| Angelopoulos, C., Quintais, J. Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 22 juni 2021 Frank Peterson / Google & YouTube (C 682/18) & Elsevier / Cyando AG (C 683/18) In: Auteursrecht, iss. 1, no. 1, pp. 46-51, 2022. @article{nokey,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 22 juni 2021 Frank Peterson / Google \& YouTube (C 682/18) \& Elsevier / Cyando AG (C 683/18)},
author = {Quintais, J. and Angelopoulos, C.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/annotatie_auteursrecht_2022_1/},
year = {2022},
date = {2022-03-03},
journal = {Auteursrecht},
number = {1},
issue = {1},
pages = {46-51},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Angelopoulos, C., Senftleben, M., Thije, P. ten De reikwijdte van artikel 17 DSM-richtlijn in het licht van het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen: een Odyssee In: Auteursrecht, no. 3, pp. 120-142, 2021. @article{Angelopoulos2021,
title = {De reikwijdte van artikel 17 DSM-richtlijn in het licht van het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen: een Odyssee},
author = {Angelopoulos, C. and Senftleben, M. and Thije, P. ten},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Auteursrecht_2021_3.pdf},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-09-21},
journal = {Auteursrecht},
number = {3},
pages = {120-142},
abstract = {Met de Richtlijn auteursrechten en naburige rechten in de digitale eengemaakte markt (‘DSM-RL’) zijn nieuwe wettelijke verplichtingen op het terrein van het filteren van online content ontstaan. Aanbieders van onlinediensten voor het delen van content (‘OCSSPs’) dienen \textendash op basis van door rechthebbenden verstrekte informatie \textendash ervoor te zorgen dat beschermd materiaal niet beschikbaar is op hun platforms. Tegelijkertijd bevestigt artikel 17 lid 8 DSM-RL dat de nieuwe auteursrechtelijke regels niet tot een algemene toezichtverplichting moeten leiden. Ondanks de nieuwe filterverplichtingen heeft de Uniewetgever het traditionele verbod op een algemene toezichtverplichting \textendash dat al 20 jaar deel uitmaakt van de regeling van aansprakelijkheidsprivileges in de Richtlijn inzake elektronische handel (‘REH’) \textendash uitdrukkelijk overeind gehouden. Ook het voorstel van de Europese Commissie voor een Digital Services Act (‘DSA’) houdt het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen in stand. Tegen deze achtergrond rijst de vraag hoe de nieuwe auteursrechtelijke filterverplichtingen moeten worden uitgelegd om een verboden algemene toezichtverplichting te voorkomen. De volgende analyse geeft antwoord op deze vraag op basis van een nadere bespreking van het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen in de REH, de DSM-RL en het DSA-voorstel. Naast relevante rechtspraak van het HvJ EU komt het nauwe verband tussen het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen en fundamentele rechten aan de orde.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Met de Richtlijn auteursrechten en naburige rechten in de digitale eengemaakte markt (‘DSM-RL’) zijn nieuwe wettelijke verplichtingen op het terrein van het filteren van online content ontstaan. Aanbieders van onlinediensten voor het delen van content (‘OCSSPs’) dienen – op basis van door rechthebbenden verstrekte informatie – ervoor te zorgen dat beschermd materiaal niet beschikbaar is op hun platforms. Tegelijkertijd bevestigt artikel 17 lid 8 DSM-RL dat de nieuwe auteursrechtelijke regels niet tot een algemene toezichtverplichting moeten leiden. Ondanks de nieuwe filterverplichtingen heeft de Uniewetgever het traditionele verbod op een algemene toezichtverplichting – dat al 20 jaar deel uitmaakt van de regeling van aansprakelijkheidsprivileges in de Richtlijn inzake elektronische handel (‘REH’) – uitdrukkelijk overeind gehouden. Ook het voorstel van de Europese Commissie voor een Digital Services Act (‘DSA’) houdt het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen in stand. Tegen deze achtergrond rijst de vraag hoe de nieuwe auteursrechtelijke filterverplichtingen moeten worden uitgelegd om een verboden algemene toezichtverplichting te voorkomen. De volgende analyse geeft antwoord op deze vraag op basis van een nadere bespreking van het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen in de REH, de DSM-RL en het DSA-voorstel. Naast relevante rechtspraak van het HvJ EU komt het nauwe verband tussen het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen en fundamentele rechten aan de orde. |
| Angelopoulos, C., Senftleben, M. The Odyssey of the Prohibition on General Monitoring Obligations on the Way to the Digital Services Act: Between Article 15 of the E-Commerce Directive and Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market 2020, (Amsterdam: Institute for Information Law & Cambridge: Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law). @techreport{Senftleben2020e,
