Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive is a major internet policy experiment of our decade. The provision fundamentally changes copyright regulation of certain digital platforms. However, the precise nature of Art. 17 is far from clear. How does it fit the existing structure of EU copyright law and doctrine? How can the Member States implement it? These are the questions at the heart of this article. To answer them, we start by examining the nature and structure of the right prescribed in Art. 17. The exact qualification brings important legal consequences. Among others, it determines the conditions imposed by EU and international law on national implementations. After reviewing different interpretation options, we conclude that Art. 17 introduces either a 'special' or a 'new' sui generis right, both of which allow significant margin of discretion for Member States, especially as regards licensing mechanisms and exceptions.

AbstractOn 15 December 2020, the European Commission published its proposal for the Digital Services Act, which is expected to be adopted before summer 2022. It carries out a regulatory overhaul of the twenty-one-year-old horizontal rules on intermediary liability in the e-Commerce Directive and introduces new due diligence obligations for intermediary services. Our analysis illuminates an important point that has so far received little attention: how would the Digital Services Act's rules interact with existing sector-specific lex specialis rules? In this article, we look specifically at the intersection of the Digital Services Act with the regime for online content-sharing service providers (OCSSPs) set forth in Article 17 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive). At first glance, these regimes do not appear to overlap, as the rules on copyright are lex specialis to the Digital Services Act. A closer look shows a more complex and nuanced picture. Our analysis concludes that the Digital Services Act will apply to OCSSPs insofar as it contains rules that regulate matters not covered by Article 17 CDSM Directive, as well as specific rules on matters where Article 17 leaves a margin of discretion to Member States. This includes, to varying degrees, rules in the Digital Services Act relating to the liability of intermediary providers and to due diligence obligations for online platforms of different sizes. Importantly, we consider that such rules apply even where Article 17 CDSM Directive contains specific (but less precise) regulation on the matter. From a normative perspective, this might be a desirable outcome, to the extent that the Digital Services Act aims to establish "uniform rules for a safe, predictable and trusted online environment, where fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter are effectively protected". Based on our analysis, we suggest a number of clarifications that might help us to achieve that goal.

AbstractThis article queries whether and to what extent works produced with the aid of AI systems – AI-assisted output – are protected under EU copyright standards. We carry out a doctrinal legal analysis to scrutinise the concepts of "work", "originality" and "creative freedom", as well as the notion of authorship, as set forth in the EU copyright acquis and developed in the case-law of the Court of Justice. On this basis, we develop a four-step test to assess whether AI-assisted output qualifies as an original work of authorship under EU law, and how the existing rules on authorship may apply. Our conclusion is that current EU copyright rules are generally suitable and sufficiently flexible to deal with the challenges posed by AI-assisted output.

Das Werk analysiert den gescheiterten Ansatz der EU im Bereich Peer-to-Peer (P2P). Der Autor plädiert für Alternativen zum derzeitigen System, das das Urheberrecht und die Politik als Instrumente zur Marktorganisation und Förderung der Innovation einsetzt. Er untersucht die Vereinbarkeit verschiedener Modelle der kollektiven Rechtewahrnehmung mit den internationalen Verträgen, dem gemeinschaftlichen Besitzstand und mit rein strategischen Überlegungen

This report examines the application of EU copyright and related rights law to outputs generated by or with the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) systems, tools or techniques (AI outputs), with a focus on outputs in the musical domain. The Report examines the question: How can and should EU copyright and related rights law protect AI musical outputs? The interdisciplinary (legal and empirical) research involves: (i) analyzing of the protection of AI outputs under EU copyright and related rights law; (ii) examining the attribution of authorship and ownership to (natural and legal) persons involved in the creation or production of AI outputs; (iii) proposing interpretative guidelines and policy recommendations on increasing legal certainty regarding the protection, authorship, and ownership of copyright and related rights over AI outputs, especially music outputs.

AbstractOn 15 December 2020, the European Commission submitted a proposal for a regulation on a single market for digital services (Digital Services Act, DSA) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC. The legislative project seeks to establish a robust and durable governance structure for the effective supervision of providers of intermediary services. To this end, the DSA sets out numerous due diligence obligations of intermediaries concerning any type of illegal information, including copyright-infringing content. Empirically, copyright law accounts for most content removal from online platforms, by an order of magnitude. Thus, copyright enforcement online is a major issue in the context of the DSA, and the DSA will be of utmost importance for the future of online copyright in the EU. Against this background, the European Copyright Society takes this opportunity to share its view on the relationship between the copyright acquis and the DSA, as well as further selected aspects of the DSA from a copyright perspective.