Suchergebnisse

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on personal data protection in the European Union entered into application on 25 May 2018. With its 173 recitals and 99 articles, it may be one of the most ambitious pieces of EU legislation to date. Rather than a guide to GDPR compliance for Digital Humanities researchers, this chapter looks at the use of personal data in DH projects from the data subject's perspective, and examines to what extent the GDPR kept its promise of enabling the data subject to "take control of his data". The chapter provides an overview of the right to privacy and the right to data protection, a discussion of the relation between the concept of data control and privacy and data protection law, an introduction to the GDPR, and an explanation of its relevance for scientific research in general and DH in particular. The main section of the chapter analyses two types of data control mechanisms (consent and data subject rights) and their impact on DH research.

Hosting Providers play an essential role in the development of Internet services such as e-Research Infrastructures. In order to promote the development of such services, legislators on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean introduced "safe harbour" provisions to protect Service Providers (a category which includes Hosting Providers) from legal claims (e.g. of copyright infringement). Relevant provisions can be found in § 512 of the United States Copyright Act and in art. 14 of the Directive 2000/31/EC (and its national implementations). The cornerstone of this framework is the passive role of the Hosting Provider through which he has no knowledge of the content that he hosts. With the arrival of Web 2.0, however, the role of Hosting Providers on the Internet changed; this change has been reflected in court decisions that have reached varying conclusions in the last few years. The purpose of this article is to present the existing framework (including recent case law from the US, Germany and France).

The debate on the use of personal data in language resources usually focuses — and rightfully so — on anonymisation. However, this very same debate usually ends quickly with the conclusion that proper anonymisation would necessarily cause loss of linguistically valuable information. This paper discusses an alternative approach — pseudonymisation. While pseudonymisation does not solve all the problems (inasmuch as pseudonymised data are still to be regarded as personal data and therefore their processing should still comply with the GDPR principles), it does provide a significant relief, especially — but not only — for those who process personal data for research purposes. This paper describes pseudonymisation as a measure to safeguard rights and interests of data subjects under the GDPR (with a special focus on the right to be informed). It also provides a concrete example of pseudonymisation carried out within a research project at the Institute of Information Technology and Communications of the Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg.

This chapter summarizes the current state of copyright laws in the United States and European Union that most affect Digital Humanities research, namely the fair use doctrine in the US and research exceptions in Europe, including the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, which has been finally adopted in 2019. This summary begins with a description of recent copyright advances most relevant to DH research, and finishes with an analysis of a significant remaining legal hurdle which DH researchers face: how do fair use and research exceptions deal with the critical issue of circumventing technological protection measures (TPM, a.k.a. DRM). Our discussion of the lawful means of obtaining TPM-protected material may contribute to both current DH research and planning decisions and inform future stakeholders and lawmakers of the need to allow TPM circumvention for academic research.

The General Data Protection Regulation (hereinafter: GDPR), EU Regulation 2016/679 of 27 April 2016, will become applicable on 25 May 2018 and repeal the Personal Data Directive of 24 October 1995. Unlike a directive, which requires transposition into national laws (while leaving the choice of "forms and methods" to the Member States), a regulation is binding and directly applicable in all Member States. This means that when the GDPR becomes applicable, all the EU countries will have the same rules regarding the protection of personal data — at least in principle, since some details (including in the area of research — see below) are expressly left to the discretion of the Member States. The GDPR is a particularly ambitious piece of legislation (consisting of 99 articles and 173 recitals) whose intended territorial scope extends beyond the borders of the European Union. Its main concepts and principles are essentially similar to those of the Personal Data Directive, but enriched with interpretation developed through the case law of the CJEU and the opinions of the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (hereinafter: WP29). This White Paper will discuss the main principles of data protection and their impact on language resources, as well as special rules regarding research under the GDPR and the standardisation mechanisms recognized by the Regulation.

Sometimes legal scholars get relevant but baffling questions from laypersons like: "The reference to a work is personal data, so does the GDPR actually require me to anonymise it? Or, as my voice data is personal data, does the GDPR automatically give me access to a speech recognizer using my voice sample? Or, can I say anything about myself without the GDPR requiring the web host to anonymise or remove the post? What can I say about others like politicians? And, what can researchers say about patients in a research report?" Based on these questions, the authors address the interaction of intellectual property and data protection law in the context of data minimisation and attribution rights, access rights, trade secret protection, and freedom of expression

Sometimes legal scholars get relevant but baffling questions from laypersons like: "The reference to a work is personal data, so does the GDPR actually require me to anonymise it? Or, as my voice data is personal data, does the GDPR automatically give me access to a speech recognizer using my voice sample? Or, can I say anything about myself without the GDPR requiring the web host to anonymise or remove the post? What can I say about others like politicians? And, what can researchers say about patients in a research report?" Based on these questions, the authors address the interaction of intellectual property and data protection law in the context of data minimisation and attribution rights, access rights, trade secret protection, and freedom of expression.