title = {The Odyssey of the Prohibition on General Monitoring Obligations on the Way to the Digital Services Act: Between Article 15 of the E-Commerce Directive and Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market},
author = {Senftleben, M. and Angelopoulos, C.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3717022},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-10-29},
abstract = {EU law provides explicitly that intermediaries may not be obliged to monitor their service in a general manner in order to detect and prevent the illegal activity of their users. However, a misunderstanding of the difference between monitoring specific content and monitoring FOR specific content is a recurrent theme in the debate on intermediary liability and a central driver of the controversy surrounding it. Rightly understood, a prohibited general monitoring obligation arises whenever content \textendash no matter how specifically it is defined \textendash must be identified among the totality of the content on a platform. The moment platform content must be screened in its entirety, the monitoring obligation acquires an excessive, general nature. Against this background, a content moderation duty can only be deemed permissible if it is specific in respect of both the protected subject matter and potential infringers.
This requirement of 'double specificity' is of particular importance because it prevents encroachments upon fundamental rights. The jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union has shed light on the anchorage of the general monitoring ban in primary EU law, in particular the right to the protection of personal data, the freedom of expression and information, the freedom to conduct a business, and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market. Due to their higher rank in the norm hierarchy, these legal guarantees constitute common ground for the application of the general monitoring prohibition in secondary EU legislation, namely Article 15(1) of the E-Commerce Directive ('ECD') and Article 17(8) of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market ('CDSMD').
With regard to the Digital Services Act (‘DSA’), this result of the analysis implies that any further manifestation of the general monitoring ban in the DSA would have to be construed and applied \textendash in the light of applicable CJEU case law \textendash as a safeguard against encroachments upon the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms. If the final text of the DSA does not contain a reiteration of the prohibition of general monitoring obligations known from Article 15(1) ECD and Article 17(8) CDSMD, the regulation of internet service provider liability, duties of care and injunctions would still have to avoid inroads into the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms and observe the principle of proportionality. The double specificity requirement plays a central role in this respect.},
note = {Amsterdam: Institute for Information Law \& Cambridge: Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
EU law provides explicitly that intermediaries may not be obliged to monitor their service in a general manner in order to detect and prevent the illegal activity of their users. However, a misunderstanding of the difference between monitoring specific content and monitoring FOR specific content is a recurrent theme in the debate on intermediary liability and a central driver of the controversy surrounding it. Rightly understood, a prohibited general monitoring obligation arises whenever content – no matter how specifically it is defined – must be identified among the totality of the content on a platform. The moment platform content must be screened in its entirety, the monitoring obligation acquires an excessive, general nature. Against this background, a content moderation duty can only be deemed permissible if it is specific in respect of both the protected subject matter and potential infringers.
This requirement of 'double specificity' is of particular importance because it prevents encroachments upon fundamental rights. The jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union has shed light on the anchorage of the general monitoring ban in primary EU law, in particular the right to the protection of personal data, the freedom of expression and information, the freedom to conduct a business, and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market. Due to their higher rank in the norm hierarchy, these legal guarantees constitute common ground for the application of the general monitoring prohibition in secondary EU legislation, namely Article 15(1) of the E-Commerce Directive ('ECD') and Article 17(8) of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market ('CDSMD').
