Keyword: frontpage

Freedom of expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the Euopean Court of Human Rights external link

Voorhoof, D. & McGonagle, T.
2021

Abstract

This e-book provides valuable insights into the European Court of Human Rights’ extensive case-law on freedom of expression and media and journalistic freedoms. The first four editions of the e-book (2013, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2020) have proved hugely successful. The new sixth edition summarises over 339 judgments or decisions by the Court and provides hyperlinks to the full text of each of the summarised judgments or decisions (via HUDOC, the Court's online case-law database).

ECHR, frontpage, Grondrechten, Journalistiek, jurisprudentie, Mediarecht, Vrijheid van meningsuiting

Bibtex

Article{Voorhoof2021, title = {Freedom of expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the Euopean Court of Human Rights}, author = {Voorhoof, D. and McGonagle, T.}, url = {https://rm.coe.int/iris-themes-vol-iii-2020-edition-en-28-april-2021-/1680a24eee}, year = {0506}, date = {2021-05-06}, abstract = {This e-book provides valuable insights into the European Court of Human Rights’ extensive case-law on freedom of expression and media and journalistic freedoms. The first four editions of the e-book (2013, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2020) have proved hugely successful. The new sixth edition summarises over 339 judgments or decisions by the Court and provides hyperlinks to the full text of each of the summarised judgments or decisions (via HUDOC, the Court\'s online case-law database).}, keywords = {ECHR, frontpage, Grondrechten, Journalistiek, jurisprudentie, Mediarecht, Vrijheid van meningsuiting}, }

Persvrijheidsmonitor 2020 external link

Volgenant, O. & McGonagle, T.
2021

Abstract

Op maandag 3 mei wordt de Internationale Dag van de Persvrijheid gehouden. Op deze dag wordt de jaarlijkse Persvrijheidsmonitor gepresenteerd met een overzicht van de ontwikkelingen op het gebied van de persvrijheid in Nederland.

frontpage, Journalistiek, Mediarecht, persvrijheid

Bibtex

Article{Volgenant2021, title = {Persvrijheidsmonitor 2020}, author = {Volgenant, O. and McGonagle, T.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Persvrijheidsmonitor-2020.pdf}, year = {0503}, date = {2021-05-03}, abstract = {Op maandag 3 mei wordt de Internationale Dag van de Persvrijheid gehouden. Op deze dag wordt de jaarlijkse Persvrijheidsmonitor gepresenteerd met een overzicht van de ontwikkelingen op het gebied van de persvrijheid in Nederland.}, keywords = {frontpage, Journalistiek, Mediarecht, persvrijheid}, }

A Serpent Eating Its Tail: The Database Directive Meets the Open Data Directive external link

van Eechoud, M.
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , vol. 52, num: 4, pp: 375-378, 2021

Abstract

As part of its broader digital strategy, the European Commission has articulated a data strategy. Its aim is to help grow “the use of, and demand for, data and data-enabled products and services throughout the Single Market”. In the eyes of the EC, promoting wider availability and use of data would stimulate not just “greater productivity and competitive markets, but also improvements in health and well-being, environment, transparent governance and convenient public services”. That is quite a shopping list. The data strategy has ramifications for intellectual property law, especially for the sui generis database right enshrined in the 1996 Database Directive.

Auteursrecht, Databankenrecht, frontpage

Bibtex

Article{vanEechoud2021b, title = {A Serpent Eating Its Tail: The Database Directive Meets the Open Data Directive}, author = {van Eechoud, M.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IIC_2021.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-021-01049-7}, year = {0414}, date = {2021-04-14}, journal = {IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law }, volume = {52}, number = {4}, pages = {375-378}, abstract = {As part of its broader digital strategy, the European Commission has articulated a data strategy. Its aim is to help grow “the use of, and demand for, data and data-enabled products and services throughout the Single Market”. In the eyes of the EC, promoting wider availability and use of data would stimulate not just “greater productivity and competitive markets, but also improvements in health and well-being, environment, transparent governance and convenient public services”. That is quite a shopping list. The data strategy has ramifications for intellectual property law, especially for the sui generis database right enshrined in the 1996 Database Directive.}, keywords = {Auteursrecht, Databankenrecht, frontpage}, }

It’s 23 April 2021, so where is the Advocate General opinion in Case C-401/19 Poland v Parliament and Council? external link

