Art. 17, Auteursrecht, frontpage
Article{nokey,
title = {Article 17, the year in review (2021 edition)},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/01/24/article-17-the-year-in-review-2021-edition/},
year = {0124},
date = {2022-01-24},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {Art. 17, Auteursrecht, frontpage},
} EU law, frontpage, gegevensbescherming, microtargeting, propaganda, Regulering, Vrijheid van meningsuiting
Article{nokey,
title = {Microtargeted propaganda by foreign actors: An interdisciplinary exploration},
author = {Fahy, R. and Dobber, T. and Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. and Shires, J.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/MaastrichtJournalofEuropeanandComparativeLaw_2021_6.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X211042471},
year = {0125},
date = {2022-01-25},
journal = {Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law},
abstract = {This article discusses a problem that has received scant attention in literature: microtargeted propaganda by foreign actors. Microtargeting involves collecting information about people, and using that information to show them targeted political advertisements. Such microtargeting enables advertisers to target ads to specific groups of people, for instance people who visit certain websites, forums, or Facebook groups. This article focuses on one type of microtargeting: microtargeting by foreign actors. For example, Russia has targeted certain groups in the US with ads, aiming to sow discord. Foreign actors could also try to influence European elections, for instance by advertising in favour of a certain political party. Foreign propaganda possibilities existed before microtargeting. This article explores two questions. In what ways, if any, is microtargeted propaganda by foreign actors different from other foreign propaganda? What could lawmakers in Europe do to mitigate the risks of microtargeted propaganda?},
keywords = {EU law, frontpage, gegevensbescherming, microtargeting, propaganda, Regulering, Vrijheid van meningsuiting},
} corona, economische aspecten, Informatierecht
Article{nokey,
title = {Lockdowns zijn niet meer te rechtvaardigen},
author = {Baarsma, B. and Broek-Altenburg, E. van den and Berg, G. van den and Dommering, E. and Teulings, C.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/nrc_14jan2022.pdf},
year = {0114},
date = {2022-01-14},
journal = {NRC},
keywords = {corona, economische aspecten, Informatierecht},
} corona, economische aspecten, Informatierecht
Article{nokey,
title = {Naar een coronabeleid zonder lockdowns},
author = {Baarsma, B. and Broek-Altenburg, E. van den and Berg, G. van den and Dommering, E. and Teulings, C.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/ESB_13jan2022.pdf},
year = {0113},
date = {2022-01-13},
journal = {ESB},
keywords = {corona, economische aspecten, Informatierecht},
} Auteursrecht, Digital services act, european copyright society, frontpage
Article{nokey,
title = {European Copyright Society – Comment on Copyright and the Digital Services Act Proposal},
author = {Peukert, A. and Husovec, M. and Kretschmer, M. and Mezei, P. and Quintais, J.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/iic_2022/},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-022-01154-1},
year = {0314},
date = {2022-03-14},
journal = {IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law },
volume = {53},
issue = {3},
pages = {358-376},
keywords = {Auteursrecht, Digital services act, european copyright society, frontpage},
} Auteursrecht, Digital services act, frontpage
Article{nokey,
title = {European Copyright Society (ECS): Comment on Copyright and the Digital Services Act Proposal},
author = {Peukert, A. and Husovec, M. and Kretschmer, M. and Mezei, P. and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/01/18/european-copyright-society-ecs-comment-on-copyright-and-the-digital-services-act-proposal/},
year = {0118},
date = {2022-01-18},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {Auteursrecht, Digital services act, frontpage},
} ai, Trademark law
Chapter{nokey,
title = {Trademark Law, AI-driven Behavioral Advertising, and the Digital Services Act: Toward Source and Parameter Transparency for Consumers, Brand Owners and Competitors},
author = {Senftleben, M.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3947739},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800881907.00023},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-02-01},
abstract = {In its Proposal for a Digital Services Act (“DSA”), the European Commission highlighted the need for new transparency obligations to arrive at accountable digital services, ensure a fair environment for economic operators and empower consumers. However, the proposed new rules seem to focus on transparency measures for consumers. According to the DSA Proposal, platforms, such as online marketplaces, must ensure that platform users receive information enabling them to understand when and on whose behalf an advertisement is displayed, and which parameters are used to direct advertising to them, including explanations of the logic underlying systems for targeted advertising. Statements addressing the interests of trademark owners and trademark policy are sought in vain. Against this background, the analysis sheds light on AI-driven behavioural advertising practices and the policy considerations underlying the proposed new transparency obligations. In the light of the debate on trademark protection in keyword advertising cases, it will show that not only consumers but also trademark owners have a legitimate interest in receiving information on the parameters that are used to target consumers. The discussion will lead to the insight that lessons from the keyword advertising debate can play an important role in the transparency discourse because they broaden the spectrum of policy rationales and guidelines for new transparency rules. In addition to the current focus on consumer empowerment, the enhancement of information on alternative offers in the marketplace and the strengthening of trust in AI-driven, personalized advertising enter the picture. On balance, there are good reasons to broaden the scope of the DSA initiative and ensure access to transparency information for consumers and trademark owners alike.},
keywords = {ai, Trademark law},
} frontpage, kunst, Merkenrecht, publiek domein
Article{nokey,
title = {No Trademark Protection for Artworks in the Public Domain – A Practical Guide to the Application of Public Order and Morality as Grounds for Refusal},
author = {Senftleben, M.},
url = {https://academic.oup.com/grurint/article/71/1/3/6349172
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/grurint_2022_1.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikab107},
year = {0111},
date = {2022-01-11},
journal = {GRUR International},
volume = {71},
number = {1},
pages = {3-17},
abstract = {With its 2017 landmark decision in Vigeland, the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association States (EFTA Court) has paved the way for the invocation of public order and morality as grounds for refusal when trademark protection is sought for cultural expressions in the public domain. Dealing with an attempt to register artworks of the famous Norwegian sculptor Gustav Vigeland as trademarks, the EFTA Court took this step to safeguard the public domain status of literary and artistic works after the expiry of copyright, shield cultural creations against ‘commercial greed’ and ensure the freedom of the arts.1 Trademark examiners and judges seeking to follow in the footsteps of the EFTA Court, however, may find it difficult to operationalize the Vigeland criteria and put corresponding arguments for refusal into practice. Against this background, the following analysis provides guidelines for the practical application of public order and morality arguments in cultural heritage cases. It describes problems arising from the grant of trademark rights in cultural public domain material (Section I) and the traditional reluctance of trademark offices and courts to rely on public order and morality considerations in this context (Section II). After this statement of the problem, the criteria following from the Vigeland decision will be introduced (Section III) before we explore the practical implementation of the EFTA Court’s morality (Section IV) and public order (Section V) arguments in more detail. The final Section VI summarizes the results of the analysis.},
keywords = {frontpage, kunst, Merkenrecht, publiek domein},
} dark patterns, data-driven marketing strategies, digital marketplaces, manipulation, Platforms, unfair commercial practices, vulnerability
Article{nokey,
title = {Choice Architectures in the Digital Economy: Towards a New Understanding of Digital Vulnerability},
author = {Helberger, N. and Sax, M. and Strycharz, J. and Micklitz, H.-W.},
url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10603-021-09500-5},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-021-09500-5},
year = {0524},
date = {2022-05-24},
journal = {Journal of Consumer Policy},
volume = {45},
issue = {2},
pages = {175-200},
abstract = {In the digital economy, consumer vulnerability is not simply a vantage point from which to assess some consumers’ lack of ability to activate their awareness of persuasion. Instead, digital vulnerability describes a universal state of defencelessness and susceptibility to (the exploitation of) power imbalances that are the result of the increasing automation of commerce, datafied consumer–seller relations, and the very architecture of digital marketplaces. Digital vulnerability, we argue, is architectural, relational, and data-driven. Based on our concept of digital vulnerability, we demonstrate how and why using digital technology to render consumers vulnerable is the epitome of an unfair digital commercial practice.},
keywords = {dark patterns, data-driven marketing strategies, digital marketplaces, manipulation, Platforms, unfair commercial practices, vulnerability},
} blockchain, Copyright, digital art, frontpage, non-fungible tokens
Article{nokey,
title = {The rise of NFTs: These aren’t the droids you’re looking for},
author = {Bodó, B. and Giannopoulou, A. and Quintais, J. and Mezei, P.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4000423},
year = {0104},
date = {2022-01-04},
journal = {European Intellectual Property Review},
abstract = {Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are hailed as revolutionary tools that will empower artists and revolutionize copyright management and remuneration. This article explores their copyright relevance, and it describes how copyright might apply in relation to NFT creation and trading. In doing so, it provides an overview of the ecosystem of actors built around NFTs, and it analyzes the role of these actors according to the European copyright normative framework.},
keywords = {blockchain, Copyright, digital art, frontpage, non-fungible tokens},
}