Suchergebnisse

The purpose of this paper is to explore the legal consequences of the digitisation of cultural heritage institutions' archives and in particular to establish whether digitisation processes involve the originality required to trigger new copyright or copyright-related protection. As the European Commission and many MS reported, copyright and in particular "photographers rights" are cause of legal uncertainty during digitisation processes. A major role in this legally uncertain field is played by the standard of originality which is one of the main requirements for copyright protection. Only when a subject matter achieves the requested level of originality, it can be considered a work of authorship. Therefore, a first key issue analysed in this study is whether – and under which conditions – digitisation activities can be considered to be original enough as to constitute works (usually a photographic work) in their own right. A second element of uncertainty is connected with the type of work eventually created by acts of digitisation. If the process of digitisation of a (protected) work can be considered authorial, then the resulting work will be a derivative composed by two works: the original work digitally reproduced and the – probably – photographic work reproducing it. Finally, a third element of uncertainty is found in the protection afforded to "other photographs" by the last sentence of Art. 6 Term Directive and implemented in a handful of European countries. Accordingly, the paper is structured as follows: Part I is dedicated to the analysis of copyright law key concepts such as the originality standard, the definition of derivative works and the forms of protection available in cases of digital (or film-based) representations of objects (photographs). The second part of the study is devoted to a survey of a selection of EU Member States in an attempt to verify how the general concepts identified in Part I are applied by national legislatures and courts. The selected countries are Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands and the UK. The country analysis fulfils a double function: on the one hand it provides a specific overview of the national implementation of the solutions found at international and EU level. On the other hand, it constitutes the only possible approach in order to analyse the protection afforded by some MS to those "other photographs" (also called non original photographs or mere/simple photographs) provided for by the last sentence of Art. 6 Copyright Term Directive. Part III presents some conclusions and recommendations for cultural heritage institutions and for legislatures.

Abstract
This paper focuses on the two exceptions for text and data mining (TDM) introduced in the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM). While both are mandatory for Member States, Art. 3 is also imperative and finds application in cases of text and data mining for the purpose of scientific research by research and cultural institutions; Art. 4, on the other hand, permits text and data mining by anyone but with rightholders able to 'contract-out' (Art. 4). We trace the context of using the lever of copyright law to enable emerging technologies such as AI and the support innovation. Within the EU copyright intervention, elements that may underpin a transparent legal framework for AI are identified, such as the possibility of retention of permanent copies for further verification. On the other hand, we identify several pitfalls, including an excessively broad definition of TDM which makes the entire field of data-driven AI development dependent on an exception. We analyse the implications of limiting the scope of the exceptions to the right of reproduction; we argue that the limitation of Art. 3 to certain beneficiaries remains problematic; and that the requirement of lawful access is difficult to operationalize. In conclusion, we argue that there should be no need for a TDM exception for the act of extracting informational value from protected works. The EU's CDSM provisions paradoxically may favour the development of biased AI systems due to price and accessibility conditions for training data that offer the wrong incentives. To avoid licensing, it may be economically attractive for EU-based developers to train their algorithms on older, less accurate, biased data, or import AI models already trained abroad on unverifiable data.

The OpenAIRE-Advance project runs a series of task forces in three topical areas relevant to open science: Research Data Management, Open Science Policies and Legal Issues for Research Data. The aim is to exploit the expertise in the network (primarily the National Open Access Desks, NOADs) and together to produce a series of materials for public use. In the context of this task force, legal issues, the team identified a number of pertinent areas to develop materials useful to research communities. To this end, this deliverable focuses on the emerging field of research data from a legal perspective. It looks at the proper legal and technological classifications and taxonomies for data (data may have very different meaning in hard and social sciences and in legal terms), their status, protection, reusability, licences, interoperability and more in general to any aspect that may make data more or better fit to meet open science goals. This deliverable is divided into two main sections:  Section 1 Guides on copyright and copyright related aspects (licenses, reusability, etc.),  Section 2 Recommendations on data protection and privacy. Section 1 The first part of this deliverable focuses on the copyright and related rights dimension of open science in the field of data, datasets and databases. The field of data, especially research data, is quite complex and the law does not necessarily call works (copyright) and data (not protected or protected by related rights) following the same categories that hard or social sciences do. Therefore, the field of open access/science to data and research data is particularly complex for users. The two guides that form this first section, a user FAQs and a companion Open Science (OS) checklist that users can employ to direct repository managers at university and research centres to help them realise their OS potential, are meant to offer a state of the art, legally advanced, but still manageable set of rules, guidelines, and resources to enable the full potential of OS in the EU ...

About ten years after a previous initiative to replace the Horserace Betting Levy was abandoned following a judgment from the Court of Justice (CJ), the UK government announced that it will introduce a Horserace Betting Right and repeal Levy that to date has cross-subsidised horseracing. In this comment, the authors warn that the implementation of a Betting Right could be problematic from an EU law perspective. The UK government, and any other interested EU legislator, should reconsider the opportunity of a specifically devised betting right.

Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) is a set of methodologies used for the analysis of data flow over the Internet. It is the intention of this paper to describe technical details of this issue and to show that by using DPI technologies it is possible to understand the content of Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol communications. This communications can carry public available content, private users information, legitimate copyrighted works, as well as infringing copyrighted works. Legislation in many jurisdictions regarding Internet service providers' liability, or more generally the liability of communication intermediaries, usually contains "safe harbour" provisions. The World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty of 1996 has a short but significant provision excluding liability for suppliers of physical facilities. The provision is aimed at communication to the public and the facilitation of physical means. Its extensive interpretation to cases of contributory or vicarious liability, in absence of specific national implementation, can prove problematic. Two of the most relevant legislative interventions in the field, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the European Directive on Electronic Commerce, regulate extensively the field of intermediary liability. This paper looks at the relationship between existing packet inspection technologies, especially the 'deep version,' and the international and national legal and regulatory interventions connected with intellectual property protection and with the correlated liabilities 'exemptions. In analyzing the referred two main statutes, we will take a comparative look at similar interventions in Australia and Canada that can offer some interesting elements of reflection.

Increasingly the digital content used in everyday life has little or no human intervention in its creation. Typically, when such content is delivered to consumers it comes with attached claims of copyright. However, depending on the jurisdiction, approaches to ownership of computer-generated works vary from legislated to uncertain. In this paper we look at the various approaches taken by the common law, such as in Canada, and the legislative approach taken in the United Kingdom. The options for how computer-generated works may be treated and suggestions for their best placement in copyright are discussed.

Free Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) is characterised by a specific programming and development paradigm. The availability and freedom of use of source code are at the core of this paradigm, and are the prerequisites for FLOSS features. Unfortunately, the fundamental role of code is often ignored among those who decide the software purchases for Canadian public agencies. Source code availability and the connected freedoms are often seen as unrelated and accidental aspects, and the only real advantage acknowledged, which is the absence of royalty fees, becomes paramount. In this paper we discuss some relevant legal issues and explain why public administrations should choose FLOSS for their technological infrastructure. We also present the results of a survey regarding the penetration and awareness of FLOSS usage into the Government of Canada. The data demonstrates that the Government of Canada shows no enforced policy regarding the implementation of a specific technological framework (which has legal, economic, business, and ethical repercussions) in their departments and agencies.