Keller, P.
Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021

Auteursrecht, frontpage

Bibtex

Article{Keller2021, title = {It’s 23 April 2021, so where is the Advocate General opinion in Case C-401/19 Poland v Parliament and Council?}, author = {Keller, P.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/04/23/its-23-april-2021-so-where-is-the-advocate-general-opinion-in-case-c-401-19-poland-v-parliament-and-council/}, year = {0423}, date = {2021-04-23}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {Auteursrecht, frontpage}, }

Annotatie bij Rb Amsterdam 10 september 2020 (Left Lane c.s. / Sony Music) external link

van Gompel, S.
Auteursrecht, num: 1, pp: 40-42, 2021

Annotaties, Auteursrecht, frontpage, licentieovereenkomsten

Bibtex

Article{vanGompel2021b, title = {Annotatie bij Rb Amsterdam 10 september 2020 (Left Lane c.s. / Sony Music)}, author = {van Gompel, S.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_Auteursrecht_2021-1.pdf}, year = {0429}, date = {2021-04-29}, journal = {Auteursrecht}, number = {1}, keywords = {Annotaties, Auteursrecht, frontpage, licentieovereenkomsten}, }

‘Non, non, rien n’a changé’: Over vergoedingsaanspraken voor makers uit hoofde van exploitatiecontracten external link

van Gompel, S.
Auteursrecht, vol. 2021, num: 1, pp: 3-9, 2021

Abstract

‘Auteurs en artiesten profiteren nog weinig van Wet Auteurscontractenrecht’, zo luidt de titel van het persbericht van het WODC bij de publicatie van het evaluatierapport van genoemde wet in oktober 2020. Makers geven onder meer aan dat zij hun aanspraak op een billijke vergoeding (art. 25c lid 1 Aw) of de aanvullende billijke vergoeding bij exploitatiesucces (art. 25d Aw) niet durven in te roepen of te handhaven jegens exploitanten. Het is daarom de vraag of de vergoeding die makers van exploitanten ontvangen voor de contractueel verleende exploitatiebevoegdheid van hun werken wel altijd ‘billijk’ is. Mede in het licht van art. 18 e.v. DSM-richtlijn, die eveneens beogen een passende en evenredige vergoeding voor auteurs en uitvoerende kunstenaars in exploitatiecontracten te waarborgen, bespreekt dit artikel juridische en praktische maatregelen om makers makkelijker in staat te stellen hun vergoedingsaanspraken uit exploitatiecontracten te effectueren.

auteurscontractenrecht, Auteursrecht, frontpage, uitvoerende kunstenaars, vergoedingen

Bibtex

Article{vanGompel2021, title = {‘Non, non, rien n’a changé’: Over vergoedingsaanspraken voor makers uit hoofde van exploitatiecontracten}, author = {van Gompel, S.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Auteursrecht-2021-1.pdf}, year = {0429}, date = {2021-04-29}, journal = {Auteursrecht}, volume = {2021}, number = {1}, pages = {3-9}, abstract = {‘Auteurs en artiesten profiteren nog weinig van Wet Auteurscontractenrecht’, zo luidt de titel van het persbericht van het WODC bij de publicatie van het evaluatierapport van genoemde wet in oktober 2020. Makers geven onder meer aan dat zij hun aanspraak op een billijke vergoeding (art. 25c lid 1 Aw) of de aanvullende billijke vergoeding bij exploitatiesucces (art. 25d Aw) niet durven in te roepen of te handhaven jegens exploitanten. Het is daarom de vraag of de vergoeding die makers van exploitanten ontvangen voor de contractueel verleende exploitatiebevoegdheid van hun werken wel altijd ‘billijk’ is. Mede in het licht van art. 18 e.v. DSM-richtlijn, die eveneens beogen een passende en evenredige vergoeding voor auteurs en uitvoerende kunstenaars in exploitatiecontracten te waarborgen, bespreekt dit artikel juridische en praktische maatregelen om makers makkelijker in staat te stellen hun vergoedingsaanspraken uit exploitatiecontracten te effectueren.}, keywords = {auteurscontractenrecht, Auteursrecht, frontpage, uitvoerende kunstenaars, vergoedingen}, }

Too Small to Matter? On the Copyright Directive’s bias in favour of big right-holders external link

