Auteursrecht, frontpage, Intellectual property
Chapter{vanGompel2019e,
title = {Light Bulb},
author = {van Gompel, S.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Light_Bulb.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108325806},
year = {0626},
date = {2019-06-26},
volume = {2019},
pages = {104-111},
keywords = {Auteursrecht, frontpage, Intellectual property},
} Copyright, crossing legal boundaries, cultural rights, frontpage, indigenous rights, Intellectual property, protection issues, TCEs, traditional cultural expressions, UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, WIPO
Chapter{Breemen2018f,
title = {Protecting traditional cultural expressions – copyright tensions and human rights opportunities?},
author = {Breemen, J.},
url = {https://www.routledge.com/Critical-Indigenous-Rights-Studies/Corradi-de-Feyter-Desmet-Vanhees/p/book/9781138729339},
year = {0928},
date = {2018-09-28},
abstract = {The protection of traditional cultural expressions (TCEs) is not a straightforward issue. At first sight, characteristics of TCEs and their protection suggest similarity to copyright works. However, TCE protection should not be viewed as simply an (isolated) intellectual property issue. Rather, the protection of TCEs is part of a broader (political) context and struggle for rights. The chapter focuses on showing the complexity of the interrelation between copyright and indigenous peoples’ rights. It argues that a cultural and indigenous rights perspective could help address tensions deriving from differing worldviews, the application of dominant, existing legal frameworks and diverging understandings of protecting creativity and works of culture.},
keywords = {Copyright, crossing legal boundaries, cultural rights, frontpage, indigenous rights, Intellectual property, protection issues, TCEs, traditional cultural expressions, UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, WIPO},
} frontpage, Intellectual property
Article{Gervais2018b,
title = {International Intellectual Property’s Institutional Problem},
author = {Gervais, D.J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2018/07/09/international-intellectual-propertys-institutional-problem/},
year = {0710},
date = {2018-07-10},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {frontpage, Intellectual property},
} authors, Freedom of expression, frontpage, Intellectual property, intellectual property right, open content policies, publishers
Report{vanEechoud2017b,
title = {A publisher’s intellectual property right: Implications for freedom of expression, authors and open content policies},
author = {van Eechoud, M.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/OFE_Implications_of_publishers_right.pdf},
year = {0119},
date = {2017-01-19},
keywords = {authors, Freedom of expression, frontpage, Intellectual property, intellectual property right, open content policies, publishers},
} Database right, frontpage, Intellectual property, Kluwer Information Law Series
Chapter{Dommering2016b,
title = {A Few Legal and Economic Questions},
author = {Dommering, E.},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/LOOP.pdf},
year = {0812},
date = {2016-08-12},
keywords = {Database right, frontpage, Intellectual property, Kluwer Information Law Series},
} Database right, frontpage, Intellectual property, Kluwer Information Law Series
Chapter{Hugenholtz2016b,
title = {Something Completely Different: Europe’s Sui Generis Database Right},
author = {Hugenholtz, P.},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Chapter9_ILS37.pdf
},
year = {0915},
date = {2016-09-15},
abstract = {This chapter traces the sui generis database right’s historic roots, describes its main features, compares it to copyright, questions its legal nature especially in the light of international intellectual property agreements, and finally examines to what extent the goals of the Directive have been met.},
keywords = {Database right, frontpage, Intellectual property, Kluwer Information Law Series},
} bad faith, China, counterfeit, Fundamental rights, Human rights, innovation, Intellectual property, national security law, Patent law, Trademark law
Article{nokey,
title = {Back to Black: justice.cn},
author = {Tsoutsanis, A.},
url = {http://ssrn.com/abstract=2667516},
year = {1015},
date = {2015-10-15},
journal = {Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice},
number = {10},
abstract = {This short - peer reviewed - article touches on innovation in China in the field of smart phones, recent legislative reform in China for fostering intellectual property and combating counterfeit and trade mark grabbing. It also touches on human rights in China, the different approach in which the West advances its economic v human rights agenda and the selective way Silicon Valley industry participates in grass roots debate on civil liberties. The article also touches on the \'right to seek counsel\' as one of the fundamental rights, which many arrested lawyers in China were deprived of during the July 2015 arrests.},
keywords = {bad faith, China, counterfeit, Fundamental rights, Human rights, innovation, Intellectual property, national security law, Patent law, Trademark law},
} Copyright, Deep Packet Inspection, Intellectual property, Intellectuele eigendom, ISPs, Online liability, Privacy, safe harbours
Article{nokey,
title = {Deep Pockets, Packets, and Harbours: Never the Three Shall Meet},
author = {Margoni, T. and Perry, M.},
url = {http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2296216},
year = {2013},
date = {2013-04-12},
journal = {Ohio State Law Journal},
number = {6},
abstract = {Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) is a set of methodologies used for the analysis of data flow over the Internet. It is the intention of this paper to describe technical details of this issue and to show that by using DPI technologies it is possible to understand the content of Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol communications. This communications can carry public available content, private users information, legitimate copyrighted works, as well as infringing copyrighted works.<br />
Legislation in many jurisdictions regarding Internet service providers’ liability, or more generally the liability of communication intermediaries, usually contains “safe harbour” provisions. The World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty of 1996 has a short but significant provision excluding liability for suppliers of physical facilities. The provision is aimed at communication to the public and the facilitation of physical means. Its extensive interpretation to cases of contributory or vicarious liability, in absence of specific national implementation, can prove problematic. Two of the most relevant legislative interventions in the field, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the European Directive on Electronic Commerce, regulate extensively the field of intermediary liability. This paper looks at the relationship between existing packet inspection technologies, especially the ‘deep version,’ and the international and national legal and regulatory interventions connected with intellectual property protection and with the correlated liabilities ‘exemptions. In analyzing the referred two main statutes, we will take a comparative look at similar interventions in Australia and Canada that can offer some interesting elements of reflection.},
keywords = {Copyright, Deep Packet Inspection, Intellectual property, Intellectuele eigendom, ISPs, Online liability, Privacy, safe harbours},
} information technology, Intellectual property, Intellectuele eigendom, open formats, open licences, public domain, public sector information
Article{nokey,
title = {Re-use of public sector information in cultural heritage institutions},
author = {Keller, P. and Rybicka, K. and Tarkowski, A. and Margoni, T.},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1484.pdf},
year = {0113},
date = {2015-01-13},
journal = {International Free and Open Source Software Law Review},
volume = {6},
number = {1},
pages = {1-9.},
abstract = {In 2013 the European Union amended the Directive on Public Sector Information, establishing the principle that all available information produced and collected by public sector institutions must be made available for reuse under open terms and conditions. The amended Directive also brings publicly funded libraries, museums and archives into its scope. These new rules on reuse of heritage materials, treated as public sector information (PSI), attempt for the first time to define a general framework for sharing cultural heritage information all around Europe. In this paper we argue that if Member States are not careful, the implementation of the changes required by the new Directive could do more harm than good when it comes to access to digitized cultural heritage in Europe. These concerns center on how the directive interacts with copyright legislation. The paper recommends that in order to contribute to the opening up of cultural heritage resources, Member States should ensure that all qualifying documents that are not currently covered by third party intellectual property rights fall within the scope of the Directive. Member States should also implement the Directive in a way that does not encourage or require institutions to charge for the reuse of works that they make available for reuse. For documents that are still protected by intellectual property rights but where these rights are held by the cultural heritage institutions that have these works in their collections, Member States should encourage the use of Open Definition-compliant licenses.},
keywords = {information technology, Intellectual property, Intellectuele eigendom, open formats, open licences, public domain, public sector information},
}