With regard to the Digital Services Act (‘DSA’), this result of the analysis implies that any further manifestation of the general monitoring ban in the DSA would have to be construed and applied – in the light of applicable CJEU case law – as a safeguard against encroachments upon the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms. If the final text of the DSA does not contain a reiteration of the prohibition of general monitoring obligations known from Article 15(1) ECD and Article 17(8) CDSMD, the regulation of internet service provider liability, duties of care and injunctions would still have to avoid inroads into the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms and observe the principle of proportionality. The double specificity requirement plays a central role in this respect. |
| Angelopoulos, C., Quintais, J. Fixing Copyright Reform: A Better Solution to Online Infringement In: JIPITEC, vol. 10, no. 2, 2019. @article{Angelopoulos2019,
title = {Fixing Copyright Reform: A Better Solution to Online Infringement},
author = {Angelopoulos, C. and Quintais, J.},
url = {https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-10-2-2019/4913},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-10-11},
journal = {JIPITEC},
volume = {10},
number = {2},
abstract = {The newly-adopted Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSMD) will fundamentally reshape EU copyright law. Among its most controversial offerings is Article 17, the so-called “value gap” provision, aimed at solving the alleged mismatch between the value that online content-sharing platforms extract from creative content and the revenue returned to the copyright-holders. This article argues that the new rules are misguided, misconceiving the real problems afflicting modern copyright. These are the proliferation of copyright infringement online in general \textendash not only through content-sharing platforms \textendash and the current piecemeal harmonisation of the rules on the liability of the intermediaries whose services are used to access and disseminate copyright-protected content. The current outdated and fragmented EU legal framework is ill-equipped to address these problems. Instead, it creates legal uncertainty for users and intermediaries in the online environment, while also failing to compensate creators fairly. The new rules will not change this. This article examines the pre-DSMD acquis and proposes a better solution than Article 17, consisting of two key changes: (a) the introduction of a harmonised EU framework for accessory liability for third party copyright infringement; and (b) the adoption of an alternative compensation system for right-holders covering non-commercial direct copyright use by the end-users of certain online platforms.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The newly-adopted Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSMD) will fundamentally reshape EU copyright law. Among its most controversial offerings is Article 17, the so-called “value gap” provision, aimed at solving the alleged mismatch between the value that online content-sharing platforms extract from creative content and the revenue returned to the copyright-holders. This article argues that the new rules are misguided, misconceiving the real problems afflicting modern copyright. These are the proliferation of copyright infringement online in general – not only through content-sharing platforms – and the current piecemeal harmonisation of the rules on the liability of the intermediaries whose services are used to access and disseminate copyright-protected content. The current outdated and fragmented EU legal framework is ill-equipped to address these problems. Instead, it creates legal uncertainty for users and intermediaries in the online environment, while also failing to compensate creators fairly. The new rules will not change this. This article examines the pre-DSMD acquis and proposes a better solution than Article 17, consisting of two key changes: (a) the introduction of a harmonised EU framework for accessory liability for third party copyright infringement; and (b) the adoption of an alternative compensation system for right-holders covering non-commercial direct copyright use by the end-users of certain online platforms. |
| Angelopoulos, C., Quintais, J. Fixing Copyright Reform: How to Address Online Infringement and Bridge the Value Gap In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2018. @article{Angelopoulos2018,
title = {Fixing Copyright Reform: How to Address Online Infringement and Bridge the Value Gap},
author = {Angelopoulos, C. and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2018/08/30/fixing-copyright-reform-address-online-infringement-bridge-value-gap/},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-09-04},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Angelopoulos, C., Smet, S. Notice-and-fair-balance: how to reach a compromise between fundamental rights in European intermediary liability In: Journal of Media Law, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 266-301, 2017, ISBN: 1757-7632. @article{Angelopoulos2017,
title = {Notice-and-fair-balance: how to reach a compromise between fundamental rights in European intermediary liability},
author = {Angelopoulos, C. and Smet, S.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Notice_and_Fair_Balance.pdf},
doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2016.1240957},
isbn = {1757-7632},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-02-14},
journal = {Journal of Media Law},
volume = {8},
number = {2},
pages = {266-301},
