Publicaties

Top Keywords

Smart TV and data protection – Introduction external link

van Eijk, N., Irion, K. & McGonagle, T.
2016

Abstract

The structure of this study is built around the following questions:
- What is smart TV?
- How does smart TV compare with other forms of audiovisual media?
- What regulatory frameworks govern smart TV?
- What guidance can be found in selected country-specific case studies?
- What are the dangers associated with the collection, storage and processing of private user information by commercial parties?
- How are relevant regulatory frameworks likely to evolve? Samsung have warned owners of their smart TVs that the system’s voice recognition could actually be recording and sharing their private conversations. This “bad buzz” comes at a time when Brussels is in the process of adopting new legislation – the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) - aimed at protecting us from abuse and misuse of our private data and consumer behaviour big data collected by smart equipment such as television sets. The European Audiovisual Observatory, part of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, is keeping track of these developments and has published this IRIS Special report entitled "Smart TV and data protection".

This is a joint publication by the Observatory and partner institution, the Dutch Institute for Information Law (IViR in Amsterdam). It inspired an expert workshop organised in Strasbourg December 2015, which looked at “the grey areas between media regulation and data protection”.

frontpage, Grondrechten, Privacy

Bibtex

Report{nokey, title = {Smart TV and data protection – Introduction}, author = {van Eijk, N. and Irion, K. and McGonagle, T.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1742.pdf}, year = {0310}, date = {2016-03-10}, abstract = {The structure of this study is built around the following questions: - What is smart TV? - How does smart TV compare with other forms of audiovisual media? - What regulatory frameworks govern smart TV? - What guidance can be found in selected country-specific case studies? - What are the dangers associated with the collection, storage and processing of private user information by commercial parties? - How are relevant regulatory frameworks likely to evolve? Samsung have warned owners of their smart TVs that the system’s voice recognition could actually be recording and sharing their private conversations. This “bad buzz” comes at a time when Brussels is in the process of adopting new legislation – the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) - aimed at protecting us from abuse and misuse of our private data and consumer behaviour big data collected by smart equipment such as television sets. The European Audiovisual Observatory, part of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, is keeping track of these developments and has published this IRIS Special report entitled "Smart TV and data protection". This is a joint publication by the Observatory and partner institution, the Dutch Institute for Information Law (IViR in Amsterdam). It inspired an expert workshop organised in Strasbourg December 2015, which looked at “the grey areas between media regulation and data protection”.}, keywords = {frontpage, Grondrechten, Privacy}, }

Het meningloze tijdperk external link

Dommering, E.
2016

Abstract

Bijdrage over de vrijheid van meningsuiting in het populistische tijdperk.

Grondrechten, Vrijheid van meningsuiting

Bibtex

Other{nokey, title = {Het meningloze tijdperk}, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1737.pdf}, year = {0301}, date = {2016-03-01}, abstract = {Bijdrage over de vrijheid van meningsuiting in het populistische tijdperk.}, keywords = {Grondrechten, Vrijheid van meningsuiting}, }

Billijke vergoeding in recht en economie external link

Poort, J.
AMI, num: 6, pp: 157-161., 2016

Abstract

Op 2 oktober 2013 wees de Rechtbank Den Haag vonnis in de zaak van SENA tegen 25 organisatoren van ‘dance events’ over de billijke vergoeding die zij aan SENA verschuldigd zijn voor het draaien van muziekopnames. Hoger beroep dient bij het Haagse Gerechtshof, dat de zaak naar verwachting voor advies zal verwijzen naar de Geschillencommissie Auteursrecht. Niet eerder liet een Nederlandse rechter zich expliciet uit over de hoogte van de billijke vergoeding en nu de billijke vergoeding voor auteurs ook in het nieuwe auteurscontractenrecht een centrale rol speelt, rijst de vraag hoe zo’n vergoeding kan worden bepaald. Economen kunnen wel wat zeggen over welvaartseffecten van vergoedingen, maar rekenen vragen over billijkheid tot het domein van politiek en recht. Ook in het recht blijken er echter nauwelijks aanknopingspunten te zijn om dit concept concreet te maken.

Auteursrecht, Intellectuele eigendom

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Billijke vergoeding in recht en economie}, author = {Poort, J.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1736.pdf}, year = {0225}, date = {2016-02-25}, journal = {AMI}, number = {6}, abstract = {Op 2 oktober 2013 wees de Rechtbank Den Haag vonnis in de zaak van SENA tegen 25 organisatoren van ‘dance events’ over de billijke vergoeding die zij aan SENA verschuldigd zijn voor het draaien van muziekopnames. Hoger beroep dient bij het Haagse Gerechtshof, dat de zaak naar verwachting voor advies zal verwijzen naar de Geschillencommissie Auteursrecht. Niet eerder liet een Nederlandse rechter zich expliciet uit over de hoogte van de billijke vergoeding en nu de billijke vergoeding voor auteurs ook in het nieuwe auteurscontractenrecht een centrale rol speelt, rijst de vraag hoe zo’n vergoeding kan worden bepaald. Economen kunnen wel wat zeggen over welvaartseffecten van vergoedingen, maar rekenen vragen over billijkheid tot het domein van politiek en recht. Ook in het recht blijken er echter nauwelijks aanknopingspunten te zijn om dit concept concreet te maken.}, keywords = {Auteursrecht, Intellectuele eigendom}, }

