JIPITEC – Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law
Not a member yet
417 research outputs found
Sort by
Responsible Information Sharing Converging boundaries between private and public in privacy and copyright law
Get PDFCopyright Law and Privacy Law both grant individuals exclusive control over the dissemination of expression or personal information, respectively. A number of criteria emerged in the ‘new public’ jurisprudence of the CJEU based on Article 3 Directive 2001/29/EC (InfoSoc Directive), that determine how right holders can retain control over copyright-protected works after their first publication. The Court established that the scope of a public in copyright law depends, among other factors, on the subjective intention of the person who exposes a work to an audience. The case law suggests that several ‘publics’ coexist, and that the exposure of works to one of these ‘publics’, does not automatically justify exposure to other public spheres. The exposure of these works to other ‘publics’, still remains under the control of the right holder. The paper suggests that the notion of a “new public” can be instrumental in better understanding the delimitation of public and private space in EU privacy law. The authors propose a concept of privacy as controlled public exposure, modelled on the notion of a “new public” under Article 3 of the Information Society Directive, and inspired by recent jurisprudence of the ECtHR on Article 8 ECHR, which protects the right to respect for private life. This, the authors argue, leads to an expansion of private spheres in public life
„Datenzugang, Verbraucherinteressen und Gemeinwohl“ – Bericht über die Verbraucherrechtstage 2019 des Bundesministeriums der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz in Berlin, 12. und 13. Dezember 2019
Get PDFThis report summarizes the conference “Verbraucherrechtstage 2019“ (“Consumer Law Days 2019“), organised by the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection on 12 and 13 December 2019 in Berlin. This year’s topic was data access with a special emphasis on consumer interests and public welfare. Leading legal and economic scholars as well as public servants and politicians came together to engage in fruitful discussions on designing the regulatory framework for data access in the digital economy. The conference was divided into four academic panels covering the wider economic and legal framework for data access, existing data access regimes and potential need for amendments. It additionally featured keynote speeches on current political developments and a concluding, policy-oriented panel discussion. An English language conference volume is expected to be published in the course of 2020
Comment of the European Copyright Society Addressing Selected Aspects of the Implementation of Articles 18 to 22 of the Directive (EU) 2019/790 on Copyright in the Digital Single Market
Get PDF
The Liability system of Art. 17 DSMD and national implementation – contravening prohibition of general monitoring duties?
Get PDFThe article deals with the complex liability system of Art. 17 DSM Directive, the famous “upload filter provision” in copyright law concerning content sharing platforms. The conflict between the prohibition of general monitoring obligations for platform providers derived from European fundamental rights by the CJEU and the obligations of providers are scrutinized. Moreover, possible options for national legislators in order to safeguard fundamental rights of users concerning freedom of speech (and copyright limitations) are discussed
Getting Data Subject Rights Right A submission to the European Data Protection Board from international data rights academics, to inform regulatory guidance
Get PDFWe are a group of academics active in research and practice around data rights. We believe that the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) guidance on data rights currently under development is an important point to resolve a variety of tensions and grey areas which, if left unaddressed, may significantly undermine the fundamental right to data protection. All of us were present at the recent stakeholder event on data rights in Brussels on 4 November 2019, and it is in the context and spirit of stakeholder engagement that we have created this document to explore and provide recommendations and examples in this area. This document is based on comprehensive empirical evidence as well as CJEU case law, EDPB (and, previously, Article 29 Working Party) guidance and extensive scientific research into the scope, rationale, effects and general modalities of data rights
Debts, Money, Intellectual Property, Data and the Concept of Dematerialised Property
Get PDFDebts, (electronic) money, intellectual property, and, in principle, data and digitised objects (if ownership rights are to be recognised for these), can be conceptualised as versions of the general principle of dematerialised property. This article discusses first the concept of dematerialised property and its application to debts, money and intellectual property. Then it deals with the idea of ownership of data within traditional property concepts. While data ownership can theoretically be accommodated fairly easily within the framework of dematerialised property, there are several reasons, both theoretical and from a legal policy perspective, which make the introduction of data ownership modelled upon conventional (intellectual) property rights problematic
Conceptualizations of the controller in permissionless blockchains
Get PDFThe relationship between blockchain and the General Data Protection Regulation (hereinafter GDPR) is often described as problematic. This article addresses one of the problems blockchain faces: who is/are the controller(s) in a blockchain context? This article demonstrates that it is particularly difficult to identify the controller in blockchain applications that are integrated in the core code of a permissionless blockchain. The P2P character of blockchains, with its broad distribution of responsibilities, makes it difficult to ascertain who is able to determine purposes and means of the processing of data. In order to structure the discussion, this article develops three conceptualizations of cooperation within a blockchain. These conceptualizations give different perspectives on the relations between the actors in a blockchain that are potential controllers. The article identifies who is most likely to be the controller in the different conceptualizations and gives indications about the extent to which the controllers are able to exercise their responsibilities. A problem is that an adequate exercise of responsibility requires coordination within the blockchain. However, the system that normally takes care of coordination in a permissionless blockchain – the crypto-economic incentive system – is at present not able to provide adequate data protection
Copyright lessons on Machine Learning: what impact on algorithmic art?
Get PDFNowadays, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is described as “the new electricity”. Current algorithmic innovation allowed the development of software which enables machines to learn and to achieve autonomous decision making, with limited or no human involvement, in a vast number of applications, such as speech recognition, machine translation and algorithmic creation of works (computer generated art), on the basis of a process widely known as Machine Learning (ML). Within the ML context, machines are repeatedly trained by means of specifically designed learning algorithms that use a corpus of examples in the form of data sets as training material. Very often and, especially in the context of algorithmic creativity, the training material is mainly composed by copyrighted works, such as texts, images, paintings, musical compositions, and others. Machine Learning workflow typically involves the realization of (multiple) reproductions of any protected work used as training material. The present paper aims to assess the extent to which the use of copyrighted works for Machine Learning purposes in the field of algorithmic creativity is controlled by the monopolistic power of the copyright rightholder on that work. The answer to this question will be researched in the context of EU copyright law, by examining the content of reproduction right and exceptions possibly applicable in a typical ML workflow in the field of algorithmic art, before making an overall assessment of the current EU regulatory framework for artistic ML projects, as it is shaped after the DSM Directive 2019/790