abstract = {In recent years, Europe’s highest courts have searched for the answer to the problem of intermediary liability in the notion of a ‘fair balance’ between competing fundamental rights. At the same time, the ‘notice-and-takedown’ system, which first emerged as a solution to intermediary liability in the 1990s, has spread across the globe, transforming along the way into an assortment of ‘notice-and-action’ variants that differ from country to country. In this article, we seek to examine how both these approaches to the intermediary liability question can be usefully combined. Interpreting ‘fair balance’ as a call for compromise, we propose a move away from the traditional ‘horizontal’ approach of the EU's safe harbour regime, towards a more ‘vertical’ scheme, whereby distinct ‘actions’ are tailored to diverse wrong-doings: notice-and-notice for copyright, notice-wait-and-takedown for defamation and notice-and-takedown and notice-and-suspension for hate speech. Notice-and-judicial-take-down can function as a complementary all-purpose solution. Automatic takedown and notice-and-stay-down are applicable exclusively to child pornography. We suggest that the resulting calibrated system can contribute to achieving a truer ‘fair balance’ in this difficult area of law.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
In recent years, Europe’s highest courts have searched for the answer to the problem of intermediary liability in the notion of a ‘fair balance’ between competing fundamental rights. At the same time, the ‘notice-and-takedown’ system, which first emerged as a solution to intermediary liability in the 1990s, has spread across the globe, transforming along the way into an assortment of ‘notice-and-action’ variants that differ from country to country. In this article, we seek to examine how both these approaches to the intermediary liability question can be usefully combined. Interpreting ‘fair balance’ as a call for compromise, we propose a move away from the traditional ‘horizontal’ approach of the EU's safe harbour regime, towards a more ‘vertical’ scheme, whereby distinct ‘actions’ are tailored to diverse wrong-doings: notice-and-notice for copyright, notice-wait-and-takedown for defamation and notice-and-takedown and notice-and-suspension for hate speech. Notice-and-judicial-take-down can function as a complementary all-purpose solution. Automatic takedown and notice-and-stay-down are applicable exclusively to child pornography. We suggest that the resulting calibrated system can contribute to achieving a truer ‘fair balance’ in this difficult area of law. |
| Angelopoulos, C. European Intermediary Liability in Copyright: A Tort-Based Analysis 2017, ISBN: 978904118351. @book{ILS39,
title = {European Intermediary Liability in Copyright: A Tort-Based Analysis},
author = {Angelopoulos, C.},
isbn = {978904118351},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-01-01},
series = {Information Law Series},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}
|
| Angelopoulos, C. European Intermediary Liability in Copyright: A Tort-Based Analysis 2016. @book{Angelopoulos2016,
title = {European Intermediary Liability in Copyright: A Tort-Based Analysis},
author = {Angelopoulos, C.},
url = {https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/2738365/172299_Angelopoulos_thesis_complete.pdf},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-11-18},
urldate = {2016-11-18},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}
|
| Angelopoulos, C., Brody, A., Hins, A., Hugenholtz, P., Margoni, T., McGonagle, T., van Daalen, O., van Hoboken, J. Study of fundamental rights limitations for online enforcement through self-regulation 2016, (Study supported by the Open Society Foundations, 96 pp.
). @techreport{,
title = {Study of fundamental rights limitations for online enforcement through self-regulation},
author = {Hins, A. and Hugenholtz, P. and McGonagle, T. and van Daalen, O. and van Hoboken, J. and Angelopoulos, C. and Brody, A. and Margoni, T.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/study_fundamental_rights_limitations.pdf},
year = {2016},
date = {2016-06-16},
note = {Study supported by the Open Society Foundations, 96 pp.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
|
| Angelopoulos, C. Sketching the outline of a ghost: the fair balance between copyright and fundamental rights in intermediary third party liability In: Info, no. 6, pp. 72-96., 2015. @article{,
title = {Sketching the outline of a ghost: the fair balance between copyright and fundamental rights in intermediary third party liability},
author = {C.J. Angelopoulos},
url = {http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/info-05-2015-0028},
year = {2015},
date = {2015-09-01},
journal = {Info},
number = {6},
pages = {72-96.},
note = {
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/info-05-2015-0028
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Angelopoulos, C. Are blocking injunctions against ISPs allowed in Europe? Copyright enforcement in the post-Telekabel EU legal landscape In: Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, no. 10, pp. 812-821., 2014. @article{,
title = {Are blocking injunctions against ISPs allowed in Europe? Copyright enforcement in the post-Telekabel EU legal landscape},
author = {C.J. Angelopoulos},
url = {http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/content/9/10/812},
year = {2014},
date = {2014-08-19},
journal = {Journal of Intellectual Property Law \& Practice},
number = {10},
pages = {812-821.},
abstract = {
In recent years, the national courts of the EU Member States, in an attempt to stem the flow of rampant online copyright infringement, have increasingly turned to the issuance of blocking injunctions against the intermediaries whose websites and networks are used by third parties to commit infringements. This article examines the legal framework in place at the EU level with regard to the legality of such injunctive orders, making a distinction between filtering measures, used to detect copyright infringements, and blocking measures, used to put an end to them. On the basis of that analysis, a detailed examination will be made of the latest CJEU ruling to apply this framework, Case C-314/12, UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH on the lawfullness of open-ended blocking injunctions against internet access providers.
