Robot Creativity: An Incentive-Based Neighbouring Rights Approach external link

Senftleben, M. & Buijtelaar, L.D.
European Intellectual Property Review, vol. 42, num: 12, 2020

Abstract

Today texts, paintings and songs need no longer be the result of human creativity. Advanced artificial intelligence (AI) systems are capable of generating creations that can hardly be distinguished from those of authors of flesh and blood. This development raises the question whether AI-generated works could be eligible for copyright protection. In the following analysis, we explore this question. After a discussion of the traditional copyright requirement of human creativity, the rationales underlying copyright protection – in particular the utilitarian incentive theory – will serve as a compass to decide on the grant of protection and delineate the scope of exclusive rights. In addition, the analysis will address the question who the owner of protected AI creations should be. Finally, the discussion of pros and cons of protection will be placed in the broader context of competing policy goals and legal obligations, such as the prospect of enriching the public domain and the question of liability for AI creations that infringe the rights of third parties.

Copyright, creativiteit, frontpage, Naburige rechten

Bibtex

Article{Senftleben2020d, title = {Robot Creativity: An Incentive-Based Neighbouring Rights Approach}, author = {Senftleben, M. and Buijtelaar, L.D.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3707741}, year = {1013}, date = {2020-10-13}, journal = {European Intellectual Property Review}, volume = {42}, number = {12}, pages = {}, abstract = {Today texts, paintings and songs need no longer be the result of human creativity. Advanced artificial intelligence (AI) systems are capable of generating creations that can hardly be distinguished from those of authors of flesh and blood. This development raises the question whether AI-generated works could be eligible for copyright protection. In the following analysis, we explore this question. After a discussion of the traditional copyright requirement of human creativity, the rationales underlying copyright protection – in particular the utilitarian incentive theory – will serve as a compass to decide on the grant of protection and delineate the scope of exclusive rights. In addition, the analysis will address the question who the owner of protected AI creations should be. Finally, the discussion of pros and cons of protection will be placed in the broader context of competing policy goals and legal obligations, such as the prospect of enriching the public domain and the question of liability for AI creations that infringe the rights of third parties.}, keywords = {Copyright, creativiteit, frontpage, Naburige rechten}, }

How to License Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms external link

Husovec, M. & Quintais, J.
2020

Abstract

Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive is a major Internet policy experiment of our decade. The provision fundamentally changes copyright regulation of certain digital platforms. However, the precise nature of art. 17 is far from clear. How does it fit the existing structure of EU copyright law and doctrine? How can the Member States implement it? These are the questions at the heart of this article. To answer them, we start by examining the nature and structure of the right prescribed in art. 17. The exact qualification brings important legal consequences. Among others, it determines the conditions imposed by EU law and international law on national implementations. After reviewing different interpretation options, we conclude that art. 17 introduces either a special or a new sui generis right, both of which allow significant margin of discretion for Member States, especially as regards licensing mechanisms and exceptions. [This is a revised and updated version of a working paper first published in October 2019]

Article 17, communication to the public, Copyright, exceptions and limitations, frontpage, intermediaries, Licensing

Bibtex

Article{Husovec2020c, title = {How to License Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms}, author = {Husovec, M. and Quintais, J.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3463011}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3463011}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-09-29}, abstract = {Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive is a major Internet policy experiment of our decade. The provision fundamentally changes copyright regulation of certain digital platforms. However, the precise nature of art. 17 is far from clear. How does it fit the existing structure of EU copyright law and doctrine? How can the Member States implement it? These are the questions at the heart of this article. To answer them, we start by examining the nature and structure of the right prescribed in art. 17. The exact qualification brings important legal consequences. Among others, it determines the conditions imposed by EU law and international law on national implementations. After reviewing different interpretation options, we conclude that art. 17 introduces either a special or a new sui generis right, both of which allow significant margin of discretion for Member States, especially as regards licensing mechanisms and exceptions. [This is a revised and updated version of a working paper first published in October 2019]}, keywords = {Article 17, communication to the public, Copyright, exceptions and limitations, frontpage, intermediaries, Licensing}, }

From Flexible Balancing Tool to Quasi-Constitutional Straitjacket – How the EU Cultivates the Constraining Function of the Three-Step Test external link

