The digitisation of cultural heritage: originality, derivative works and (non) original photographs external link

pp: 70 p., 2015

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to explore the legal consequences of the digitisation of cultural heritage institutions' archives and in particular to establish whether digitisation processes involve the originality required to trigger new copyright or copyright-related protection.<br /> As the European Commission and many MS reported, copyright and in particular "photographers rights" are cause of legal uncertainty during digitisation processes. A major role in this legally uncertain field is played by the standard of originality which is one of the main requirements for copyright protection. Only when a subject matter achieves the requested level of originality, it can be considered a work of authorship. Therefore, a first key issue analysed in this study is whether – and under which conditions – digitisation activities can be considered to be original enough as to constitute works (usually a photographic work) in their own right. A second element of uncertainty is connected with the type of work eventually created by acts of digitisation. If the process of digitisation of a (protected) work can be considered authorial, then the resulting work will be a derivative composed by two works: the original work digitally reproduced and the – probably – photographic work reproducing it. Finally, a third element of uncertainty is found in the protection afforded to "other photographs" by the last sentence of Art. 6 Term Directive and implemented in a handful of European countries.<br /> Accordingly, the paper is structured as follows: Part I is dedicated to the analysis of copyright law key concepts such as the originality standard, the definition of derivative works and the forms of protection available in cases of digital (or film-based) representations of objects (photographs). The second part of the study is devoted to a survey of a selection of EU Member States in an attempt to verify how the general concepts identified in Part I are applied by national legislatures and courts. The selected countries are Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands and the UK. The country analysis fulfils a double function: on the one hand it provides a specific overview of the national implementation of the solutions found at international and EU level. On the other hand, it constitutes the only possible approach in order to analyse the protection afforded by some MS to those "other photographs" (also called non original photographs or mere/simple photographs) provided for by the last sentence of Art. 6 Copyright Term Directive. Part III presents some conclusions and recommendations for cultural heritage institutions and for legislatures.<br />  

Auteursrecht, cultural heritage, derivative works, EU copyright law, Intellectuele eigendom, non original photographs, originality, photographic works, right to adaptation

Bibtex

Report{nokey, title = {The digitisation of cultural heritage: originality, derivative works and (non) original photographs}, author = {Margoni, T.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1507.pdf}, year = {0303}, date = {2015-03-03}, abstract = {The purpose of this paper is to explore the legal consequences of the digitisation of cultural heritage institutions\' archives and in particular to establish whether digitisation processes involve the originality required to trigger new copyright or copyright-related protection.<br /> As the European Commission and many MS reported, copyright and in particular "photographers rights" are cause of legal uncertainty during digitisation processes. A major role in this legally uncertain field is played by the standard of originality which is one of the main requirements for copyright protection. Only when a subject matter achieves the requested level of originality, it can be considered a work of authorship. Therefore, a first key issue analysed in this study is whether – and under which conditions – digitisation activities can be considered to be original enough as to constitute works (usually a photographic work) in their own right. A second element of uncertainty is connected with the type of work eventually created by acts of digitisation. If the process of digitisation of a (protected) work can be considered authorial, then the resulting work will be a derivative composed by two works: the original work digitally reproduced and the – probably – photographic work reproducing it. Finally, a third element of uncertainty is found in the protection afforded to "other photographs" by the last sentence of Art. 6 Term Directive and implemented in a handful of European countries.<br /> Accordingly, the paper is structured as follows: Part I is dedicated to the analysis of copyright law key concepts such as the originality standard, the definition of derivative works and the forms of protection available in cases of digital (or film-based) representations of objects (photographs). The second part of the study is devoted to a survey of a selection of EU Member States in an attempt to verify how the general concepts identified in Part I are applied by national legislatures and courts. The selected countries are Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands and the UK. The country analysis fulfils a double function: on the one hand it provides a specific overview of the national implementation of the solutions found at international and EU level. On the other hand, it constitutes the only possible approach in order to analyse the protection afforded by some MS to those "other photographs" (also called non original photographs or mere/simple photographs) provided for by the last sentence of Art. 6 Copyright Term Directive. Part III presents some conclusions and recommendations for cultural heritage institutions and for legislatures.<br />  }, keywords = {Auteursrecht, cultural heritage, derivative works, EU copyright law, Intellectuele eigendom, non original photographs, originality, photographic works, right to adaptation}, }

Deep Pockets, Packets, and Harbours: Never the Three Shall Meet external link

Margoni, T. & Perry, M.
Ohio State Law Journal, num: 6, pp: 1196-1216., 2013

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.