},
note = {
Article also published in GRUR International, 2014-11, p. 1089-1096.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
In recent years, the national courts of the EU Member States, in an attempt to stem the flow of rampant online copyright infringement, have increasingly turned to the issuance of blocking injunctions against the intermediaries whose websites and networks are used by third parties to commit infringements. This article examines the legal framework in place at the EU level with regard to the legality of such injunctive orders, making a distinction between filtering measures, used to detect copyright infringements, and blocking measures, used to put an end to them. On the basis of that analysis, a detailed examination will be made of the latest CJEU ruling to apply this framework, Case C-314/12, UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH on the lawfullness of open-ended blocking injunctions against internet access providers.
|
| Angelopoulos, C. Beyond the Safe Harbours: Harmonising Substantive Intermediary Liability for Copyright Infringement in Europe In: Intellectual Property Quarterly, no. 3, pp. 253-274, 2013. @article{,
title = {Beyond the Safe Harbours: Harmonising Substantive Intermediary Liability for Copyright Infringement in Europe},
author = {C.J. Angelopoulos},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IPQ_2013_3.pdf},
year = {2013},
date = {2013-10-08},
journal = {Intellectual Property Quarterly},
number = {3},
pages = {253-274},
abstract = {
With the adoption and subsequent national implementation of the E-Commerce Directive\’s safe harbour regime, the architecture set up for intermediary liability in Europe has become two-tiered: at a first stage, it is necessary to examine whether a given intermediary attracts, in its pursuit of a certain activity, civil liability according to the standards in place in national legislation and only then, in the second instance, must the inapplicability of any immunity be established. As a result, although it provides a veneer of approximation by immunising intermediaries under certain circumscribed conditions, the Directive does not harmonise the underlying substantive liability norms which decide whether the safe harbours will be necessary or redundant. Instead, these are determined by national tort law, leaving ample room for national divergences between the regimes of the various Member States. This paper examines the applicable tort rules currently in place in three selected jurisdictions of the UK, France and Germany, picking out their commonalities and divergences and revealing the confusion that governs the topic across European borders. The intention is to examine the structures in place that could allow for the eventual European harmonisation of substantive intermediary liability beyond the safe harbours.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
With the adoption and subsequent national implementation of the E-Commerce Directive’s safe harbour regime, the architecture set up for intermediary liability in Europe has become two-tiered: at a first stage, it is necessary to examine whether a given intermediary attracts, in its pursuit of a certain activity, civil liability according to the standards in place in national legislation and only then, in the second instance, must the inapplicability of any immunity be established. As a result, although it provides a veneer of approximation by immunising intermediaries under certain circumscribed conditions, the Directive does not harmonise the underlying substantive liability norms which decide whether the safe harbours will be necessary or redundant. Instead, these are determined by national tort law, leaving ample room for national divergences between the regimes of the various Member States. This paper examines the applicable tort rules currently in place in three selected jurisdictions of the UK, France and Germany, picking out their commonalities and divergences and revealing the confusion that governs the topic across European borders. The intention is to examine the structures in place that could allow for the eventual European harmonisation of substantive intermediary liability beyond the safe harbours.
