Telecommunicatierecht
Article{nokey,
title = {Kroniek Telecommunicatierecht},
author = {van Eijk, N.},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1477.pdf},
year = {0901},
date = {2014-09-01},
journal = {KwartaalSignaal Ars Aequi},
number = {132},
keywords = {Telecommunicatierecht},
} Grondrechten, Privacy
Newspaper article{nokey,
title = {‘Nederland veel te makkelijk met weggeven van privacy’},
author = {van Eijk, N. and Dommering, E.},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1476.pdf},
year = {0411},
date = {2014-04-11},
keywords = {Grondrechten, Privacy},
} Grondrechten, Vrijheid van meningsuiting
Other{nokey,
title = {Haatboek blijft splijtzwam},
author = {van Eijk, N. and Dommering, E. and Nieuwenhuis, A.},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1475.pdf},
year = {0827},
date = {2014-08-27},
abstract = {27 jaar na de laatste uitspraak wordt een Amsterdamse antiquaar strafrechtelijk vervolgd voor de verkoop van Hitlers boek Mein Kampf. Vier overwegingen die wetenschap en politiek nog altijd verdelen.},
keywords = {Grondrechten, Vrijheid van meningsuiting},
} Grondrechten, Privacy
Newspaper article{nokey,
title = {Bescherm je cliënten tegen de staat, versleutel je mail},
author = {van Daalen, O.},
url = {http://www.nrc.nl/handelsblad/van/2014/december/22/bescherm-je-clienten-tegen-de-staat-versleutel-je-1450964},
year = {0106},
date = {2015-01-06},
abstract = {De AIVD houdt zich niet aan aftapbevoegdheden. Een gezonde dosis paranoia zou advocaten daarom niet misstaan, meent Ot van Daalen.},
keywords = {Grondrechten, Privacy},
} Auteursrecht, Intellectuele eigendom
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},
} Grondrechten
Report{nokey,
title = {Het internet: een wereldwijde vrije ruimte met begrensde staatsmacht},
author = {Dommering, E.},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1472.pdf},
year = {0106},
date = {2015-01-06},
abstract = {Op 20 februari 2014 vroeg het kabinet de Adviesraad Internationale Vraagstukken (AIV) te adviseren over internetvrijheid. Volgens de adviesaanvraag zijn het recht op privacy, het recht op bescherming van data, het recht op vertrouwelijke communicatie en de vrijheid van meningsuiting voorbeelden van internetvrijheid. Het basisbeginsel is dat rechten die offline gelden, ook online gelden. Het ontstaan en de snelle groei van het internet hebben geleid tot nieuwe vormen van communicatie, die op hun beurt hebben geleid tot nieuwe vragen hoe deze rechten gewaarborgd kunnen worden, mede omdat deze rechten soms moeten worden afgewogen tegen veiligheidsbelangen. Het kabinet legt aan de AIV de vraag voor hoe internetvrijheid verder bevorderd kan worden in nationaal en internationaal beleid, hoe ver de Nederlandse jurisdictie strekt en wat de rol van het bedrijfsleven is bij het bevorderen van internetvrijheid.
De AIV heeft een gecombineerde commissie ingesteld om dit advies voor te bereiden onder voorzitterschap van prof.mr. E.J. Dommering (Commissie Mensenrechten, CMR). De leden van de commissie waren mw.mr. dr. B.T. van Ginkel (Commissie Vrede en Veiligheid, CVV), mw. prof.dr. M. de Goede (CVV), prof.dr. E.J. Koops (CMR), mw. dr. P.C. Plooij-van Gorsel (AIV / Commissie Europese Integratie) en mw. mr. H.M. Verrijn Stuart (AIV / CMR).},
keywords = {Grondrechten},
} Auteursrecht, Intellectuele eigendom
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},
} Auteursrecht, Intellectuele eigendom
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},
} Auteursrecht, Intellectuele eigendom
Chapter{vanGompel2014,
title = {Creativity, autonomy and personal touch: A critical appraisal of the CJEU’s originality test for copyright},
author = {van Gompel, S.},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1468.pdf},
year = {1218},
date = {2014-12-18},
abstract = {Copyright law’s originality threshold is not a high-to-attain standard. Recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirms that copyright extends to subject-matter that is original in the sense that it is the ‘author’s own intellectual creation’ (Infopaq International, 2009, § 37; Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace, 2010, § 46; Football Association Premier League, 2011, § 97; Painer, 2011, § 87; Football Dataco, 2012, § 37; and SAS, 2012, § 45) and that no other criteria may be applied to determine its eligibility for protection. In the Eva-Maria Painer case, the Court clarified that an intellectual creation is the author’s own ‘if it reflects the author’s personality’ and that this is the case ‘if the author was able to express his creative abilities in the production of the work by making free and creative choices’ (2011, §§ 88–89). This was reiterated in the Football Dataco case, where it was once more emphasised that, for an intellectual creation to be original, the author must have stamped it with his ‘personal touch’ by making ‘free and creative choices’ during its production (2012, § 38). The meaning and substance of the CJEU’s originality criterion has not yet attracted much analytical scrutiny. In particular, the limits inherent in the CJEU’s originality standard have received little attention in legal doctrine – let alone in court decisions (although that is probably not where one would expect a critical review of the test be conducted in the first place). This is remarkable, seeing that copyright regulates such a wide variety of cultural production and may restrict the use of even the most low-key, routine creations that surround us in everyday life. A more critical and out-of-the-box reading of the ‘free and creative choices’-language suggests that the CJEU’s originality standard may perhaps impose more limitations than is currently recognised in legal discourse. For one thing, authors are of course not autonomous creators who work in a vacuum. Creative processes are contingent on many external factors. Cultural productions are usually made with audiences in mind and individual creators operate within social, technical and institutional environments with all of the attendant constraints. This implies that, in reality, the autonomy of authors to make free and creative choices is often naturally restricted.},
keywords = {Auteursrecht, Intellectuele eigendom},
} Auteursrecht, Intellectuele eigendom
Chapter{Cooper2014,
title = {Reassessing the challenge of the digital: An empirical perspective on authorship and copyright},
author = {Cooper, E.},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/1467.pdf},
year = {1217},
date = {2014-12-17},
abstract = {This chapter explores these perceived challenges of the digital for copyright, through ideas about authorship that underpin so-called creative practices today. It does so through a qualitative empirical study that involved semistructured interviews with ‘artists’ and ‘poets’ who use digital technology. The interviews sought to uncover the extent to which the participation of many people was characteristic of the interviewees’ work and their views about ‘authorship’. For example, is authorship of any significance to interviewee ‘artists’ and ‘poets’? If so, who do they consider to be the author? In situations where many have contributed, how and why do they attribute authorship to some contributors while denying it to others? Finally, why is authorship important to the interviewees, if at all, and does this bear any relation to copyright’s proprietary author?},
keywords = {Auteursrecht, Intellectuele eigendom},
}