Copyright, Deep Packet Inspection, Intellectual property, Intellectuele eigendom, ISPs, Online liability, Privacy, safe harbours

Bibtex

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}, }

Empirical Evidence for Policy in Telecommunication, Copyright & Broadcasting external link

Vossiuspers UvA / Amsterdam University Press, 0226, pp: 287 p., ISBN: 9789056297602

Abstract

This dissertation contains nine articles with an empirical focus in copyright, telecommunication, and broadcasting. These articles address different research questions and employ a variety of methodological approaches. They all share an economic foundation and the aim to contribute to evidence based policymaking in the field of information law. Topics covered range from the welfare effects of illegal downloading, to those of public television; from the effectiveness of blocking access to The Pirate Bay to stop consumers from illegal downloading, to the effect of adequate legal online services on illegal downloading; from fixed price regulation for e-books, to text and video relay services to enable the hearing impaired to use telephony services; from the valuation of commercial radio licenses, to setting renewal fees for telecommunication spectrum based on an auction. Using these nine articles as case studies, the role and impact of economic evidence for policymaking in the field of information law is investigated. It is concluded that this role is positive rather than normative: legal or social norms maintain the upper hand as guiding principles for policy, more than the economic goal of welfare maximization. However, this does not by any means render economic analysis useless. Increasingly, politicians, judges and stakeholders require economic analysis and economic evidence to make
informed decisions about new policy measures, to make optimal decisions within existing legal boundaries and to fathom the consequences of proposed legal interventions. Without empirical evidence they may simply assume the effects of a policy measure as an article of faith.

Auteursrecht, Intellectuele eigendom

Bibtex

Book{nokey, title = {Empirical Evidence for Policy in Telecommunication, Copyright & Broadcasting}, author = {Poort, J.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1504.pdf}, year = {0226}, date = {2015-02-26}, abstract = {This dissertation contains nine articles with an empirical focus in copyright, telecommunication, and broadcasting. These articles address different research questions and employ a variety of methodological approaches. They all share an economic foundation and the aim to contribute to evidence based policymaking in the field of information law. Topics covered range from the welfare effects of illegal downloading, to those of public television; from the effectiveness of blocking access to The Pirate Bay to stop consumers from illegal downloading, to the effect of adequate legal online services on illegal downloading; from fixed price regulation for e-books, to text and video relay services to enable the hearing impaired to use telephony services; from the valuation of commercial radio licenses, to setting renewal fees for telecommunication spectrum based on an auction. Using these nine articles as case studies, the role and impact of economic evidence for policymaking in the field of information law is investigated. It is concluded that this role is positive rather than normative: legal or social norms maintain the upper hand as guiding principles for policy, more than the economic goal of welfare maximization. However, this does not by any means render economic analysis useless. Increasingly, politicians, judges and stakeholders require economic analysis and economic evidence to make informed decisions about new policy measures, to make optimal decisions within existing legal boundaries and to fathom the consequences of proposed legal interventions. Without empirical evidence they may simply assume the effects of a policy measure as an article of faith.}, keywords = {Auteursrecht, Intellectuele eigendom}, }

Copyright, technology and the exploitation of audiovisual works in the EU external link

IRIS Plus, num: 4, pp: 9-24., 2014

Auteursrecht, Intellectuele eigendom

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Copyright, technology and the exploitation of audiovisual works in the EU}, author = {Guibault, L. and Quintais, J.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1488.pdf}, year = {1101}, date = {2014-11-01}, journal = {IRIS Plus}, number = {4}, keywords = {Auteursrecht, Intellectuele eigendom}, }

Re-use of public sector information in cultural heritage institutions external link

Keller, P., Rybicka, K., Tarkowski, A. & Margoni, T.
International Free and Open Source Software Law Review, vol. 6, num: 1, pp: 1-9., 2015

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.

information technology, Intellectual property, Intellectuele eigendom, open formats, open licences, public domain, public sector information

Bibtex

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}, }

Annotatie bij Rb. Amsterdam, 27 augustus 2014 (LIRA / UPC) external link

AMI, num: 6, pp: 208., 2015

Abstract

Geschil tussen collectieve beheersorganisatie Stichting Lira (Lira) en kabelbedrijven UPC, Zeelandnet en Ziggo (UPC c.s.). Lira vordert een verbod van openbaarmaking door UPC c.s. van aan Lira door de tekstschrijvers overgedragen werk. De rechtbank oordeelt dat die overdracht geldig is en dat voor zover daarbij rechten m.b.t. toekomstige werken worden overgedragen deze voldoende bepaald zijn om te kunnen worden overgedragen. Artikel 45d Auteurswet staat daaraan niet in de weg.