Husovec, M. & Quintais, J.
Oxford University Press, 0429

Abstract

Copyright law is about recognising the author’s material and non-material interests and setting the incentives for creativity right. The legislative changes in this area increasingly look as if simple linearity governs the world: what we take away from some, we automatically give away in equal part to others. The idea of redistribution is noticeable in recent legislative developments. Art. 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (DSM Directive) is the latest policy intervention to prove this point. According to its logic, imposing stricter liability on some online gatekeepers will automatically improve the position and revenues for all right-holders. This chapter explores the flaws in such an approach by highlighting how the excessive focus of Art. 17 on big right-holders neglects and harms smaller creators. EU copyright law often uses a technical term of ‘right-holders’ to refer to a wide range of players with legal entitlements in the copyright ecosystem: authors, performers, phonogram producers, film producers, broadcasting organisations and (most recently) press publishers. Obviously, not all right-holders are created equal nor do their legal entitlements flow from identical normative justifications. We argue in this chapter that even the use of this seemingly neutral term can, due to the design of underlying legal solutions, lead to stark inequality between right-holders. Our broader goal is to demonstrate that maximising enforcement by means of Art. 17 of the DSM Directive does not simply maximise the position of every right-holder at the expense of platforms but does so disproportionality for big right-holders. Besides, we show that blind use of ‘right-holder’ and ‘user’ distinction harms the very creators that provision is supposed to protect.

Article 17, Copyright, equal treatment, frontpage, online platform

Bibtex

Chapter{HusovecQuintais2021-2, title = {Too Small to Matter? On the Copyright Directive’s bias in favour of big right-holders}, author = {Husovec, M. and Quintais, J.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3835930}, year = {0429}, date = {2021-04-29}, abstract = {Copyright law is about recognising the author’s material and non-material interests and setting the incentives for creativity right. The legislative changes in this area increasingly look as if simple linearity governs the world: what we take away from some, we automatically give away in equal part to others. The idea of redistribution is noticeable in recent legislative developments. Art. 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (DSM Directive) is the latest policy intervention to prove this point. According to its logic, imposing stricter liability on some online gatekeepers will automatically improve the position and revenues for all right-holders. This chapter explores the flaws in such an approach by highlighting how the excessive focus of Art. 17 on big right-holders neglects and harms smaller creators. EU copyright law often uses a technical term of ‘right-holders’ to refer to a wide range of players with legal entitlements in the copyright ecosystem: authors, performers, phonogram producers, film producers, broadcasting organisations and (most recently) press publishers. Obviously, not all right-holders are created equal nor do their legal entitlements flow from identical normative justifications. We argue in this chapter that even the use of this seemingly neutral term can, due to the design of underlying legal solutions, lead to stark inequality between right-holders. Our broader goal is to demonstrate that maximising enforcement by means of Art. 17 of the DSM Directive does not simply maximise the position of every right-holder at the expense of platforms but does so disproportionality for big right-holders. Besides, we show that blind use of ‘right-holder’ and ‘user’ distinction harms the very creators that provision is supposed to protect.}, keywords = {Article 17, Copyright, equal treatment, frontpage, online platform}, }

The Rise of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and the Role of Copyright Law – Part II external link

Quintais, J., Bodó, B., Giannopoulou, A. & Mezei, P.
2021

blockchain, Copyright, frontpage, NFT

Bibtex

Online publication{Quintais2021c, title = {The Rise of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and the Role of Copyright Law – Part II}, author = {Quintais, J. and Bodó, B. and Giannopoulou, A. and Mezei, P.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/04/22/the-rise-of-non-fungible-tokens-nfts-and-the-role-of-copyright-law-part-ii/}, year = {0422}, date = {2021-04-22}, keywords = {blockchain, Copyright, frontpage, NFT}, }

The Rise of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and the Role of Copyright Law – Part I external link

Quintais, J., Bodó, B., Giannopoulou, A. & Mezei, P.
2021

blockchain, Copyright, frontpage

Bibtex

Online publication{QuintaisetalNFTPartI, title = {The Rise of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and the Role of Copyright Law – Part I}, author = {Quintais, J. and Bodó, B. and Giannopoulou, A. and Mezei, P.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/04/14/the-rise-of-non-fungible-tokens-nfts-and-the-role-of-copyright-law-part-i/}, year = {0414}, date = {2021-04-14}, keywords = {blockchain, Copyright, frontpage}, }

EU copyright law round up – first trimester of 2021 external link

Trapova, A. & Quintais, J.
Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021

Auteursrecht, EU, frontpage

Bibtex

Article{Trapova2021b, title = {EU copyright law round up – first trimester of 2021}, author = {Trapova, A. and Quintais, J.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/04/06/eu-copyright-law-round-up-first-trimester-of-2021/}, year = {0407}, date = {2021-04-07}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {Auteursrecht, EU, frontpage}, }