Abstract

In the international intellectual property (IP) arena, the so-called “three-step test” regulates the room for the adoption of limitations and exceptions (L&Es) to exclusive rights across different fields of IP. Given the openness of the individual test criteria, it is tempting for proponents of strong IP protection to strive for the fixation of the meaning of the three-step test at the constraining end of the spectrum of possible interpretations. As the three-step test lies at the core of legislative initiatives to balance exclusive rights and user freedoms, the cultivation of the test’s constraining function and the suppression of the test’s enabling function has the potential to transform the three-step test into a bulwark against limitations of IP protection. The EU is at the forefront of a constraining use and interpretation of the three-step test in the field of copyright law. The configuration of the legal framework in the EU is worrisome because it obliges judges to apply the three-step test as an additional control instrument. It is not sufficient that an individual use falls within the scope of a statutory copyright limitation that explicitly permits this type of use without prior authorization. In addition, judges applying the three-step test also examine whether the specific form of use at issue complies with each individual criterion of the three-step test. Hence, the test serves as an instrument to further restrict L&Es that have already been defined precisely in statutory law. Not surprisingly, decisions from courts in the EU have a tendency of shedding light on the constraining aspect of the three-step test and, therefore, reinforcing the hegemony of copyright holders in the IP arena. The hypothesis underlying the following examination, therefore, is that the EU approach to the three-step test is one-sided in the sense that it only demonstrates the potential of the test to set additional limits to L&Es. The analysis focuses on this transformation of a flexible international balancing tool into a powerful confirmation and fortification of IP protection. For this purpose, the two facets of the international three-step test – its enabling and constraining function – are explored before embarking on a discussion of case law that evolved under the one-sided EU approach. Analyzing repercussions on international lawmaking, it will become apparent that the EU approach already impacted the further development of international L&Es. Certain features of the Marrakesh Treaty clearly reflect the restrictive EU approach.

access to knowledge, Berne Convention, Copyright, EU law, frontpage, Human rights, limitations and exceptions, Marrakesh Treaty, rights of disabled persons, transformative use, TRIPS Agreement

Bibtex

Chapter{Senftleben2020b, title = {From Flexible Balancing Tool to Quasi-Constitutional Straitjacket – How the EU Cultivates the Constraining Function of the Three-Step Test}, author = {Senftleben, M.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3576019}, year = {0416}, date = {2020-04-16}, abstract = {In the international intellectual property (IP) arena, the so-called “three-step test” regulates the room for the adoption of limitations and exceptions (L&Es) to exclusive rights across different fields of IP. Given the openness of the individual test criteria, it is tempting for proponents of strong IP protection to strive for the fixation of the meaning of the three-step test at the constraining end of the spectrum of possible interpretations. As the three-step test lies at the core of legislative initiatives to balance exclusive rights and user freedoms, the cultivation of the test’s constraining function and the suppression of the test’s enabling function has the potential to transform the three-step test into a bulwark against limitations of IP protection. The EU is at the forefront of a constraining use and interpretation of the three-step test in the field of copyright law. The configuration of the legal framework in the EU is worrisome because it obliges judges to apply the three-step test as an additional control instrument. It is not sufficient that an individual use falls within the scope of a statutory copyright limitation that explicitly permits this type of use without prior authorization. In addition, judges applying the three-step test also examine whether the specific form of use at issue complies with each individual criterion of the three-step test. Hence, the test serves as an instrument to further restrict L&Es that have already been defined precisely in statutory law. Not surprisingly, decisions from courts in the EU have a tendency of shedding light on the constraining aspect of the three-step test and, therefore, reinforcing the hegemony of copyright holders in the IP arena. The hypothesis underlying the following examination, therefore, is that the EU approach to the three-step test is one-sided in the sense that it only demonstrates the potential of the test to set additional limits to L&Es. The analysis focuses on this transformation of a flexible international balancing tool into a powerful confirmation and fortification of IP protection. For this purpose, the two facets of the international three-step test – its enabling and constraining function – are explored before embarking on a discussion of case law that evolved under the one-sided EU approach. Analyzing repercussions on international lawmaking, it will become apparent that the EU approach already impacted the further development of international L&Es. Certain features of the Marrakesh Treaty clearly reflect the restrictive EU approach.}, keywords = {access to knowledge, Berne Convention, Copyright, EU law, frontpage, Human rights, limitations and exceptions, Marrakesh Treaty, rights of disabled persons, transformative use, TRIPS Agreement}, }

Belgian court asks CJEU whether seeding is communicating to the public external link

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020

aansprakelijkheid, Belgium, Copyright, EU, frontpage, handhaving, right of communication to the public