Auteursrecht, Intellectuele eigendom

Bibtex

Case note{nokey, title = {Annotatie bij Rb. Amsterdam, 27 augustus 2014 (LIRA / UPC)}, author = {Kabel, J.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1473.pdf}, year = {0106}, date = {2015-01-06}, journal = {AMI}, number = {6}, abstract = {Geschil tussen collectieve beheersorganisatie Stichting Lira (Lira) en kabelbedrijven UPC, Zeelandnet en Ziggo (UPC c.s.). Lira vordert een verbod van openbaarmaking door UPC c.s. van aan Lira door de tekstschrijvers overgedragen werk. De rechtbank oordeelt dat die overdracht geldig is en dat voor zover daarbij rechten m.b.t. toekomstige werken worden overgedragen deze voldoende bepaald zijn om te kunnen worden overgedragen. Artikel 45d Auteurswet staat daaraan niet in de weg.}, keywords = {Auteursrecht, Intellectuele eigendom}, }

Extended collective licensing: panacee voor massadigitalisering? external link

Hugenholtz, P., van Gompel, S. & Guibault, L.
2014

Abstract

In dit rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek wordt geanalyseerd welke voor- en nadelen de invoering van een wettelijk stelsel van extended collective licensing (‘verruimde’ collectieve licentieovereenkomsten) kan hebben om de rights clearance van digitaliseringsprojecten van erfgoedinstellingen te vergemakkelijken. Daarbij wordt een vergelijking gemaakt met de situatie waarin collectieve licenties zonder ondersteunende wettelijke maatregelen tot stand komen. De jurisdicties die zijn onderzocht zijn Denemarken, Noorwegen, Duitsland en Nederland.

Auteursrecht, Intellectuele eigendom

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Extended collective licensing: panacee voor massadigitalisering?}, author = {Hugenholtz, P. and van Gompel, S. and Guibault, L.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1471.pdf}, year = {1219}, date = {2014-12-19}, abstract = {In dit rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek wordt geanalyseerd welke voor- en nadelen de invoering van een wettelijk stelsel van extended collective licensing (‘verruimde’ collectieve licentieovereenkomsten) kan hebben om de rights clearance van digitaliseringsprojecten van erfgoedinstellingen te vergemakkelijken. Daarbij wordt een vergelijking gemaakt met de situatie waarin collectieve licenties zonder ondersteunende wettelijke maatregelen tot stand komen. De jurisdicties die zijn onderzocht zijn Denemarken, Noorwegen, Duitsland en Nederland.}, keywords = {Auteursrecht, Intellectuele eigendom}, }

Creative work and communicative norms: Perspectives from legal philosophy external link

Biron, L.
1219, pp: 19-44

Abstract

In consideration of the application of insights from the humanities to the interpretation of core legal concepts in copyright, this chapter examines three questions: first, what is a ‘work of authorship’, and why does copyright law place such a strong emphasis on originality for determining what counts as a work? Second, can and should we modify ‘romantic’ conceptions of authorship, to take into account the various ways in which authorial practices seem to conflict with their highly individualistic and creator-centred focus? Finally, how might copyright law make sense of the various ways in which authorship is collaborative, in light of its somewhat restrictive definitions of co-authorship? This chapter will consider the contribution that existing philosophical literature on the justification of copyright might have to these questions. It begins by outlining three categories that have application to questions about authorship – labour, personality and communication – and explaining a deeper distinction between proprietary and non-proprietary accounts of authorship which underlies these categories. It goes on to illustrate how these differing approaches to authorship can be applied to the three questions under consideration. For reasons of space and practicality, the focus of this chapter will reflect my expertise in Anglo-American copyright theory and doctrine.

Auteursrecht, Intellectuele eigendom

Bibtex

Chapter{Biron2014, title = {Creative work and communicative norms: Perspectives from legal philosophy}, author = {Biron, L.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1469.pdf}, year = {1219}, date = {2014-12-19}, abstract = {In consideration of the application of insights from the humanities to the interpretation of core legal concepts in copyright, this chapter examines three questions: first, what is a ‘work of authorship’, and why does copyright law place such a strong emphasis on originality for determining what counts as a work? Second, can and should we modify ‘romantic’ conceptions of authorship, to take into account the various ways in which authorial practices seem to conflict with their highly individualistic and creator-centred focus? Finally, how might copyright law make sense of the various ways in which authorship is collaborative, in light of its somewhat restrictive definitions of co-authorship? This chapter will consider the contribution that existing philosophical literature on the justification of copyright might have to these questions. It begins by outlining three categories that have application to questions about authorship – labour, personality and communication – and explaining a deeper distinction between proprietary and non-proprietary accounts of authorship which underlies these categories. It goes on to illustrate how these differing approaches to authorship can be applied to the three questions under consideration. For reasons of space and practicality, the focus of this chapter will reflect my expertise in Anglo-American copyright theory and doctrine.}, keywords = {Auteursrecht, Intellectuele eigendom}, }