This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Article 17 Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright and relatedrights in the Digital Single Market (“DSM Directive”) is currently being implemented into national law in the EU Member States. This has caused extensive debates on the national level comparable to the debate that took place when Art. 17 DSM Directive and Art.
IPKat-approved Laion A few days ago, the District Court of Hamburg delivered what appears to be the first judgment in Europe on the construction and application of the national transpositions of the text and data mining (TDM) exceptions found in Arts. By this provision, Germany had transposed Art. 3 or 4 of the DSM Directive).
COPYRIGHT Katfriend Moritz Sutterer posted on a new competition tool that the German Competition Authority recently tried out against Google in relation to press publishers' neighbouring right.
For public sector bodies — producers and holders of vast quantities of data — as well as for the companies that act as suppliers, the sui generis databaseright has been slowly eroded since 2003. because there is no public access regime that applies, or because third parties own intellectual property rights.
It is interesting to look at this Report against the background of the 2019 EU rules for the liability of platforms like YouTube through the famous Art. A vanishing right? The Sui Generis DatabaseRight and the proposed Data Act by Paul Keller. [T]he 17 DSM Directive 2019/790 (“DSMD”). .
While sports events, as such, are not protected by copyright and relatedrights, the origanisers of these events may benefit from specific protection under national law. European Parliament, AI Act – negotiation position adopted On 14 June 2023, the European Pariament adopted its negotiating position on the AI Act. Stay tuned!
4) The use of artificial intelligence systems and models in the reproduction, extraction and creation of textual, musical, photographic, audiovisual and radio content and figurative arts must not cause harm to the honor, reputation, decorum and prestige of the Supreme Pontiff, the Catholic Church and the Vatican City State. CXCVII, Sept.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
85 
Let's personalize your content