|
| Angelopoulos, C. The Myth of European Term Harmonisation: 27 Public Domains for the 27 Member States In: IIC, no. 5, pp. 567, 2012. @article{,
title = {The Myth of European Term Harmonisation: 27 Public Domains for the 27 Member States},
author = {C.J. Angelopoulos},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IIC_2012_5.pdf},
year = {2012},
date = {2012-08-10},
journal = {IIC},
number = {5},
pages = {567},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Angelopoulos, C. Determining the Term of Protection for Films: When Does a Film Fall into the Public Domain in Europe? In: IRIS Plus, no. 2, 2012. @article{,
title = {Determining the Term of Protection for Films: When Does a Film Fall into the Public Domain in Europe?},
author = {C.J. Angelopoulos},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IRISplus_2012_2.pdf},
year = {2012},
date = {2012-06-12},
journal = {IRIS Plus},
number = {2},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Angelopoulos, C. Amended Directive Extends the Term of Protection for Performers and Sound Recordings In: GRUR International, no. 11, pp. 987-989, 2011. @article{,
title = {Amended Directive Extends the Term of Protection for Performers and Sound Recordings},
author = {C.J. Angelopoulos},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/GRUR_2011_11.pdf},
year = {2011},
date = {2011-12-06},
journal = {GRUR International},
number = {11},
pages = {987-989},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Angelopoulos, C., Guibault, L., van Eechoud, M. Friends or Foes? Creative Commons, Freedom of Information Law and the European Union Framework for Reuse of Public Sector Information 2011. @misc{,
title = {Friends or Foes? Creative Commons, Freedom of Information Law and the European Union Framework for Reuse of Public Sector Information},
author = {L. Guibault and C. Angelopoulos and M.M.M. van Eechoud},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/VanEechoud_FriendorFoes_OpenContentLicensing.pdf},
year = {2011},
date = {2011-10-11},
booktitle = {Open Content Licensing: From Theory to Practice},
journal = {Amsterdam University Press},
pages = {169-202},
publisher = {Amsterdam University Press},
address = {Amsterdam},
note = {
Freedom of information law is, first and foremost, an instrument that helps to effectuate democratic control of public administration, by giving citizens rights to access government held information. But access rights are also associated with broader benefits. Government data has economic value beyond the public sector, as it can be used for private sector provision of information services and products. Enhancing commercial exploitation of public sector information has, in recent years, become part of national and European economic policy. Access for both democratic and economic purposes has implications for how intellectual property rights in government information are exercised. This chapter explores the role of copyright policy in light of the objectives and principles behind freedom of information law and the regulatory framework for the reuse of public sector information. More specifically, it queries whether open content licenses, such as Creative Commons (CC), are indeed as attractive an instrument for the management of intellectual property in government information as they appear to be.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}
|
| Angelopoulos, C., Angelopoulos, C., Guibault, L. Creative Commons and Related Rights in Sound Recordings: Are the Two Systems Compatible? 2011. @misc{,
title = {Creative Commons and Related Rights in Sound Recordings: Are the Two Systems Compatible?},
author = {L. Guibault and C. Angelopoulos and C.J. Angelopoulos},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Open%20Content%20Licensing%20-%20Chapter%209.pdf},
year = {2011},
date = {2011-07-13},
booktitle = {Open Content Licensing: From Theory to Practice},
pages = {243-295},
publisher = {Amsterdam University Press},
address = {Amsterdam},
abstract = {
Can the will of the author cancel her copyright? The Creative Commons licensing system depends on a positive answer to this question, and indeed, in the area of copyright proper, for the most part this is the case. But the related rights of performers and phonogram producers are a different matter: in addition to their exclusive rights, performers and phonogram producers are also granted a right to equitable remuneration for the use of their phonograms in communications to the public or broadcasting by wireless means. Given that, in many EU Member States the right to equitable remuneration has been implemented in the form of a (waivable or non-waivable) compulsory licensing scheme, while, even where a voluntary license scheme is in place, the functional reality of collecting societies will limit the flexibility that this will allow right-owners, the following question arises: is the legal framework of related rights and the collective management systems in place for the exploitation of these rights compatible with the use of Creative Commons licenses? This book chapter attempts to answer this complicated question with regard to the law of the two EU Member States of the UK and the Netherlands. The issue is examined against the backdrop of the innovative flexible collective management pilot project was initiated for musical works between Buma/Stemra, the Dutch collecting society for music authors and publishers, and Creative Commons Netherlands, the Dutch branch of Creative Commons. The chapter concludes that, when contemplating the application of Creative Commons licenses to musical works in the context of the user\’s obligation to pay equitable remuneration to the performer and phonogram producer for use of a phonogram in a communication to the public or broadcast, three main circumstances must be kept in mind: (a) Whether the work has been published for commercial purposes; (b) Whether the work is offered by the user on an interactive, on-demand basis; (c) What type of licensing scheme is established in the country in question for the management of the right.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}
