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
By way of brief overview of data protection law, under the UK GDPR personal data means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person. This can include information such as the name, address or the IP address of a person, their appearance or voice.
It's time for a weekly review of posts from the surrounding IP blogs over the past week! Marks IP has reported on the background to the dispute and the JPO's decision on the invalidity action. The Kluwer Copyright Blog, therefore, explains potential challenges that may arise. The IPKat has reported on a few of them below.
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash Welcome to the second trimester of the 2023 round up of EU copyrightlaw! In this series, every three months we update you on what has happened in EU copyrightlaw. You can read the previous round-ups here.
Welcome to the second trimester of the 2022 round up of EU copyrightlaw! In this series, we update readers every three months on developments in EU copyrightlaw. This is perhaps one of the most awaited judgemnts in the history of EU copyrightlaw. EU Intellectual Property Office, 2022 IP Youth Scoreboard.
Welcome to the second trimester of 2021 round up of EU copyrightlaw! In this series, we update readers every three months on developments in EU copyrightlaw. This case relates to the sui generis databaseright and its application to the activity of search engines. Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash.
The consultation document restates the fundamental right to intellectual property as the fundamental principle of ‘protection of the intellectual creations of individuals in the online space’ but is otherwise silent on IP. What ideas the Commission has with respect to the Database directive is difficult to gauge from the consultation.
Now in its second edition, the book offers a perspective on how one can address the overlap between intellectual property (IP) rights, either to reconcile them in whole or in part, or to pre-empt one over the other. The authors look at the issue from the perspective of US and EU approaches to database protection.
Following the Report this means: Copyright infringement needs to be addressed; unjustified requests have to be taken seriously, but seem to be an exceptional scenario in particular by qualified rightholders; and there is no real alternative to automation on larger platforms. A vanishing right? Part II is available here.
In a policy paper , copyright and art-law experts led by the author clarified the general copyrightlaw principles applicable to stakeholders dealing with digital cultural heritage worldwide and formulated recommendations, addressed to policy-makers, to facilitate their digital activities. Proposal 4. Proposal 12.
The Information Technology Act’s Section 66E outlines the penalties for violating privacy laws, among other things. In addition to this, numerous other sections address various facets of upholding databaserights. The copyright of a database is safeguarded by the Copyright Act of 1957.
European and international policymakers have raised how artificial intelligence (AI) interacts with intellectual property (IP) law on several occasions. Nonetheless, before any policy and law-making endeavour can be undertaken, a fitness test of the existing IP framework is indispensable.
The last source, scraping internet data, has been the most controversial so far and given rise to concerns from both intellectual property and data protection perspectives, and nascent litigation in various jurisdictions when the scraping has been done without permission of the copyright/databaseright holders.
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.
Let's personalize your content