactory results.Due to the different conceptual contours of trademark rights, a system mimicking the filtering obligations following from the CDSM Directive would give trademark proprietors excessive control over the use of their trademarks in the digital environment. Such an overbroad system of automated, algorithmic filtering would encroach upon the fundamental guarantee of freedom of expression and freedom of competition. It is likely to have a chilling effect on legitimate descriptive use of trademarks, comparative advertising, advertising by resellers, information about alternative offers in the marketplace, and use criticizing or commenting upon trademarked products.
As a result, consumers would receive less diverse information on goods and services and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market would be curtailed. The reliability of the internet as an independent source of trademark-related information would be put at risk. The analysis, thus, leads to the insight that a proliferation of the new filtering obligations in copyright law is undesirable and should be avoided.
K1  - algorithmic enforcement
K1  - confusion
K1  - Content moderation
K1  - descriptive use
K1  - dilution
K1  - exhaustion of trademark rights
K1  - filtering obligations
K1  - free movement of goods and services
K1  - freedom of commercial expression
K1  - freedom of competition
K1  - frontpage
K1  - market transparency
K1  - Merkenrecht
K1  - parallel imports
K1  - platform economy
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Chapter{Senftleben2020g,
	title = {Intermediary Liability and Trade Mark Infringement – Proliferation of Filter Obligations in Civil Law Jurisdictions?},
	author = {Senftleben, M.},
	year = {1126},
	date = {2020-11-26},
	pages = {381-403},
	abstract = {The erosion of the safe harbour for hosting in the EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive) leads to a remarkable climate change in the field of EU copyright law and the civil law jurisdictions of continental EU Member States. Inevitably, it raises the question of potential repercussions on the safe harbour for hosting and filtering standards in trademark cases. Even though online marketplaces are explicitly exempted from the new copyright rules and the CDSM Directive is not intended to neutralize the safe harbour for hosting in trademark cases, the adoption of a more restrictive approach in copyright law may quicken the appetite of trademark proprietors for similar measures in trademark law.
The extension of the new copyright approach to trademark cases, however, is unlikely to yield satisfactory results.Due to the different conceptual contours of trademark rights, a system mimicking the filtering obligations following from the CDSM Directive would give trademark proprietors excessive control over the use of their trademarks in the digital environment. Such an overbroad system of automated, algorithmic filtering would encroach upon the fundamental guarantee of freedom of expression and freedom of competition. It is likely to have a chilling effect on legitimate descriptive use of trademarks, comparative advertising, advertising by resellers, information about alternative offers in the marketplace, and use criticizing or commenting upon trademarked products.
As a result, consumers would receive less diverse information on goods and services and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market would be curtailed. The reliability of the internet as an independent source of trademark-related information would be put at risk. The analysis, thus, leads to the insight that a proliferation of the new filtering obligations in copyright law is undesirable and should be avoided.},
	keywords = {algorithmic enforcement, confusion, Content moderation, descriptive use, dilution, exhaustion of trademark rights, filtering obligations, free movement of goods and services, freedom of commercial expression, freedom of competition, frontpage, market transparency, Merkenrecht, parallel imports, platform economy},
}

Save .bib

Signs Eligible for Trademark Protection – Dysfunctional Incentives and a Functionality Dilemma in the EU external link

Senftleben, M.

1126, pp: 209-225

Abstract

In the European Union (EU), the criteria for determining a sign’s eligibility for trademark protection are harmonized to a large extent. On the one hand, the trademark legislation and office practices in EU Member States have to keep within the harmonized legal framework set forth in the EU Trade Mark Directive (TMD). On the other hand, the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR) provides for a set of eligibility criteria that apply to European Union Trade Marks (EUTM) with equal effect throughout the EU territory. As the rules in the Regulation are in line with those in the Directive, the two legislative instruments constitute a robust body of harmonized norms informing the decision on the registration of a sign as a trademark. The harmonizing effect is enhanced by the fact that national courts have to refer questions relating to the application and interpretation of eligibility criteria to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). As in other regions of the world, the criteria applied to determine eligibility for trademark protection are quite flexible in the EU. The open-ended definition of protectable subject matter leaves room for the extension of trademark protection to non-traditional types of marks, such as shape, sound and colour marks. Trademark offices applying EU trademark law have also accepted, for instance, abstract colours and colour combinations, motion and multimedia marks, melodies and sounds, taste marks, hologram marks and position marks. The analysis of the trend to register non-traditional marks in the EU outlines the legal framework which the CJEU developed to assess the eligibility of non-traditional types of source identifiers for trademark protection. On this basis, it discusses the objective to safeguard freedom of competition and the legal instruments which the CJEU employs for this purpose: the requirement of providing evidence of the acquisition of distinctive character through use in trade and the categorical exclusion of functional signs from trademark protection. Drawing conclusions, it will become apparent that the basic requirement of distinctive character plays an ambiguous role in the regulation of access to trademark protection for non-traditional marks. It is both an obstacle to trademark protection and an incentive for enhanced investment in non-traditional types of marks.