Can the will of the author cancel her copyright? The Creative Commons licensing system depends on a positive answer to this question, and indeed, in the area of copyright proper, for the most part this is the case. But the related rights of performers and phonogram producers are a different matter: in addition to their exclusive rights, performers and phonogram producers are also granted a right to equitable remuneration for the use of their phonograms in communications to the public or broadcasting by wireless means. Given that, in many EU Member States the right to equitable remuneration has been implemented in the form of a (waivable or non-waivable) compulsory licensing scheme, while, even where a voluntary license scheme is in place, the functional reality of collecting societies will limit the flexibility that this will allow right-owners, the following question arises: is the legal framework of related rights and the collective management systems in place for the exploitation of these rights compatible with the use of Creative Commons licenses? This book chapter attempts to answer this complicated question with regard to the law of the two EU Member States of the UK and the Netherlands. The issue is examined against the backdrop of the innovative flexible collective management pilot project was initiated for musical works between Buma/Stemra, the Dutch collecting society for music authors and publishers, and Creative Commons Netherlands, the Dutch branch of Creative Commons. The chapter concludes that, when contemplating the application of Creative Commons licenses to musical works in the context of the user’s obligation to pay equitable remuneration to the performer and phonogram producer for use of a phonogram in a communication to the public or broadcast, three main circumstances must be kept in mind: (a) Whether the work has been published for commercial purposes; (b) Whether the work is offered by the user on an interactive, on-demand basis; (c) What type of licensing scheme is established in the country in question for the management of the right.
|
| Angelopoulos, C., Guibault, L. Open Content Licensing from Theory to Practice Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2011, ISBN: 9789089643070. @book{,
title = {Open Content Licensing from Theory to Practice},
author = {L. Guibault and C.J. Angelopoulos},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/9789089643070_TEXT_HR_DRUK.pdf},
isbn = {9789089643070},
year = {2011},
date = {2011-07-06},
pages = {295 },
publisher = {Amsterdam University Press},
address = {Amsterdam},
abstract = {
This book assembles chapters written by renowned European scholars on a number of selected issues relating to open content licensing. It offers a comprehensive and objective study of the principles of open content from a European intellectual property law perspective and of their possible implementation in practice.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}
This book assembles chapters written by renowned European scholars on a number of selected issues relating to open content licensing. It offers a comprehensive and objective study of the principles of open content from a European intellectual property law perspective and of their possible implementation in practice.
|
| Angelopoulos, C., van Gompel, S. Digitisation and Online Exploitation of Broadcasters' Archives European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg, 2011, ISBN: 9789287169976. @book{,
title = {Digitisation and Online Exploitation of Broadcasters' Archives},
author = {S.J. van Gompel and C.J. Angelopoulos},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/707.pdf},
isbn = {9789287169976},
year = {2011},
date = {2011-01-14},
pages = {91},
publisher = {European Audiovisual Observatory},
address = {Strasbourg},
series = {IRIS Special},
abstract = {
The archives of many television broadcasters now contain materiel which includes more than half a century of contemporary, documentary and entertainment history and are of immense cultural and economic value. Digitisation has created an entirely new technical basis for making these assets available to a wide audience, and there are a whole range of projects aimed at opening up audiovisual archives (including those of broadcasters). However, many projects to open up broadcasters\' archives and exploit them online generally run up against serious problems when it comes to clearing the rights for these archived works. These problems arise, firstly, due to a contractual practice that developed in the pre-digital era and to aspects of copyright law that do not really meet the needs of the digital age. Secondly, the very large number of works stored in archives constitutes a challenge that is not easily overcome. The aim of this IRIS Special is to discuss the subject from a number of different perspectives. The team of authors involved is accordingly made up of representatives of many different interests: copyright holders and those who look after their interests, television broadcasters, lawyers and copyright experts.
