Arbeitspapiere / Fachbereich Rechtswissenschaft, Goethe-Universität = Research paper / Faculty of Law, Goethe University
Refine
Document Type
- Working Paper (5)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
- copyright (5) (remove)
Institute
2024,3
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.
2020, 10
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.
2016, 22
On 14 September 2016, the European Commission proposed a Directive on “copyright in the Digital Single Market”. This proposal includes an Article 11 on the “protection of press publications concerning digital uses”, according to which “Member States shall provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the digital use of their press publications.” Relying on the experiences and debates surrounding the German and Spanish laws in this area, this study presents a legal analysis of the proposal for an EU related right for press publishers (RRPP). After a brief overview over the general limits of the EU competence to introduce such a new related right, the study critically examines the purpose of an RRPP. On this basis, the next section distinguishes three versions of an RRPP with regard to its subject-matter and scope, and considers the practical and legal implications of these alternatives, in particular having regard to fundamental rights.
2015, 4
Nach vorherrschender Lesart prallen im Internet Exklusivitäts- und Zugangsinteressen aufeinander. Das Urheberrecht soll diesen Konflikt in ein angemessenes Gleichgewicht bringen. Im folgenden Beitrag werden die Auseinandersetzungen um das digitale Urheberrecht anders gedeutet. Demnach ist die Online-Kommunikation von zwei koexistierenden Kulturen geprägt, die sich je verschieden zum Urheberrecht verhalten. Die Ausgestaltung des digitalen Urheberrechts wird mit darüber entscheiden, ob das dynamische Nebeneinander von Exklusivitäts- und Zugangskultur fortdauert oder ob eine der beiden Kulturen verdrängt wird. Das Urheberrecht ist folglich als Teil der Internetregulierung zu betrachten.
2015, 4 [engl.]
According to the prevailing view, the purpose of digital copyright is to balance conflicting interests in exclusivity on the one hand and in access to information on the other. This article offers an alternative reading of the conflicts surrounding copyright in the digital era. It argues that two cultures of communication coexist on the internet, each of which has a different relationship to copyright. Whereas copyright institutionalizes and supports a culture of exclusivity, it is at best neutral towards a culture of free and open access. The article shows that, depending on the future regulation of copyright and the internet in general, the dynamic coexistence of these cultures may well be replaced by an overwhelming dominance of the culture of exclusivity.