Publications - Page 79 of 267

The introduction of algorithmic filtering and artificial intelligence in news dissemination has fundamentally changed the way news is consumed and distributed. While there is a clear benefit to the user, by making relevant stories accessible and therefore providing a way forward to manage the information overload, many have expressed concerns that it also leads to atomized societies where citizens are locked in filter bubbles. In this report we set out to answer the question: Do filter bubbles exist in the Netherlands?

filter bubbles, frontpage, Mediarecht, nederland, nieuws

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 14 februari 2019 (Buivids) external link

McGonagle, T.

European Human Rights Cases, vol. 2019, num: 5, pp: 253-255, 2019

Annotaties, bescherming persoonsgegevens, frontpage, Vrijheid van meningsuiting

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Annotatie bij EHRM 10 januari 2019 (Khadija Ismayilova / Azerbeidzjan) external link

McGonagle, T.

European Human Rights Cases, vol. 2019, num: 5, pp: 257-260, 2019

Annotaties, chilling effect, EHRM, frontpage, Vrijheid van meningsuiting

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Persvrijheidsmonitor 2018 external link

Volgenant, O. & McGonagle, T.

2019

Mediarecht, monitor, nederland, persvrijheid

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Advocate General Turns down the Music – Sampling Is Not a Fundamental Right under EU Copyright Law external link

Jütte, B. & Quintais, J.

European Intellectual Property Review , vol. 41, num: 10, pp: 654-657, 2019

Abstract

In his Opinion in Pelham (C-467/17) Advocate General Szpunar suggests that the use of samples from sound recordings is not permitted under the European copyright rules. While applying an extensive interpretation of the scope of the rights of phonogram producers, he rejects an extensive interpretation of the quotation exception and limits the role of fundamental rights as external checks to copyright law. Despite its merits, there are key aspects of the Opinion that raise concerns: a too broad interpretation of the reproduction right; and an unduly strict view of copyright exceptions – especially quotation – and the role of fundamental rights in shaping the scope of copyright protection. On those points, we suggest that the Court does not follow the Opinion.

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Jütte, B.
AU  - Quintais, J.
PY  - 2019
DA  - 2019-05-09
T1  - Advocate General Turns down the Music – Sampling Is Not a Fundamental Right under EU Copyright Law
JO  - European Intellectual Property Review 
VL  - 41
NV  - 10
SP  - 654-657
UR  - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3377205
AB  - In his Opinion in Pelham (C-467/17) Advocate General Szpunar suggests that the use of samples from sound recordings is not permitted under the European copyright rules. While applying an extensive interpretation of the scope of the rights of phonogram producers, he rejects an extensive interpretation of the quotation exception and limits the role of fundamental rights as external checks to copyright law. Despite its merits, there are key aspects of the Opinion that raise concerns: a too broad interpretation of the reproduction right; and an unduly strict view of copyright exceptions – especially quotation – and the role of fundamental rights in shaping the scope of copyright protection. On those points, we suggest that the Court does not follow the Opinion.
K1  - Copyright
K1  - EU law
K1  - Freedom of expression
K1  - frontpage
K1  - Fundamental rights
K1  - limitations and exceptions
K1  - music sampling
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{Jütte2019,
	title = {Advocate General Turns down the Music – Sampling Is Not a Fundamental Right under EU Copyright Law},
	author = {Jütte, B. and Quintais, J.},
	year = {2019},
	date = {2019-05-09},
	journal = {European Intellectual Property Review },
	volume = {41},
	number = {10},
	pages = {654-657},
	abstract = {In his Opinion in Pelham (C-467/17) Advocate General Szpunar suggests that the use of samples from sound recordings is not permitted under the European copyright rules. While applying an extensive interpretation of the scope of the rights of phonogram producers, he rejects an extensive interpretation of the quotation exception and limits the role of fundamental rights as external checks to copyright law. Despite its merits, there are key aspects of the Opinion that raise concerns: a too broad interpretation of the reproduction right; and an unduly strict view of copyright exceptions – especially quotation – and the role of fundamental rights in shaping the scope of copyright protection. On those points, we suggest that the Court does not follow the Opinion.},
	keywords = {Copyright, EU law, Freedom of expression, frontpage, Fundamental rights, limitations and exceptions, music sampling},
}

Save .bib