Links

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3717753 https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Signs_Eligible_for_Trademark_Protection.pdf https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399456.014

depletion theory, distinctive character, eu-recht, freedom of competition, frontpage, functionality doctrine, harmonization in the EU, Merkenrecht, need to keep free, non-traditional types of marks, proof of acquired distinctive character, retroactive effect, secondary meaning, Trademark law, trademark law reform

RIS

TY  - CHAP
AU  - Senftleben, M.
PY  - 1126
DA  - 2020-11-26
T1  - Signs Eligible for Trademark Protection – Dysfunctional Incentives and a Functionality Dilemma in the EU
SP  - 209-225
UR  - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3717753
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Signs_Eligible_for_Trademark_Protection.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399456.014
AB  - In the European Union (EU), the criteria for determining a sign’s eligibility for trademark protection are harmonized to a large extent. On the one hand, the trademark legislation and office practices in EU Member States have to keep within the harmonized legal framework set forth in the EU Trade Mark Directive (TMD). On the other hand, the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR) provides for a set of eligibility criteria that apply to European Union Trade Marks (EUTM) with equal effect throughout the EU territory. As the rules in the Regulation are in line with those in the Directive, the two legislative instruments constitute a robust body of harmonized norms informing the decision on the registration of a sign as a trademark. The harmonizing effect is enhanced by the fact that national courts have to refer questions relating to the application and interpretation of eligibility criteria to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
As in other regions of the world, the criteria applied to determine eligibility for trademark protection are quite flexible in the EU. The open-ended definition of protectable subject matter leaves room for the extension of trademark protection to non-traditional types of marks, such as shape, sound and colour marks. Trademark offices applying EU trademark law have also accepted, for instance, abstract colours and colour combinations, motion and multimedia marks, melodies and sounds, taste marks, hologram marks and position marks.
The analysis of the trend to register non-traditional marks in the EU outlines the legal framework which the CJEU developed to assess the eligibility of non-traditional types of source identifiers for trademark protection. On this basis, it discusses the objective to safeguard freedom of competition and the legal instruments which the CJEU employs for this purpose: the requirement of providing evidence of the acquisition of distinctive character through use in trade and the categorical exclusion of functional signs from trademark protection. Drawing conclusions, it will become apparent that the basic requirement of distinctive character plays an ambiguous role in the regulation of access to trademark protection for non-traditional marks. It is both an obstacle to trademark protection and an incentive for enhanced investment in non-traditional types of marks.
K1  - depletion theory
K1  - distinctive character
K1  - eu-recht
K1  - freedom of competition
K1  - frontpage
K1  - functionality doctrine
K1  - harmonization in the EU
K1  - Merkenrecht
K1  - need to keep free
K1  - non-traditional types of marks
K1  - proof of acquired distinctive character
K1  - retroactive effect
K1  - secondary meaning
K1  - Trademark law
K1  - trademark law reform
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Chapter{Senftleben2020f,
	title = {Signs Eligible for Trademark Protection – Dysfunctional Incentives and a Functionality Dilemma in the EU},
	author = {Senftleben, M.},
	year = {1126},
	date = {2020-11-26},
	pages = {209-225},
	abstract = {In the European Union (EU), the criteria for determining a sign’s eligibility for trademark protection are harmonized to a large extent. On the one hand, the trademark legislation and office practices in EU Member States have to keep within the harmonized legal framework set forth in the EU Trade Mark Directive (TMD). On the other hand, the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR) provides for a set of eligibility criteria that apply to European Union Trade Marks (EUTM) with equal effect throughout the EU territory. As the rules in the Regulation are in line with those in the Directive, the two legislative instruments constitute a robust body of harmonized norms informing the decision on the registration of a sign as a trademark. The harmonizing effect is enhanced by the fact that national courts have to refer questions relating to the application and interpretation of eligibility criteria to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
As in other regions of the world, the criteria applied to determine eligibility for trademark protection are quite flexible in the EU. The open-ended definition of protectable subject matter leaves room for the extension of trademark protection to non-traditional types of marks, such as shape, sound and colour marks. Trademark offices applying EU trademark law have also accepted, for instance, abstract colours and colour combinations, motion and multimedia marks, melodies and sounds, taste marks, hologram marks and position marks.
The analysis of the trend to register non-traditional marks in the EU outlines the legal framework which the CJEU developed to assess the eligibility of non-traditional types of source identifiers for trademark protection. On this basis, it discusses the objective to safeguard freedom of competition and the legal instruments which the CJEU employs for this purpose: the requirement of providing evidence of the acquisition of distinctive character through use in trade and the categorical exclusion of functional signs from trademark protection. Drawing conclusions, it will become apparent that the basic requirement of distinctive character plays an ambiguous role in the regulation of access to trademark protection for non-traditional marks. It is both an obstacle to trademark protection and an incentive for enhanced investment in non-traditional types of marks.},
	keywords = {depletion theory, distinctive character, eu-recht, freedom of competition, frontpage, functionality doctrine, harmonization in the EU, Merkenrecht, need to keep free, non-traditional types of marks, proof of acquired distinctive character, retroactive effect, secondary meaning, Trademark law, trademark law reform},
}

