Category Regional Fora

Understanding the Functioning of EU Geographical Indications

[Andrea Zappalaglio] This contribution investigates the functioning of the EU sui generis Geographical Indication (GI) system, with a specific focus on the regime for the protection of agricultural products and foodstuffs within the scope of EU Regulation 1151/2012. In particular, based on the results of the recent “Study on the Functioning of the EU Geographical Indications System” of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (February 2022), this paper: (1) clarifies the nature of EU GIs as it emerges from an empirical assessment of the specifications of all the products that appear on the EU register; (2) comparatively analyses the national practices of the EU Member States and explores the discrepancies that exist among them to date; (3) provides an in-depth assessment of the structures of the specifications of EU GIs, highlighting the domestic specificities; (4) investigates the contents and functions of the amendments to the specifications of the registered products. It concludes by emphasizing the importance of the present research in light of the current EU international agenda, with a specific focus on the bilateral agreements recently or currently negotiated.

Monopolising Trash: The Critical Analysis of Upcycling under Finnish and EU Copyright Law

[Péter Mezei and Heidi Härkönen] Abstract: Exhaustion is a fundamental doctrine of copyright law, allowing for the resale of lawfully acquired copies of protected subject matter without prior authorization and payment to the rightholder. Following the debates on parallel importation, freedom of movement of goods, property rights v. copyright, and, most recently, resale of digital files, it is time to assess the relevance of the doctrine for a sustainable economy. More precisely, this paper addresses whether upcycling (transformative redistribution of materials based on the use of pieces/copies of, inter alia, works of authorship) fits into the doctrine of exhaustion.

The Italian Implementation of the New EU Text and Data Mining Exceptions

[Deborah De Angelis] The legislative decree implementing the CDSM Directive in Italy was adopted on November 8th, 2021, and published in the Gazzetta Ufficiale on November 27th. It came into force on December 12th, 2021, amending the Italian Copyright Law. This blog post analyses the implementation of the copyright exceptions for Text and Data Mining, which is defined in the Italian law as any automated technique designed to analyse large amounts of text, sound, images, data or metadata in digital format to generate information, including patterns, trends, and correlations (Art. 70 ter (2) LdA). As we will see in more detail below, the Italian lawmaker decided to introduce some novelties when implementing Art. 3, while following more closely the text of the Directive when implementing Art. 4.

Study on EU Copyright and Related Rights and Access To and Reuse of Data

[Martin Senftleben] Executive Summary: To safeguard freedom of expression and information, and the freedom of sciences, of researchers,[1] it is important to improve the legal framework for scientific research in copyright, related rights and sui generis database law. In particular, it is important to remove imbalances that pose obstacles to data access and reuse. Article 5(3)(a) of the Information Society Directive could serve as a reference point for this legislative step.

Ensuring the Visibility and Accessibility of European Creative Content on the World Market: The Need for Copyright Data Improvement in the Light of New Technologies and the Opportunity Arising from Article 17 of the CDSM Directive

[Martin Senftleben, Thomas Margoni, Daniel Antal, Bodó Balázs, Stef van Gompel, Christian Handke, Martin Kretschmer, Joost Poort, João Quintais, Sebastian Schwemer] Abstract: In the European Strategy for Data (COM(2020) 66 final), the European Commission highlighted the EU’s ambition “to acquire a leading role in the data economy.” At the same time, the Commission conceded that the EU would have to “increase its pools of quality data available for use and re-use.” In the creative industries, this need for enhanced data quality and interoperability is particularly strong (section 1). Without data improvement, unprecedented opportunities for monetising the wide variety of creative content in EU Member States and making this content available for new technologies, such as artificial intelligence (“AI”) systems, will most probably be lost (section 2).