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie 22 januari 2015 (Allposters / Pictoright) external link

van Eechoud, M.
AMI, num: 6, pp: 169-173., 2016

Abstract

Overbrenging van de afbeelding van een beschermd werk van een papieren poster op canvas valt onder het distributierecht van art. 4 Auteursrechtrichtlijn 2001/29/EG. Poortvliet-doctrine. Geen sprake van uitputting als drager is vervangen. Beloning voor distributie moet in een redelijke verhouding staan tot de economische waarde van de exploitatie van het beschermde voorwerp. Auteursrechtrichtlijn harmoniseert niet het recht van bewerking.

frontpage, Grondrechten, Privacy

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie 22 januari 2015 (Allposters / Pictoright)}, author = {van Eechoud, M.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1735.pdf}, year = {0225}, date = {2016-02-25}, journal = {AMI}, number = {6}, abstract = {Overbrenging van de afbeelding van een beschermd werk van een papieren poster op canvas valt onder het distributierecht van art. 4 Auteursrechtrichtlijn 2001/29/EG. Poortvliet-doctrine. Geen sprake van uitputting als drager is vervangen. Beloning voor distributie moet in een redelijke verhouding staan tot de economische waarde van de exploitatie van het beschermde voorwerp. Auteursrechtrichtlijn harmoniseert niet het recht van bewerking.}, keywords = {frontpage, Grondrechten, Privacy}, }

A special regard: The Court of Justice and the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection external link

Irion, K.
Nomos, 0225

Abstract

The frequency with which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rules on the interpretations of the rights to privacy and data protection in European Union (EU) law is constantly accelerating. The increasing case-load can certainly be attributed to the contemporary relevance of these issues in a data-driven society which leads to more cases being referred to the CJEU. However, contrary to earlier case-law, which had a rather limited effect, the recent CJEU decisions have gained prominence for their principle contribution to EU law. In 2014, the Court issued a landmark ruling in the case <em>Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources</em> which catapulted EU citizens’ privacy and data protection rights from the margins of EU law to the center stage. Already in 2015, in the case <em>Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner</em>, the Court has had another occasion to review EU legislation for its compliance with the rights to privacy and data protection under the EU Charter. The invalidation of the EU-U.S. Safe Harbour agreement by the Court has been stirring a global resonance in addition to receiving ample and arguably controversial coverage in international news. This contribution looks at how the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection are protected in the EU legal order. It primarily assesses the CJEU’s case-law’s trajectory in this field as well as the impact of its decision practice in EU law. Hereby I discuss whether the CJEU holds a particular regard for the rights to privacy and data protection since the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFR) was accorded binding legal value in 2009.5 Particular focus is given to the discussion of the two judgments in 2014 and 2015 cited above with which the Court underscored its determination to effectively protect these fundamental rights in the scope of EU law.

frontpage, Grondrechten, Privacy

Bibtex

Chapter{nokey, title = {A special regard: The Court of Justice and the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection}, author = {Irion, K.}, url = {http://www.ivir.nl/irion_a-special-regard_chapterfinal/}, year = {0225}, date = {2016-02-25}, abstract = {The frequency with which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rules on the interpretations of the rights to privacy and data protection in European Union (EU) law is constantly accelerating. The increasing case-load can certainly be attributed to the contemporary relevance of these issues in a data-driven society which leads to more cases being referred to the CJEU. However, contrary to earlier case-law, which had a rather limited effect, the recent CJEU decisions have gained prominence for their principle contribution to EU law. In 2014, the Court issued a landmark ruling in the case <em>Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources</em> which catapulted EU citizens’ privacy and data protection rights from the margins of EU law to the center stage. Already in 2015, in the case <em>Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner</em>, the Court has had another occasion to review EU legislation for its compliance with the rights to privacy and data protection under the EU Charter. The invalidation of the EU-U.S. Safe Harbour agreement by the Court has been stirring a global resonance in addition to receiving ample and arguably controversial coverage in international news. This contribution looks at how the fundamental rights to privacy and data protection are protected in the EU legal order. It primarily assesses the CJEU’s case-law’s trajectory in this field as well as the impact of its decision practice in EU law. Hereby I discuss whether the CJEU holds a particular regard for the rights to privacy and data protection since the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFR) was accorded binding legal value in 2009.5 Particular focus is given to the discussion of the two judgments in 2014 and 2015 cited above with which the Court underscored its determination to effectively protect these fundamental rights in the scope of EU law.}, keywords = {frontpage, Grondrechten, Privacy}, }