Save .bib

CIPIL Evening Webinar: ‘Article 17 and the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms’ external link

Quintais, J.

2020

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 – 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.

Links

https://youtu.be/f1tGV_IdueQ

Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Auteursrecht, eu-recht, frontpage, Platforms

RIS

TY  - BLOG
AU  - Quintais, J.
PY  - 1117
DA  - 2020-11-17
T1  - CIPIL Evening Webinar: ‘Article 17 and the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms’
UR  - https://youtu.be/f1tGV_IdueQ 
AB  - 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.
K1  - Art. 17 CDSM Directive
K1  - Auteursrecht
K1  - eu-recht
K1  - frontpage
K1  - Platforms
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Online publication{Quintais2020d,
	title = {CIPIL Evening Webinar: ‘Article 17 and the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms’},
	author = {Quintais, J.},
	year = {1117},
	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 – 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.},
	keywords = {Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Auteursrecht, eu-recht, frontpage, Platforms},
}

Save .bib

News Recommenders and Cooperative Explainability: Confronting the contextual complexity in AI explanations external link

Drunen, M. van, Ausloos, J., Appelman, N. & Helberger, N.

2020

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Visiepaper-explainable-AI-final.pdf

Artificial intelligence, frontpage, news recommenders, Technologie en recht

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

CJEU hearing in the Polish challenge to Article 17: Not even the supporters of the provision agree on how it should work external link

Keller, P.

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020

Links

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/

Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Auteursrecht, filtering, frontpage

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

WODC-onderzoek: Voorziening voor verzoeken tot snelle verwijdering van onrechtmatige online content external link

van Hoboken, J., Appelman, N., van Duin, A., Blom, T., Zarouali, B., Fahy, R., Steel, M., Stringhi, E. & Helberger, N.

2020

Abstract

Dit onderzoek is uitgegeven als onderdeel van het speerpunt van de Minister voor Rechtsbescherming om de positie van slachtoffers van onrechtmatige uitingen op het internet te verbeteren. Aanleiding is dat het voor mensen als te moeilijk ervaren wordt om onrechtmatige online content snel verwijderd te krijgen. Dit rapport biedt inzicht in de juridische en praktische haalbaarheid van een voorziening voor de verwijdering van onrechtmatige online content die mensen persoonlijk raakt. Onrechtmatige content is informatie, door mensen op het internet geplaatst, die in strijd is met het recht, vanwege de schadelijke gevolgen ervan en/of omdat de belangen van anderen daardoor op ernstige wijze worden aangetast. Hierbij moet, bijvoorbeeld, gedacht worden aan bedreigingen, privacy-inbreuken of wraakporno. Het doel van de onderzochte voorziening is om mensen in staat te stellen deze onrechtmatige online content zo snel mogelijk te verwijderen. Het onderzoek focust op onrechtmatige online content die mensen in hun persoon raakt en daarmee onder het recht op privéleven uit artikel 8 Europees Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens (“EVRM”) valt.