Bulgaria Falls Into All the Traps Set by Article 5 of the CDSM Directive

[Ana Lazarova] Abstract: With Article 5 of the CDSM Directive, the EU legislator aspired to remedy the inherited legal fragmentation in the area of copyright exceptions and limitations, by introducing a mandatory exception for the purpose of ‘illustration for teaching’ in the digital environment. Bulgaria already had an educational exception as per the InfoSoc Directive, which was rather broad, technology neutral and unrestricted in terms of its beneficiaries. Now, the ‘digital’ exception under Article 5 is being transposed in parallel with the pre-existing one, both provisions largely overlapping in scope and with no clear collision norms available. This is yet another national implementation showing that the new exception, initially envisaged as a mandatory minimum of user rights protection, would likely exacerbate, instead of remedy the fragmented legal landscape in the EU. It would appear that the regime under Article 5 may come to do a disservice to free use for educational purposes.

Copyright and Digital Teaching Exceptions in the EU: Legislative Developments and Implementation Models of Art. 5 CDSM Directive

[Giulia Priora, Bernd Justin Jütte & Péter Mezei] Abstract: Article 5 of the 2019 EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM) attempted to modernize the regime of copyright exceptions and limitations related to teaching activities. Its aim is to enhance the flexibility behind permitted uses to the benefit of educational institutions regarding their digital and cross-border teaching. The pressing need for such a legislative reform was confirmed by the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, which dramatically moved teaching environments to online platforms.

Intellectual Property and the African Continental Free Trade Area: Lessons and Recommendations for the IP Protocol

[Caroline B. Ncube] Abstract: This paper aims to explore the contours of the future intellectual property (IP) protocol of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) Agreement... This paper frames the IP protocol within the architecture of the AfCFTA Agreement, meaning that it will follow the structure of other protocols and will be guided by the Agreement’s foundational principles and objectives. With the place, shape and form of the protocol so established, the paper considers the substantive aspects that ought to be addressed. It also considers provisions on technical assistance, capacity building and cooperation.

The Implementation of Art. 17 DSM-Directive in Germany: A Primer with Some Comparative Remarks

[Matthias Leistner] Abstract: The implementation of the DSM-Directive in the European Member States is underway.... In regard to Art. 17, two basic models have emerged. Many Member States, in particular France, closely follow the wording of the Directive with only rather minor differences concerning the legislative technique and certain details, such as the definition of the OCSSPs. By contrast in Germany, the legislator, on the basis of an historic and contextual interpretation as well as interpretation in conformity with fundamental rights, has enacted a different system. Art. 17 is implemented in a balanced way providing for ex ante safeguards during the blocking and stay down procedure for certain contents which are not manifestly infringing (minor contents, user generated contents) and therefore regarded as presumably authorized by law. This effectively amounts to a collectively remunerated notice and delayed takedown system for such presumably legal contents.

European Copyright Society Comment on Copyright and the Digital Services Act Proposal

[Alexander Peukert, Martin Husovec, Martin Kretschmer, Péter Mezei and João Quintais] Copyright law accounts for most content removals from online platforms and search engine result lists, by an order of magnitude. This practice will become subject to numerous due diligence obligations under the proposed Regulation on a Single Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act, DSA), which also covers copyright infringing content. In this Comment, the European Copyright Society (ECS) takes the opportunity to share its view on (1) the relationship between the EU copyright acquis and the DSA and (2) on further selected aspects of the DSA from a copyright perspective.

EU Copyright 20 Years After the InfoSoc Directive – Flexibility Needed More Than Ever

[Martin Senftleben] EU copyright legislation has cultivated the constraining function of the three-step test known from Article 9(2) of the Berne Convention, Article 13 TRIPS and Article 10 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty. Instead of transposing into EU law the dualistic concept of these international provisions – the enabling function that creates room for the adoption of copyright limitations at the national level as well as the constraining function that sets limits to domestic copyright limitations – Article 5(5) of the 2001 Information Society Directive and Article 7(2) of the 2019 Digital Single Market Directive reduce the three-step test to the constraining function that further restricts copyright limitations and exceptions (L&Es) which are circumscribed precisely anyway.

An Endless Odyssey? Content Moderation Without General Content Monitoring Obligations

[Christina Angelopoulos and Martin Senftleben] Abstract: In line with the E-Commerce Directive and the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, the proposed Digital Services Act 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.