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
The proposal is the second major element of the European Data Strategy presented in 2020 and complements the Data Governance Act that is expected to be formally adopted this spring. In the impact assessment report this intervention is now described as a targeted review of the DatabaseRight. A right that shall not be exercised.
In a recent case before the Dutch (district) court of Midden-Nederland, the question arose whether databaserights can be invoked to prevent third parties reusing and offering data retrieved from the national company register. For those Kats accessing a company register frequently, the decision is certainly worth the read.
by Adrian Aronsson-Storrier and Sam Berriman IPKat-approved scraping As regular readers of the IPKat will be aware, the UK government is currently undertaking a consultation on AI and copyright , previously covered here and here. What does this mean for the AI and copyright consultation?
The outcome of the consultation is supposed to inform the government with respect to a potential legislative reform of the UK Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA). With respect to the CGW provision the government has decided to make no changes to the law. The consultation closed in the beginning of January 2022.
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. Stage II: The Data Governance Act. But the Data governance act would do more. 1(6) Open data directive).
The Publishers argue that this infringes their exclusive rights to reproduction and to making available their work to the public. At its core, this dispute is about whether HowardsHome’s alert service infringes the Publishers’ press publishers right, copyright and databaserights.
Although this decision only concerns the “re-utilization” of databases protected by the sui generis right (related right) of the EU Database Directive 96/9, there are strong arguments that the decision also applies to Art. 3 InfoSoc Directive as a conflict of law rule governing its international application.
A vanishing right? The Sui Generis DatabaseRight and the proposed Data Act by Paul Keller. [T]he The proposal is the second major element of the European Data Strategy presented in 2020 and complements the Data Governance Act that is expected to be formally adopted this spring. Part II is available here.
In the Indian scenario, protection: India does not have a separate database protection law as the European Union does. Sui generis protection does not exist in India because the government believes that the Copyright Act’s current level of protection is adequate and that a need for further protection has not yet arisen.
In the UK, the Government has adopted a “pro-innovation” agenda, with the aim of making the UK “an attractive destination for R&D projects, manufacturing and investment, and ensuring [the UK] can realise the economic and social benefits of new technologies as quickly as possible.”
Context Copyright can be challenging for cultural institutions (or “GLAM“ for Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) when pursuing digitization and dissemination activities, as copyright governs whether a given work can be used and if so, how (as shown in recent studies for museums , archives or libraries ). Proposal 4.
The study focuses more narrowly on the Computer Programs Directive , the Database Directive and the Trade Secrets Directive with a view to enhancing interoperability. Council of the EU, Data Governance Act. With respect to the UK computer-generated provision under s.9(3)
Heres what she writes: AI training data, copyright and the UK consultation* by Angela Daly This week, the UK Government released its latest consultation on AI and copyright , with a particular focus on inputs and outputs of AI models, as covered in this breaking IPKat post. The UK currently lacks an equivalent of Art 4 of EU CDSM Directive.
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