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/WODC_voorziening_onrechtmatige_content.pdf

Art. 8 EVRM, frontpage, Informatierecht, onrechtmatige online content, Privacy

RIS

TY  - RPRT
AU  - van Hoboken, J.
AU  - Appelman, N.
AU  - van Duin, A.
AU  - Blom, T.
AU  - Zarouali, B.
AU  - Fahy, R.
AU  - Steel, M.
AU  - Stringhi, E.
AU  - Helberger, N.
PY  - 1112
DA  - 2020-11-12
T1  - WODC-onderzoek: Voorziening voor verzoeken tot snelle verwijdering van onrechtmatige online content
UR  - https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/WODC_voorziening_onrechtmatige_content.pdf
AB  - Dit onderzoek is uitgegeven als onderdeel van het speerpunt van de Minister voor Rechtsbescherming om de positie van slachtoffers van onrechtmatige uitingen op het internet te verbeteren. Aanleiding is dat het voor mensen als te moeilijk ervaren wordt om onrechtmatige online content snel verwijderd te krijgen. Dit rapport biedt inzicht in de juridische en praktische haalbaarheid van een voorziening voor de verwijdering van onrechtmatige online content die mensen persoonlijk raakt. Onrechtmatige content is informatie, door mensen op het internet geplaatst, die in strijd is met het recht, vanwege de schadelijke gevolgen ervan en/of omdat de belangen van anderen daardoor op ernstige wijze worden aangetast. Hierbij moet, bijvoorbeeld, gedacht worden aan bedreigingen, privacy-inbreuken of wraakporno. Het doel van de onderzochte voorziening is om mensen in staat te stellen deze onrechtmatige online content zo snel mogelijk te verwijderen. Het onderzoek focust op onrechtmatige online content die mensen in hun persoon raakt en daarmee onder het recht op privéleven uit artikel 8 Europees Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens (“EVRM”) valt.
K1  - Art. 8 EVRM
K1  - frontpage
K1  - Informatierecht
K1  - onrechtmatige online content
K1  - Privacy
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Report{vanHoboken2020d,
	title = {WODC-onderzoek: Voorziening voor verzoeken tot snelle verwijdering van onrechtmatige online content},
	author = {van Hoboken, J. and Appelman, N. and van Duin, A. and Blom, T. and Zarouali, B. and Fahy, R. and Steel, M. and Stringhi, E. and Helberger, N.},
	year = {1112},
	date = {2020-11-12},
	abstract = {Dit onderzoek is uitgegeven als onderdeel van het speerpunt van de Minister voor Rechtsbescherming om de positie van slachtoffers van onrechtmatige uitingen op het internet te verbeteren. Aanleiding is dat het voor mensen als te moeilijk ervaren wordt om onrechtmatige online content snel verwijderd te krijgen. Dit rapport biedt inzicht in de juridische en praktische haalbaarheid van een voorziening voor de verwijdering van onrechtmatige online content die mensen persoonlijk raakt. Onrechtmatige content is informatie, door mensen op het internet geplaatst, die in strijd is met het recht, vanwege de schadelijke gevolgen ervan en/of omdat de belangen van anderen daardoor op ernstige wijze worden aangetast. Hierbij moet, bijvoorbeeld, gedacht worden aan bedreigingen, privacy-inbreuken of wraakporno. Het doel van de onderzochte voorziening is om mensen in staat te stellen deze onrechtmatige online content zo snel mogelijk te verwijderen. Het onderzoek focust op onrechtmatige online content die mensen in hun persoon raakt en daarmee onder het recht op privéleven uit artikel 8 Europees Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens (“EVRM”) valt.},
	keywords = {Art. 8 EVRM, frontpage, Informatierecht, onrechtmatige online content, Privacy},
}

Save .bib

Annotatie bij Rb. Den Haag 5 februari 2020 (NJCM c.s. / Staat der Nederlanden – SyRI-wetgeving) external link

Dommering, E.

