Universitätspublikationen
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (15)
- Article (3)
Language
- English (18) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (18)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (18)
Keywords
- Copyright (4)
- copyright (4)
- intellectual property (3)
- Digital Services Act (2)
- Internet (2)
- internet (2)
- open content (2)
- AI (1)
- AI Act (1)
- Berne Convention (1)
- Colonialism (1)
- Creative Commons (1)
- Digital single market directive (1)
- Digitalisierung (1)
- European Union (1)
- German copyright law (1)
- Globalization (1)
- Intellectual Property (1)
- Intermediary liability (1)
- Karl Polanyi (1)
- Legal Transplants (1)
- Netzneutralität (1)
- Online platform (1)
- Open Source (1)
- Paris Convention (1)
- Patent (1)
- Public Domain (1)
- Remix (1)
- RogueBlock (1)
- Search engine (1)
- TRIPS Agreement (1)
- Trademark (1)
- UDRP (1)
- Urheberrecht (1)
- WIPO ALERT (1)
- WIPO Alert (1)
- World Intellectual Property Organization (1)
- advertising (1)
- artificial intelligence (1)
- code of conduct (1)
- digital rights management (1)
- disinformation (1)
- economic nationalism (1)
- fiction (1)
- follow the money (1)
- fundamental rights (1)
- geoblocking (1)
- geotargeting (1)
- globalism (1)
- globalization (1)
- inclusivity (1)
- intermediaries (1)
- jurisdiction (1)
- liability (1)
- licence contracts (1)
- media pluralism (1)
- misinformation (1)
- neighbouring right (1)
- net neutrality (1)
- network effect (1)
- network effects (1)
- news publication (1)
- ontology (1)
- open access (1)
- patent paradox (1)
- patent system (1)
- patents (1)
- piracy (1)
- press publication (1)
- private ordering (1)
- propensity to patent (1)
- publisher (1)
- related right (1)
- scraping (1)
- text and data mining (1)
- trademark (1)
- trademarks (1)
Institute
- Rechtswissenschaft (18) (remove)
Regulating IP exclusion/inclusion on a global scale: the example of copyright vs. AI training
(2024)
This article builds upon the literature on inclusion/inclusivity in IP law by applying these concepts to the example of the scraping and mining of copyright-protected content for the purpose of training an artificial intelligence (AI) system or model. Which mode of operation dominates in this technological area: exclusion, inclusion or even inclusivity? The features of AI training appear to call for universal and sustainable “inclusivity” instead of a mere voluntary “inclusion” of AI provider bots by copyright holders. As the overview on the copyright status of AI training activities in different jurisdictions and emerging laws on AI safety (such as the EU AI Act) demonstrates, the global regulatory landscape is, however, much too fragmented and dynamic to immediately jump to an inclusive global AI regime. For the time being, legally secure global AI training requires the voluntary cooperation between AI providers and copyright holders, and innovative techno-legal reasoning is needed on how to effectuate this inclusion.
This article provides an overview of the current state of the regulation of disinformation in the EU. It shows that the concept of disinformation, the purpose of anti-disinformation measures and their content and enforcement can only be understood if a holistic view is taken of private, hybrid-co-regulatory and public-law norms. The delicate field of disinformation is to a large extent dealt with outside of statutory law. The questions raised thereby are largely unresolved.
On 15 December 2020, the European Commission submitted a proposal for a regulation on a single market for digital services (Digital Services Act, DSA) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC. The legislative project seeks to establish a robust and durable governance structure for the effective supervision of providers of intermediary services. To this end, the DSA sets out numerous due diligence obligations of intermediaries concerning any type of illegal information, including copyright-infringing content. Empirically, copyright law accounts for most content removal from online platforms, by an order of magnitude. Thus, copyright enforcement online is a major issue in the context of the DSA, and the DSA will be of utmost importance for the future of online copyright in the EU. Against this background, the European Copyright Society takes this opportunity to share its view on the relationship between the copyright acquis and the DSA, as well as further selected aspects of the DSA from a copyright perspective.