},
note = {
Zie hier voor meer informatie over IRIS Special: http://www.obs.coe.int/shop/irisspecial
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}
The archives of many television broadcasters now contain materiel which includes more than half a century of contemporary, documentary and entertainment history and are of immense cultural and economic value. Digitisation has created an entirely new technical basis for making these assets available to a wide audience, and there are a whole range of projects aimed at opening up audiovisual archives (including those of broadcasters). However, many projects to open up broadcasters' archives and exploit them online generally run up against serious problems when it comes to clearing the rights for these archived works. These problems arise, firstly, due to a contractual practice that developed in the pre-digital era and to aspects of copyright law that do not really meet the needs of the digital age. Secondly, the very large number of works stored in archives constitutes a challenge that is not easily overcome. The aim of this IRIS Special is to discuss the subject from a number of different perspectives. The team of authors involved is accordingly made up of representatives of many different interests: copyright holders and those who look after their interests, television broadcasters, lawyers and copyright experts.
|
| Angelopoulos, C. Product Placement in European Audiovisual Productions In: IRIS Plus, no. 3, pp. 1-21, 2010. @article{,
title = {Product Placement in European Audiovisual Productions},
author = {C.J. Angelopoulos},
url = {http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2694/Tech-Media/article/detail/3624016/2014/03/28/Mag-Google-de-mails-lezen-van-Nederlandse-wetenschappers.dhtml},
year = {2010},
date = {2010-08-06},
journal = {IRIS Plus},
number = {3},
pages = {1-21},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Angelopoulos, C., Guibault, L., Helberger, N., Swart, E., van Eijk, N., van Hoboken, J. User-Created-Content: Supporting a participative Information Society, Final Report 2009, (
Studie in opdracht van de Europese Commissie, uitgevoerd door IDATE, TNO en IViR.
). @techreport{,
title = {User-Created-Content: Supporting a participative Information Society, Final Report},
author = {Swart, E. and Helberger, N. and Guibault, L. and van Hoboken, J. and van Eijk, N. and Angelopoulos, C.},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/User_created_content.pdf},
year = {2009},
date = {2009-10-28},
pages = {302},
note = {
Studie in opdracht van de Europese Commissie, uitgevoerd door IDATE, TNO en IViR.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
|
| Angelopoulos, C. Filtering the Internet for Copyrighted Content in Europe In: IRIS Plus, no. 4, pp. 1-12, 2009. @article{,
title = {Filtering the Internet for Copyrighted Content in Europe},
author = {C.J. Angelopoulos},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IRISplus_2009_4.pdf},
year = {2009},
date = {2009-05-21},
journal = {IRIS Plus},
number = {4},
pages = {1-12},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Angelopoulos, C., van Hoboken, J. Workshop on Audiovisual Search: Summary of the Discussion 2009. @misc{,
title = {Workshop on Audiovisual Search: Summary of the Discussion},
author = {J.V.J. van Hoboken and C.J. Angelopoulos},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/700.pdf},
year = {2009},
date = {2009-03-30},
note = {
In: Searching for Audiovisual Content, IRIS Special 2008, Strasbourg: European Audiovisual Observatory, p. 1-10.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}
|
| Angelopoulos, C. Freedom of Expression and Copyright - The Double Balancing Act In: Intellectual Property Quarterly, no. 3, pp. 328-353, 2008. @article{,
title = {Freedom of Expression and Copyright - The Double Balancing Act},
author = {C.J. Angelopoulos},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/58.pdf},
year = {2008},
date = {2008-07-21},
journal = {Intellectual Property Quarterly},
number = {3},
pages = {328-353},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
| Angelopoulos, C. Modern intellectual property legislation: Warm for reform In: Entertainment Law Review, no. 2, pp. 35-40., 2008. @article{,
title = {Modern intellectual property legislation: Warm for reform},
author = {C.J. Angelopoulos},
url = {http://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/57.pdf},
year = {2008},
date = {2008-03-27},
journal = {Entertainment Law Review},
number = {2},
pages = {35-40.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
|
