JIPITEC – Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law

vLex
Publisher:
DIPP. Digital Peer Publishing
Publication date:
2011-07-20
ISBN:
2190-3387

Description:

JIPITEC aims at providing a forum for in-depth legal analysis of current issues of intellectual property, information technology and E-commerce law with the main focus on European law. Its intention is to develop an information platform that allows authors and users to work closer together than is the case in classical law reviews. The journal will constantly revise it social media functions for this purpose. However, elements from classical law reviews, especially book reviews, bundling of articles in 2- 4 issues per year etc. will be retained

Issue Number

Latest documents

  • Editorial
  • Comment of the European Copyright Society on the Implementation of the Extended Collective Licensing Rules (Arts. 8 and 12) of the Directive (EU) 2019/790 on Copyright in the Digital Single Market
  • Comment of the European Copyright Society on the Implementation of Art. 14 of the DSM-Directive 2019/790
  • Comment of the European Copyright Society on Selected Aspects of Implementing Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market into National Law
  • Comment of the European Copyright Society Addressing Selected Aspects of the Implementation of Articles 18 to 22 of the Directive (EU) 2019/790 on Copyright in the Digital Single Market
  • 3D Digitisation of Cultural Heritage Copyright Implications of the Methods, Purposes and Collaboration

    3D technology is increasingly used in the digitisation of cultural heritage and while parties engaging in such projects need copyright as an incentive, the copyright status of such 3D models are unclear. It is usually assumed they would not be protected, as the scans of existing objects are less likely to be original compared to the 3D models created from scratch. However, it is often overlooked that these projects vary greatly in terms of the chosen method (whether it is laser scanning or photogrammetry), the project’s purpose (if it is for identical copying or if there is any restoration or creative contribution involved) and the collaboration of different people (ranging from employees to volunteers). This article will discuss the copyright implications of the chosen method, purposes and the level of collaboration, in order to show that each of these factors impact the category, originality and the authorship of the resulting work. It will be argued that it is possible, and in some instances very likely, for 3D projects to lead to protectable outcomes under the EU copyright law.

  • The Quality of Law: How the European Court of Human Rights gradually became a European Constitutional Court for privacy casest

    Until very recently, the European Court of Human Rights was willing to assess whether Member States’ executive branch had operated on a legal basis, whether national courts had struck a fair balance when adjudicating cases, and whether Member States had a positive obligation to ensure adequate protection of citizens’ human rights. One thing it did not assess however, was whether Member States’ legislative branch had respected the principles of the rule of law and the minimum requirements of good law-making. That is, until recently. Propelled by cases revolving around mass surveillance activities, in just a small number of years, the Court has undergone a revolutionary transformation and now formally assesses the quality of Member States’ laws and even advises Member States’ legislative branch on how to amend its legal system in order to be Convention- compliant. Doing so, it has gradually turned into a European Constitutional Court, in particular for privacy cases.

  • Debts, Money, Intellectual Property, Data and the Concept of Dematerialised Property

    Debts, (electronic) money, intellectual property, and, in principle, data and digitised objects (if ownership rights are to be recognised for these), can be conceptualised as versions of the general principle of dematerialised property. This article discusses first the concept of dematerialised property and its application to debts, money and intellectual property. Then it deals with the idea of ownership of data within traditional property concepts. While data ownership can theoretically be accommodated fairly easily within the framework of dematerialised property, there are several reasons, both theoretical and from a legal policy perspective, which make the introduction of data ownership modelled upon conventional (intellectual) property rights problematic.

  • Secondary communication under the EU copyright acquis after Tom Kabinet: Between exhaustion and securing work's exploitation

    Since the adoption of the InfoSoc Directive, the CJEU has been dealing with a variety of questions on the interpretation of the broad right of communication to the public. A substantial share of the references for a preliminary ruling concerns secondary communication, which relies on communication initially authorised by the right holder. Despite the seemingly clear language of Article 3(3) of the InfoSoc Directive denying the exhaustion of communication right, the Court has occasionally exempted secondary acts from the authorisation of the right holder, relying on the arguments resembling the exhaustion principle of the right of distribution in respect of the tangible copies of a work. In the recent Tom Kabinet judgment, the CJEU denied the direct application of the principle in the case of the resale of e-books facilitated by the Tom Kabinet platform. Whereas the judgment is of significance to the future of the exhaustion principle under the acquis, this article focuses on its broader implications on secondary communication. The article argues that the decision is in line with the developments under the jurisprudence but is by no means a final say on the extent of exclusive control over secondary communication in the digital environment. Besides raising the question of appropriate boundaries of the exclusive rights and their role in the digital markets, the judgment invites the legislator to revise the framework and restore the legal certainty in respect of the scope of exclusive control over the work’s communication to the public.

  • Conceptualizations of the controller in permissionless blockchains

    The relationship between blockchain and the General Data Protection Regulation (hereinafter GDPR) is often described as problematic. This article addresses one of the problems blockchain faces: who is/are the controller(s) in a blockchain context? This article demonstrates that it is particularly difficult to identify the controller in blockchain applications that are integrated in the core code of a permissionless blockchain. The P2P character of blockchains, with its broad distribution of responsibilities, makes it difficult to ascertain who is able to determine purposes and means of the processing of data. In order to structure the discussion, this article develops three conceptualizations of cooperation within a blockchain. These conceptualizations give different perspectives on the relations between the actors in a blockchain that are potential controllers. The article identifies who is most likely to be the controller in the different conceptualizations and gives indications about the extent to which the controllers are able to exercise their responsibilities. A problem is that an adequate exercise of responsibility requires coordination within the blockchain. However, the system that normally takes care of coordination in a permissionless blockchain - the crypto-economic incentive system - is at present not able to provide adequate data protection.

Featured documents