Limitations to copyright in the digital age

Geiger, Christophe; Schönherr, Franciska

doi:10.4337/9781782544173.00013

Cited by 45 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1154 1149 Directive 2001/ The exceptions play a key role in protecting user rights but also in giving certainty to authors and rightsholders. 1155 Not making them equally applicable in all Member States has therefore been seen as signalling a certain carelessness for the public interest aspects of copyright compared to the economic preoccupations of rightsowners. 1156 The exhaustive list of exceptions makes for a certain inflexibility with regards to new uses of works engendered by e.g.…”

Section: International Law and Eu Set-upmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unlawful Content Online

Ullrich

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Illegal content remains a persistent and growing issue on the internet. This book reviews seven problematic areas - defamation, hate speech, terrorist content, copyright, counterfeit, unsafe products and food - to illustrate that the fight against unlawful content on online platforms in the EU is hampered by fragmented and outdated laws. Meanwhile, the global internet companies that govern our digital spaces enforce their own policies, based on commercial objectives, and with secondary regard for public values and individuals’ rights. The book subsequently charts out a solution of how EU lawmakers can bring social media and the like to take on adequate responsibilities for protecting users and public interests. The author argues that a safety-by-design approach, supported by technical standards, can be an effective way for implementing these new duties. Carsten Ullrich is a legal researcher at the University of Luxembourg, where he works on the regulation of digital technologies. The doctoral thesis on which this book is based was awarded the Rolf Tarrach Prize 2021 for the best dissertation in Luxembourg.

show abstract

Section: International Law and Eu Set-upmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unlawful Content Online

Ullrich

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since July 1, 1989 14 there have been 2547 EEIGs established (as of 12 October 2017); 15 however, due to varying opinions it remains unclear whether the networks engaged in a non-profit activities and seeking funding for R&I&D may benefit by choosing the promoted supranational legal form in comparison to the national legal forms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corporate Forms Facilitating Non-Profit Networking: Formalizing the Informal

Jakulevičienė

Valutytė

2017

Baltic Journal of Law &Amp; Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cooperation and networking among a variety of organisations for the purpose of research, projects, and other activities ranges from ad hoc to long term organisational relationships, formalised or based on informal cooperation. Although informality is frequently much valued and drives organisations to partner on substance rather than bureaucracy, formalisation of networks and cooperation might be indispensible for effective partnerships and activities, as well as representation of mutual interests beyond the national level. How 193 shall such networks be formalised at European and/or national levels so that they are flexible enough, involve minimum bureaucracy, and engage the maximum scope of possible activities? This article focuses on the analysis of possible legal structures facilitating the work of a group of entities and individuals engaged in cross-border activities. This study examines the potential of national legal opportunities in five countries: Belgium, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland and the Netherlands, and the proven legal form of EEIG in reducing the barriers for cooperation, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of these legal forms for a formalized network and the purposes it serves. the Netherlands), legal and economic relevance of their establishment (Part 1). The rational for choosing countries for the analysis was practical and general-knowledge based. To get the bigger picture of transnational differences the countries we chose from two different geographical regions, Belgium and Estonia being the focal points due to their representation in SENTER project. 4 Being the centre of EU institutions, Brussels has become the centre for lobbying activities since the European Commission has always recognized the importance of consultation and interest representation. 5 Additionally, Belgium "ranks among the ten most competitive countries in Europe" 6 and non-profit organisations are the dominant form in the associative sector there. 7 Estonia is commended by OECD for numerous strengths, including an excellent business environment, high educational attainment and labour market participation, an innovative ICT sector and solid public finances. 8 Other neighbouring countries were chosen for comparison with the aim to discover if the countries may become the new attractive jurisdictions for establishing a non-profit legal entity. •The advantages and disadvantages of the legal form of EEIG (Part 2) in relation to the findings of Part 1 concerning different national legal forms. An EEIG was the first supranational legal body regulated under the EU law and the first European effort towards a EU company made back in 1985 by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2137/85, 9 which aimed at facilitating transnational co-operation between companies, as part of the completion of the internal market. 10 The "somewhat original framework" 11 has become a useful means of cooperation between the small and medium companies for the purposes of research and development, 12 by making it possible for public and private entities and ...

show abstract

“…See, for instance,Geiger and Schönherr (2014) andGeiger and Schönherr (2012), Janssens (2009) with further references,Hilty (2004), van Eechoud et al (2009), Hugenholtz (2000,Guibault (2006),Bechtold (2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Limitations and Exceptions as Key Elements of the Legal Framework for Copyright in the European Union – Opinion of the European Copyright Society on the Judgment of the CJEU in Case C-201/13 Deckmyn

Geiger

Griffiths

Senftleben

et al. 2015

IIC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this opinion, the European Copyright Society (ECS) puts on record its views on the issues raised by the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-201/13, Deckmyn, which departs from the doctrine of strict interpretation of exceptions and limitations in cases in which fundamental rights such as freedom of expression are involved. The opinion welcomes this development for the following reasons: firstly, due to the importance of exceptions and limitations in facilitating creativity and securing a fair balance between the protection of and access to copyright works; secondly, because of the Court’s determination to secure a harmonized interpretation of the meaning of exceptions and limitations; thirdly, because of the Court’s adoption of an approach to the interpretation of exceptions and limitations which promotes their effectiveness and purpose; and, finally, due to the Court’s recognition of the role of fundamental rights in the copyright system: in particular, its recognition that the parodic use of works is justified by the right to freedom of expression. At the same time, the ECS recommends caution in constraining the scope of exceptions and limitations in a manner that may go beyond what might be considered necessary in a democratic society

show abstract

Limitations to copyright in the digital age

Cited by 45 publications

References 0 publications

Unlawful Content Online

Unlawful Content Online

Corporate Forms Facilitating Non-Profit Networking: Formalizing the Informal

Limitations and Exceptions as Key Elements of the Legal Framework for Copyright in the European Union – Opinion of the European Copyright Society on the Judgment of the CJEU in Case C-201/13 Deckmyn

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About