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, num: 45, pp: 6792-6795, 2020

Abstract

De SyRI-wetgeving voldoet niet aan de in art. 8 lid 2 EVRM gestelde eis dat de inmenging in de uitoefening van het recht op respect voor het privéleven noodzakelijk is in een democratische samenleving, dat wil zeggen noodzakelijk, evenredig (proportioneel) en subsidiair in relatie tot het beoogde doel.

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2020_386.pdf

Annotaties, frontpage, Privacy, SyRI-wetgeving

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Evaluatie Wet Auteurscontractenrecht: Eindrapport external link

van Gompel, S., Hugenholtz, P.B., Poort, J., Schumacher, L.D. & Visser, D.

2020

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 at the link below.

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/evaluatie_wet_auteurscontractenrecht_2020.pdf https://www.wodc.nl/wodc-nieuws-2020/auteurscontractenrecht.aspx https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Evaluatie-ACR-Eindrapport-Summary-and-conclusions.pdf

auteurscontractenrecht, Auteursrecht, evaluatie, frontpage, wodc

RIS

TY  - RPRT
AU  - van Gompel, S.
AU  - Hugenholtz, P.B.
AU  - Poort, J.
AU  - Schumacher, L.D.
AU  - Visser, D.
PY  - 1029
DA  - 2020-10-29
T1  - Evaluatie Wet Auteurscontractenrecht: Eindrapport
UR  - https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/evaluatie_wet_auteurscontractenrecht_2020.pdf
https://www.wodc.nl/wodc-nieuws-2020/auteurscontractenrecht.aspx
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Evaluatie-ACR-Eindrapport-Summary-and-conclusions.pdf
AB  - 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 at the link below.
K1  - auteurscontractenrecht
K1  - Auteursrecht
K1  - evaluatie
K1  - frontpage
K1  - wodc
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Report{vanGompel2020b,
	title = {Evaluatie Wet Auteurscontractenrecht: Eindrapport},
	author = {van Gompel, S. and Hugenholtz, P.B. and Poort, J. and Schumacher, L.D. and Visser, D.},
	year = {1029},
	date = {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 at the link below.},
	keywords = {auteurscontractenrecht, Auteursrecht, evaluatie, frontpage, wodc},
}

Save .bib

Netherlands/Research external link

Fahy, R. & Appelman, N.

1029, pp: 164-175

Abstract

How are AI-based systems being used by private companies and public authorities in Europe? The new report by AlgorithmWatch and Bertelsmann Stiftung sheds light on what role automated decision-making (ADM) systems play in our lives. As a result of the most comprehensive research on the issue conducted in Europe so far, the report covers the current use of and policy debates around ADM systems in 16 European countries and at EU level.

Links

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Automating-Society-Report-2020.pdf https://automatingsociety.algorithmwatch.org/

Artificial intelligence, automated decision making, frontpage, Technologie en recht

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

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 external link

Senftleben, M. & Angelopoulos, C.

2020

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 – 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.

Links

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3717022

algorithmic enforcement, Auteursrecht, censorship, Content moderation, Copyright, defamation, Digital Services Act (DSA), filtering, Freedom of expression, frontpage, general monitoring, hosting service, injunctive relief, intermediary liability, notice and stay down, notice and take down, safe harbour, trade mark, user-generated content

RIS

TY  - RPRT
AU  - Senftleben, M.
AU  - Angelopoulos, C.
PY  - 1029
DA  - 2020-10-29
T1  - 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
UR  - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3717022
AB  - 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.
K1  - algorithmic enforcement
K1  - Auteursrecht
K1  - censorship
K1  - Content moderation
K1  - Copyright
K1  - defamation
K1  - Digital Services Act (DSA)
K1  - filtering
K1  - Freedom of expression
K1  - frontpage
K1  - general monitoring
K1  - hosting service
K1  - injunctive relief
K1  - intermediary liability
K1  - notice and stay down
K1  - notice and take down
K1  - safe harbour
K1  - trade mark
K1  - user-generated content
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Report{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.},
	year = {1029},
	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 – 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.},
	keywords = {algorithmic enforcement, Auteursrecht, censorship, Content moderation, Copyright, defamation, Digital Services Act (DSA), filtering, Freedom of expression, frontpage, general monitoring, hosting service, injunctive relief, intermediary liability, notice and stay down, notice and take down, safe harbour, trade mark, user-generated content},
}

Save .bib

Top Keywords

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex