Annotatie bij Rb. Den Haag 19 november 2018 (TVS / Revo) external link

AMI, vol. 2019, num: 1, pp: 40-41, 2019

Annotaties, Auteursrecht, downloaden, frontpage, inbreuk, Software, websites

Bibtex

Article{vanEechoud2019b, title = {Annotatie bij Rb. Den Haag 19 november 2018 (TVS / Revo)}, author = {van Eechoud, M.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_AMI_2019_1_p40.pdf}, year = {0221}, date = {2019-02-21}, journal = {AMI}, volume = {2019}, number = {1}, pages = {40-41}, keywords = {Annotaties, Auteursrecht, downloaden, frontpage, inbreuk, Software, websites}, }

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 8 juni 2018 (Pearson) external link

AMI, vol. 2019, num: 1, pp: 34-39, 2019

Annotaties, Auteursrecht, Databankenrecht, frontpage

Bibtex

Article{vanEechoud2019, title = {Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 8 juni 2018 (Pearson)}, author = {van Eechoud, M.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_AMI_2019_1.pdf}, year = {0221}, date = {2019-02-21}, journal = {AMI}, volume = {2019}, number = {1}, pages = {34-39}, keywords = {Annotaties, Auteursrecht, Databankenrecht, frontpage}, }

Openbaarheid van tarieven en licentievoorwaarden van cbo’s external link

AMI, vol. 2019, num: 1, pp: 1-8, 2019

Abstract

Op grond van de Wet toezicht zijn collectieve beheersorganisaties verplicht ‘standaardlicentieovereenkomsten en normaal toepasselijke tarieven’ actief openbaar te maken. Over de betekenis en reikwijdte van deze verplichting bestaat in Nederland onduidelijkheid en zelfs onenigheid, maar (nog) geen jurisprudentie. In dit artikel wordt gepoogd om, mede aan de hand van een analyse van de rechtsgronden van deze verplichting, te komen tot een juiste en in de praktijk hanteerbare interpretatie van de openbaarheidsplicht.

Auteursrecht, collectieve beheersorganisaties, frontpage, licenties, openbaarheid, tarieven

Bibtex

Article{Hugenholtz2019b, title = {Openbaarheid van tarieven en licentievoorwaarden van cbo’s}, author = {Hugenholtz, P.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2019_1_PBH.pdf}, year = {0221}, date = {2019-02-21}, journal = {AMI}, volume = {2019}, number = {1}, pages = {1-8}, abstract = {Op grond van de Wet toezicht zijn collectieve beheersorganisaties verplicht ‘standaardlicentieovereenkomsten en normaal toepasselijke tarieven’ actief openbaar te maken. Over de betekenis en reikwijdte van deze verplichting bestaat in Nederland onduidelijkheid en zelfs onenigheid, maar (nog) geen jurisprudentie. In dit artikel wordt gepoogd om, mede aan de hand van een analyse van de rechtsgronden van deze verplichting, te komen tot een juiste en in de praktijk hanteerbare interpretatie van de openbaarheidsplicht.}, keywords = {Auteursrecht, collectieve beheersorganisaties, frontpage, licenties, openbaarheid, tarieven}, }

Smaak, auteursrecht en objectafbakening: over perceptie en bepaalbaarheid external link

van Gompel, S.
AMI, vol. 2019, num: 1, pp: 9-16, 2019

Abstract

Het hoge woord is eruit: op smaak rust geen auteursrecht. Dit volgt direct uit het Levola/Smilde-arrest, waarin het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie (HvJ EU) vaststelt dat de Auteursrechtrichtlijn (Richtlijn 2001/29) ‘eraan in de weg staat dat de smaak van een voedingsmiddel op grond van deze richtlijn auteursrechtelijk wordt beschermd en dat een nationale wettelijke regeling in die zin wordt uitgelegd dat zij auteursrechtelijke bescherming verleent aan een dergelijke smaak’. De reden om smaak van auteursrechtelijk bescherming uit te sluiten is dat smaak onvoldoende nauwkeurig en objectief bepaalbaar is om object van bescherming te zijn. Als verklaring wijst het HvJ EU op de subjectiviteit en variabiliteit van de smaakperceptie en het ontbreken van technische middelen voor smaakbepaling. Zoals in deze bijdrage wordt uiteengezet, is deze argumentatie niet overtuigend en zelfs ondeugdelijk. Het bepaalbaarheidsvereiste is evenwel plausibel en navolgenswaardig, omdat het beoogt om meer rechtszekerheid te creëren over het object van auteursrechtelijke bescherming.

Auteursrecht, bescherming, frontpage, object, smaak

Bibtex

Article{vanGompel2019d, title = {Smaak, auteursrecht en objectafbakening: over perceptie en bepaalbaarheid}, author = {van Gompel, S.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2019_1.pdf}, year = {0221}, date = {2019-02-21}, journal = {AMI}, volume = {2019}, number = {1}, pages = {9-16}, abstract = {Het hoge woord is eruit: op smaak rust geen auteursrecht. Dit volgt direct uit het Levola/Smilde-arrest, waarin het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie (HvJ EU) vaststelt dat de Auteursrechtrichtlijn (Richtlijn 2001/29) ‘eraan in de weg staat dat de smaak van een voedingsmiddel op grond van deze richtlijn auteursrechtelijk wordt beschermd en dat een nationale wettelijke regeling in die zin wordt uitgelegd dat zij auteursrechtelijke bescherming verleent aan een dergelijke smaak’. De reden om smaak van auteursrechtelijk bescherming uit te sluiten is dat smaak onvoldoende nauwkeurig en objectief bepaalbaar is om object van bescherming te zijn. Als verklaring wijst het HvJ EU op de subjectiviteit en variabiliteit van de smaakperceptie en het ontbreken van technische middelen voor smaakbepaling. Zoals in deze bijdrage wordt uiteengezet, is deze argumentatie niet overtuigend en zelfs ondeugdelijk. Het bepaalbaarheidsvereiste is evenwel plausibel en navolgenswaardig, omdat het beoogt om meer rechtszekerheid te creëren over het object van auteursrechtelijke bescherming.}, keywords = {Auteursrecht, bescherming, frontpage, object, smaak}, }

Bastei Lübbe: “Fundamental Rights as a defence to circumvent enforcement of Copyright protection? No!”, says CJEU. external link

Kluwer Copyright Blog, vol. 2019, 2019

aansprakelijkheid, Auteursrecht, frontpage, fundamentele rechten, inbreuk

Bibtex

Article{Thije2019b, title = {Bastei Lübbe: “Fundamental Rights as a defence to circumvent enforcement of Copyright protection? No!”, says CJEU.}, author = {Thije, P. ten}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/02/11/bastei-lubbe-fundamental-rights-as-a-defence-to-circumvent-enforcement-of-copyright-protection-no-says-cjeu/}, year = {0212}, date = {2019-02-12}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, volume = {2019}, pages = {}, keywords = {aansprakelijkheid, Auteursrecht, frontpage, fundamentele rechten, inbreuk}, }

Annotatie bij EHRM 28 augustus 2018 (Savva Terentyyev / Rusland) external link

European Human Rights Cases, num: 1, pp: 10-14, 2019

Annotaties, Artikel 10 EHRM, frontpage

Bibtex

Article{McGonagle2019b, title = {Annotatie bij EHRM 28 augustus 2018 (Savva Terentyyev / Rusland)}, author = {McGonagle, T.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_EHRC_2019_1.pdf}, year = {0212}, date = {2019-02-12}, journal = {European Human Rights Cases}, number = {1}, keywords = {Annotaties, Artikel 10 EHRM, frontpage}, }

Does everyone have a price? Understanding people’s attitude towards online and offline price discrimination external link

Internet Policy Review, vol. 8, num: 1, 2019

Abstract

Online stores can present a different price to each customer. Such algorithmic personalised pricing can lead to advanced forms of price discrimination based on the characteristics and behaviour of individual consumers. We conducted two consumer surveys among a representative sample of the Dutch population (N=1233 and N=1202), to analyse consumer attitudes towards a list of examples of price discrimination and dynamic pricing. A vast majority finds online price discrimination unfair and unacceptable, and thinks it should be banned. However, some pricing strategies that have been used by companies for decades are almost equally unpopular. We analyse the results to better understand why people dislike many types of price discrimination.

algoritmen, Consumentenrecht, frontpage, Price discrimination

Bibtex

Article{Poort2019b, title = {Does everyone have a price? Understanding people’s attitude towards online and offline price discrimination}, author = {Poort, J. and Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.}, url = {https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/does-everyone-have-price-understanding-peoples-attitude-towards-online-and-offline}, year = {0212}, date = {2019-02-12}, journal = {Internet Policy Review}, volume = {8}, number = {1}, pages = {}, abstract = {Online stores can present a different price to each customer. Such algorithmic personalised pricing can lead to advanced forms of price discrimination based on the characteristics and behaviour of individual consumers. We conducted two consumer surveys among a representative sample of the Dutch population (N=1233 and N=1202), to analyse consumer attitudes towards a list of examples of price discrimination and dynamic pricing. A vast majority finds online price discrimination unfair and unacceptable, and thinks it should be banned. However, some pricing strategies that have been used by companies for decades are almost equally unpopular. We analyse the results to better understand why people dislike many types of price discrimination.}, keywords = {algoritmen, Consumentenrecht, frontpage, Price discrimination}, }

The Netherlands in ‘Automating Society – Taking Stock of Automated Decision-Making in the EU’ external link

pp: 93-102, 2019

Abstract

Systems for automated decision-making or decision support (ADM) are on the rise in EU countries: Profiling job applicants based on their personal emails in Finland, allocating treatment for patients in the public health system in Italy, sorting the unemployed in Poland, automatically identifying children vulnerable to neglect in Denmark, detecting welfare fraud in the Netherlands, credit scoring systems in many EU countries – the range of applications has broadened to almost all aspects of daily life. This begs a lot of questions: Do we need new laws? Do we need new oversight institutions? Who do we fund to develop answers to the challenges ahead? Where should we invest? How do we enable citizens – patients, employees, consumers – to deal with this? For the report “Automating Society – Taking Stock of Automated Decision-Making in the EU”, our experts have looked at the situation at the EU level but also in 12 Member States: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK. We assessed not only the political discussions and initiatives in these countries but also present a section “ADM in Action” for all states, listing examples of automated decision-making already in use. This is the first time a comprehensive study has been done on the state of automated decision-making in Europe.

algorithms, algoritmes, Artificial intelligence, EU, frontpage, kunstmatige intelligentie, NGO

Bibtex

Report{Til2019, title = {The Netherlands in ‘Automating Society – Taking Stock of Automated Decision-Making in the EU’}, author = {Til, G. van}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/automating_society_report_2019/}, year = {0211}, date = {2019-02-11}, abstract = {Systems for automated decision-making or decision support (ADM) are on the rise in EU countries: Profiling job applicants based on their personal emails in Finland, allocating treatment for patients in the public health system in Italy, sorting the unemployed in Poland, automatically identifying children vulnerable to neglect in Denmark, detecting welfare fraud in the Netherlands, credit scoring systems in many EU countries – the range of applications has broadened to almost all aspects of daily life. This begs a lot of questions: Do we need new laws? Do we need new oversight institutions? Who do we fund to develop answers to the challenges ahead? Where should we invest? How do we enable citizens – patients, employees, consumers – to deal with this? For the report “Automating Society – Taking Stock of Automated Decision-Making in the EU”, our experts have looked at the situation at the EU level but also in 12 Member States: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK. We assessed not only the political discussions and initiatives in these countries but also present a section “ADM in Action” for all states, listing examples of automated decision-making already in use. This is the first time a comprehensive study has been done on the state of automated decision-making in Europe.}, keywords = {algorithms, algoritmes, Artificial intelligence, EU, frontpage, kunstmatige intelligentie, NGO}, }

Discrimination, artificial intelligence, and algorithmic decision-making external link

vol. 2019, 2019

Abstract

This report, written for the Anti-discrimination department of the Council of Europe, concerns discrimination caused by algorithmic decision-making and other types of artificial intelligence (AI). AI advances important goals, such as efficiency, health and economic growth but it can also have discriminatory effects, for instance when AI systems learn from biased human decisions. In the public and the private sector, organisations can take AI-driven decisions with farreaching effects for people. Public sector bodies can use AI for predictive policing for example, or for making decisions on eligibility for pension payments, housing assistance or unemployment benefits. In the private sector, AI can be used to select job applicants, and banks can use AI to decide whether to grant individual consumers credit and set interest rates for them. Moreover, many small decisions, taken together, can have large effects. By way of illustration, AI-driven price discrimination could lead to certain groups in society consistently paying more. The most relevant legal tools to mitigate the risks of AI-driven discrimination are nondiscrimination law and data protection law. If effectively enforced, both these legal tools could help to fight illegal discrimination. Council of Europe member States, human rights monitoring bodies, such as the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, and Equality Bodies should aim for better enforcement of current nondiscrimination norms. But AI also opens the way for new types of unfair differentiation (some might say discrimination) that escape current laws. Most non-discrimination statutes apply only to discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics, such as skin colour. Such statutes do not apply if an AI system invents new classes, which do not correlate with protected characteristics, to differentiate between people. Such differentiation could still be unfair, however, for instance when it reinforces social inequality. We probably need additional regulation to protect fairness and human rights in the area of AI. But regulating AI in general is not the right approach, as the use of AI systems is too varied for one set of rules. In different sectors, different values are at stake, and different problems arise. Therefore, sector-specific rules should be considered. More research and debate are needed.

ai, discriminatie, frontpage, kunstmatige intelligentie, Mensenrechten

Bibtex

Report{Borgesius2019, title = {Discrimination, artificial intelligence, and algorithmic decision-making}, author = {Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.}, url = {https://rm.coe.int/discrimination-artificial-intelligence-and-algorithmic-decision-making/1680925d73}, year = {0208}, date = {2019-02-08}, volume = {2019}, pages = {}, abstract = {This report, written for the Anti-discrimination department of the Council of Europe, concerns discrimination caused by algorithmic decision-making and other types of artificial intelligence (AI). AI advances important goals, such as efficiency, health and economic growth but it can also have discriminatory effects, for instance when AI systems learn from biased human decisions. In the public and the private sector, organisations can take AI-driven decisions with farreaching effects for people. Public sector bodies can use AI for predictive policing for example, or for making decisions on eligibility for pension payments, housing assistance or unemployment benefits. In the private sector, AI can be used to select job applicants, and banks can use AI to decide whether to grant individual consumers credit and set interest rates for them. Moreover, many small decisions, taken together, can have large effects. By way of illustration, AI-driven price discrimination could lead to certain groups in society consistently paying more. The most relevant legal tools to mitigate the risks of AI-driven discrimination are nondiscrimination law and data protection law. If effectively enforced, both these legal tools could help to fight illegal discrimination. Council of Europe member States, human rights monitoring bodies, such as the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, and Equality Bodies should aim for better enforcement of current nondiscrimination norms. But AI also opens the way for new types of unfair differentiation (some might say discrimination) that escape current laws. Most non-discrimination statutes apply only to discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics, such as skin colour. Such statutes do not apply if an AI system invents new classes, which do not correlate with protected characteristics, to differentiate between people. Such differentiation could still be unfair, however, for instance when it reinforces social inequality. We probably need additional regulation to protect fairness and human rights in the area of AI. But regulating AI in general is not the right approach, as the use of AI systems is too varied for one set of rules. In different sectors, different values are at stake, and different problems arise. Therefore, sector-specific rules should be considered. More research and debate are needed.}, keywords = {ai, discriminatie, frontpage, kunstmatige intelligentie, Mensenrechten}, }

An alternative universe? Authors as copyright owners- the case of the Japanese Manga Industry external link

Creative Industries Journal, vol. 2019, 2019

Abstract

Comics today are a major business and they form the source material for a whole range of sectors in the creative industries. In an environment where major investments are necessary to turn a comic into a cross-media success, commercial intermediaries such as Disney have become the key copyright holders. By controlling the copyright, they ensure full control over all aspects of its monetisation. However, this is not the only way success can be achieved on a commercial scale. In Japan, the creators of comics (Mangaka) keep their copyright- a direct contradiction to current copyright thinking. This paper addresses this conundrum by examining both the Manga business and copyright law to identify if the reasons why copyright is not centralised in the hands of the commercial intermediary, especially the publishers. The analysis will show that while there are differences between Japan and the EU/US, but these do not affect the role of copyright law and indeed failing to acquire the rights is a choice, not a necessity. Instead, this article will highlight that the competitive Manga market in combination with the uniquely Japanese publication right and social control best explain why Mangas are successful and Mangaka keep their rights.

business model, commercial intermediaries, Copyright, frontpage, Japan, Manga, windowing strategy

Bibtex

Article{Schroff2019, title = {An alternative universe? Authors as copyright owners- the case of the Japanese Manga Industry}, author = {S. and Schroff}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17510694.2018.1563420}, year = {0131}, date = {2019-01-31}, journal = {Creative Industries Journal}, volume = {2019}, pages = {}, abstract = {Comics today are a major business and they form the source material for a whole range of sectors in the creative industries. In an environment where major investments are necessary to turn a comic into a cross-media success, commercial intermediaries such as Disney have become the key copyright holders. By controlling the copyright, they ensure full control over all aspects of its monetisation. However, this is not the only way success can be achieved on a commercial scale. In Japan, the creators of comics (Mangaka) keep their copyright- a direct contradiction to current copyright thinking. This paper addresses this conundrum by examining both the Manga business and copyright law to identify if the reasons why copyright is not centralised in the hands of the commercial intermediary, especially the publishers. The analysis will show that while there are differences between Japan and the EU/US, but these do not affect the role of copyright law and indeed failing to acquire the rights is a choice, not a necessity. Instead, this article will highlight that the competitive Manga market in combination with the uniquely Japanese publication right and social control best explain why Mangas are successful and Mangaka keep their rights.}, keywords = {business model, commercial intermediaries, Copyright, frontpage, Japan, Manga, windowing strategy}, }