Bibtex

Article{Bouchè2020b, title = {Belgian court asks CJEU whether seeding is communicating to the public}, author = {Bouchè, G.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/03/30/belgian-court-asks-cjeu-whether-seeding-is-communicating-to-the-public/}, year = {0330}, date = {2020-03-30}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {aansprakelijkheid, Belgium, Copyright, EU, frontpage, handhaving, right of communication to the public}, }

Stichting Brein versus Safe Harbour: The Ongoing Battle Between Intermediaries and Right Holders external link

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020

aansprakelijkheid, Copyright, EU, frontpage, right of communication to the public

Bibtex

Article{Stapel2020b, title = {Stichting Brein versus Safe Harbour: The Ongoing Battle Between Intermediaries and Right Holders}, author = {Stapel, S.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/03/27/stichting-brein-versus-safe-harbour-the-ongoing-battle-between-intermediaries-and-right-holders/}, year = {0327}, date = {2020-03-27}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {aansprakelijkheid, Copyright, EU, frontpage, right of communication to the public}, }

BGH: uploading a free-trial version of Microsoft Office is also making available to the public external link

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020

case law, Copyright, Germany, infringement, Software

Bibtex

Article{Bouchè2020, title = {BGH: uploading a free-trial version of Microsoft Office is also making available to the public}, author = {Bouchè, G.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/02/20/bgh-uploading-a-free-trial-version-of-microsoft-office-is-also-making-available-to-the-public/}, year = {0225}, date = {2020-02-25}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {case law, Copyright, Germany, infringement, Software}, }

Safeguarding User Freedoms in Implementing Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: Recommendations from European Academics external link

Quintais, J., Frosio, G., van Gompel, S., Hugenholtz, P., Husovec, M., Jütte, B.J. & Senftleben, M.
JIPITEC, vol. vol. 10, num: nr. 3 - 2019, 2020

Article 17, Content-Sharing Service Providers, Copyright, digital content, Digital Single Market, DSM Directive, exceptions and limitations, Licensing, Online services, Platforms

Bibtex

Article{Quintais2020b, title = {Safeguarding User Freedoms in Implementing Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: Recommendations from European Academics}, author = {Quintais, J. and Frosio, G. and van Gompel, S. and Hugenholtz, P. and Husovec, M. and Jütte, B.J. and Senftleben, M.}, url = {https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-10-3-2019/5042}, year = {0225}, date = {2020-02-25}, journal = {JIPITEC}, volume = {vol. 10}, number = {nr. 3 - 2019}, pages = {}, keywords = {Article 17, Content-Sharing Service Providers, Copyright, digital content, Digital Single Market, DSM Directive, exceptions and limitations, Licensing, Online services, Platforms}, }

Panel discussion at CPDP 2020: We need to talk about filters: algorithmic copyright enforcement vs data protection. external link

Quintais, J., Ducato, R., Mazgal, A., Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. & Hegladóttir, A.
2020

Abstract

The new Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSM) Directive was published in May 2019. Its most controversial provision is Article 17 (ex 13), which creates a new liability regime for user-generated content platforms, like YouTube and Facebook. The new regime makes these platforms directly liable for their users’ uploads, without the possibility of benefiting from the hosting safe-harbour. This forces platforms to either license all or most of the content uploaded by users (which is near impossible) or to adopt preventive measures like filters. The likely outcome is that covered platforms will engage in general monitoring of the content uploaded by their users. This panel will discuss the issues raised by Article 17 DSM Directive and the model of algorithmic enforcement it incentivizes, with a focus on the freedom of expression and data protection risks it entails. • Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive creates a new liability regime for user-generated content platforms. • Does this provision introduce de facto the controversial upload filtering systems and, as a result, general monitoring of information in content-sharing platforms? • Is Article 17 essentially in conflict with the GDPR and, in particular, the principle of minimisation and the right not to be subject to automated decision-making processes? What are the potential consequences of this provision on users’ freedom of expression? • If Article 17 can negatively affect data protection and freedom of expression what are the possible legal and extra-legal responses to neutralise the risk?