This article provides an overview and critical assessment of WIPO ALERT. It locates this initiative in the broader context of transnational IP enforcement schemes on the Internet. These initiatives are classified into two categories according to their point of attachment and geographical effect. Whereas source-related measures (e.g. website takedowns) tend to have a transnational and possibly even a global effect, recipient-related measures (e.g. website and ad blockings) typically mirror the territorially fragmented IPR landscape. This fragmentation is where WIPO ALERT comes into play. It can be understood as a matching service which interconnects holders of information about copyright infringing websites (“Authorized Contributors”) and actors of the online ad industry who want to avoid these outlets (“Authorized Users”). The critical assessment of WIPO ALERT calls for more transparency and the establishment of uniform substantive and procedural standards that have to be met if a new “site of concern” is added to the global ad blacklist.
This article provides a novel explanation for the global intellectual property (IP) paradox, i.e. the consistent growth of the multilateral IP system in spite of mounting evidence that its effects are at best neutral if not disadvantageous for low-income and most middleincome countries and thus the majority of contracting states. It demonstrates that the multilateral IP system is deliberately structured as a virtual network that exhibits network effects similar to a social media platform, for example. The more members an IP treaty has, the more IP protection acceding states can secure for their nationals. Conversely, every accession enlarges the territory in which nationals of previous members can enjoy protection. Due to these increasing returns to adoption, signing up to and remaining part of the global IP network is attractive, irrespective of the immediate effects of a treaty.
According to the standard account, IPRs allocate objects to owners, just like ownership allocates real property. In this paper, I explain that this simplistic paradigm operates on the basis of three fictions: The first – truly Polanyian – fiction concerns IP subject matter that was originally not produced for sale but created for other purposes, e.g. private pleasure. The second fiction is that IP is treated as a marketable good whereas much IP, in particular works and signs, are embedded in communication. Finally, IP is a fictitious concept in that we speak of works, inventions, and other IP objects as of tangible commodities, where in fact IP objects only exist insofar and because we speak and regulate as if they exist as abstract “goods” of value.
This article documents and classifies instances of transnational intellectual property (IP) enforcement and licensing on the Internet with a particular focus on the territorial reach of the respective regimes. Regarding IP enforcement, I show that the bulk of transnational or even global measures is adopted in the context of “voluntary” self-regulation by various intermediaries, namely domain name registrars, access and host providers, search engines, and advertising and payment services. Global IP licensing is, in contrast, less prevalent than one might expect. It is practically limited to freely accessible Open Content, whereas markets for fee-based services remain territorially fragmented. Overall, three layers of IP governance on the Internet can be distinguished. Based on global licenses, Open Content is freely accessible everywhere. Plain IP infringements are equally combatted on a worldwide scale. Territorial fragmentation persists, instead, in the market segment of fee-based services and in hard cases of conflicts of IP laws/rights. All three universal norms (global accessibility, global illegality, global fragmentation) are supported by a quite solid, “rough” global consensus.
On the basis of the economic theory of network effects, this article provides a novel explanation of the so-called patent paradox, i.e. the question why the propensity to patent is so strong when the expected average value of most patents is low. It demonstrates that the patent system of a country resembles a telephone network or a social media platform. Patents are perceived as nodes in a virtual network that, as a whole, exhibits network effects. It is explained why patents are not independent of other patents but that they complement each other in several ways both within and beyond markets and fields of technology, and that patents thus create synchronization value over and above individual interests of patent holders in exclusivity. As a consequence, the more patents there are, the more valuable it is to also seek patents, and vice versa. Since patents thus display increasing returns to adoption, the willingness to pay for the next patent slopes upwards. This explains why, after a phase of early instability and a certain tipping point, many countries’ patent systems expanded quickly and eventually became a rigid standard (“lock-in”). The concluding section raises the question what regulatory measures are suitable to effectively address the ensuing anticommons effects.
The long-standing battle between economic nationalism and globalism has again taken center stage in geopolitics. This article applies this dichotomy to the law and policy of international intellectual property (IP). Most commentators see IP as a prime example of globalization. The article challenges this view on several levels. In a nutshell, it claims that economic nationalist concerns about domestic industries and economic development lie at the heart of the global IP system. To support this argument, the article summarizes and categorizes IP policies adopted by selected European countries, the European Union, and the U.S. Section I presents three types of inbound IP policies that aim to foster local economic development and innovation. Section II adds three versions of outbound IP policies that, in contrast, target foreign countries and markets. Concluding section III traces a dialectic virtuous circle of economic nationalist motives leading to global legal structures and identifies the function and legal structure of IP as the reason for the resilience and even dominance of economic nationalist motives in international IP politics. IP concerns exclusive private rights that are territorially limited creatures of (supra-)national statutes. These legal structures make up the economic nationalist DNA of IP.