Copyright, Data protection, frontpage, Privacy

Bibtex

Presentation{Quintais2020, title = {Panel discussion at CPDP 2020: We need to talk about filters: algorithmic copyright enforcement vs data protection.}, author = {Quintais, J. and Ducato, R. and Mazgal, A. and Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. and Hegladóttir, A.}, url = {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SstHA1ALZoI}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-02-06}, abstract = {The new Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSM) Directive was published in May 2019. Its most controversial provision is Article 17 (ex 13), which creates a new liability regime for user-generated content platforms, like YouTube and Facebook. The new regime makes these platforms directly liable for their users’ uploads, without the possibility of benefiting from the hosting safe-harbour. This forces platforms to either license all or most of the content uploaded by users (which is near impossible) or to adopt preventive measures like filters. The likely outcome is that covered platforms will engage in general monitoring of the content uploaded by their users. This panel will discuss the issues raised by Article 17 DSM Directive and the model of algorithmic enforcement it incentivizes, with a focus on the freedom of expression and data protection risks it entails. • Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive creates a new liability regime for user-generated content platforms. • Does this provision introduce de facto the controversial upload filtering systems and, as a result, general monitoring of information in content-sharing platforms? • Is Article 17 essentially in conflict with the GDPR and, in particular, the principle of minimisation and the right not to be subject to automated decision-making processes? What are the potential consequences of this provision on users’ freedom of expression? • If Article 17 can negatively affect data protection and freedom of expression what are the possible legal and extra-legal responses to neutralise the risk?}, keywords = {Copyright, Data protection, frontpage, Privacy}, }

Film Financing in the Digital Single Market: Challenges to Territoriality external link

IIC, vol. 51, num: 2, pp: 167-186, 2020

Abstract

This article discusses the role of territorial licences for feature films against the background of judicial and market developments in the EU. Currently, territorial licences are deemed a cornerstone of the exploitation and financing of films in Europe. However, current models of film financing are under increasing pressure both from market developments such as the turbulent growth of global online video platforms, and from developments in EU law aimed at removing national territorial barriers to the Single Market. Examples are the rule of Union-wide exhaustion of the distribution right, the EU Portability Regulation and the country of origin rules for satellite broadcasting and online simulcasting. EU competition law sets additional limits to grants of territorial exclusivity, and prohibits clauses in broadcasting and pay television licences that prevent or restrict “passive” sales to consumers/viewers in non-licensed territories. The freedom of right holders to preserve territorial exclusivity by way of contract is likely to become increasingly vulnerable to EU competition law, as underlying territorial rights no longer support territorial grants. For the film sector where territorial exclusivity remains indispensable, the European Commission could create specific competition law rules in the form of “block exemptions”. Language exclusivity – i.e. exclusive grants of rights for distinct language versions of a film – could provide a practical and legally more robust alternative to territorial licensing.

Copyright, Digital Single Market, film, financing, frontpage, territoriality

Bibtex

Article{Hugenholtz2020, title = {Film Financing in the Digital Single Market: Challenges to Territoriality}, author = {Hugenholtz, P. and Poort, J.}, url = {https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs40319-019-00900-2.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-019-00900-2}, year = {0130}, date = {2020-01-30}, journal = {IIC}, volume = {51}, number = {2}, pages = {167-186}, abstract = {This article discusses the role of territorial licences for feature films against the background of judicial and market developments in the EU. Currently, territorial licences are deemed a cornerstone of the exploitation and financing of films in Europe. However, current models of film financing are under increasing pressure both from market developments such as the turbulent growth of global online video platforms, and from developments in EU law aimed at removing national territorial barriers to the Single Market. Examples are the rule of Union-wide exhaustion of the distribution right, the EU Portability Regulation and the country of origin rules for satellite broadcasting and online simulcasting. EU competition law sets additional limits to grants of territorial exclusivity, and prohibits clauses in broadcasting and pay television licences that prevent or restrict “passive” sales to consumers/viewers in non-licensed territories. The freedom of right holders to preserve territorial exclusivity by way of contract is likely to become increasingly vulnerable to EU competition law, as underlying territorial rights no longer support territorial grants. For the film sector where territorial exclusivity remains indispensable, the European Commission could create specific competition law rules in the form of “block exemptions”. Language exclusivity – i.e. exclusive grants of rights for distinct language versions of a film – could provide a practical and legally more robust alternative to territorial licensing.}, keywords = {Copyright, Digital Single Market, film, financing, frontpage, territoriality}, }

Does the doctrine of exhaustion apply to videogames purchased digitally? French court says oui external link

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2019

Copyright, exhaustion, France, frontpage

Bibtex

Article{Rucz2019, title = {Does the doctrine of exhaustion apply to videogames purchased digitally? French court says oui}, author = {Rucz, M.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/12/12/does-the-doctrine-of-exhaustion-apply-to-videogames-purchased-digitally-french-court-says-oui/}, year = {1219}, date = {2019-12-19}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {Copyright, exhaustion, France, frontpage}, }