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
Moreover, does equating IP with tangible property risk distorting its fundamental purpose? The couple petitioned the National Commission for Scheduled Caste (NCSC) to seek compensation for the loss caused due to the damage to their intellectual property (IP). Data and Intellectual Property What was the IP involved in this case?
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.
This approach is being implemented, among other aspects, by introducing IP exceptions (e.g., databaserights), reinforcing the possibility to re-use the data of public administrations, and exploring the possibility for consumers to provide personal data in exchange.
This can include information such as the name, address or the IP address of a person, their appearance or voice. 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.
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 IPKat has reported on a few of them below. Meanwhile, in Japan, Apple Inc.
It provides an outline of the basic legal principles and how the IP system works. The preface reiterates that the purpose of the book is to describe the essential nature of living IP law: "What we want is the reader to come away with a good idea of how IP works in practice."
The author gave food for thought on the reproduction of works of art on book covers, on possible moral rights in the discussion, and on Walter Benjamin's notion of the "aura" of a work. Reminder: last call to vote for your best IP book of 2021 by participating in the poll here !
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.
Yet, beneath the surface of the transformative potential of AI lies a complex legal web of intellectual property (“IP”) risks, particularly concerning the use of “real-world” training data, which may lead to alleged infringement of third-party IPrights if AI training data is not appropriately sourced.
35) to reduce the availability of IPrights over some datasets is welcome. The European Copyright Society posted an opinion on selected aspects of the proposed Data Act. The aim of the Data Act’s sui generis clause (art. However, its drafting is flawed and risks creating even more fragmentation in the laws of Member States.
This post focuses on selected copyright and related rights matters that the Institute details in its Position Statement. The Data Act Proposal explicitly addresses the relationship between the new right to access and share IoT data and the sui generis databaseright provided for in Article 7 of Directive 96/9/EC.
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. The post Copyright Protection For Databases In India first appeared on IPLF.
Minimize databaserights to favour access to and use of digital works. National policymakers should review existing sui generis databaserights or similar rights, when they exist, in order to avoid limiting access and use of public domain works. Proposal 4. Proposal 12.
A vanishing right? The Sui Generis DatabaseRight and the proposed Data Act by Paul Keller. [T]he The Contested Meaning of Web3 & Why it Matters for (IP) Lawyers by Mark Fenwick and Paulius Jurcys. T]he European Commission published its proposal for a Data Act.
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. These topics are in need of further research.
Focusing on SMEs, the report highlits that IP protection among these remains low. In addition, in order to help EU companies protect their AI with IPrights, the EU’s position as a global standard-setter should be strengthened. EU Intellectual Property Office, 2022 IP Youth Scoreboard. Coming soon and latest referrals.
The CJEU’s recognition of the added value for customers that content aggregators can create, and the refined and subtle (while perhaps not totally clear) balancing act suggested by the decision, makes CV-Online Latvia an important addition to the CJEU’s databaseright jurisprudence.
On the copyright side, it stresses that some of the sources used to research the sector may be subject to copyright and databaserights and as such it warns against infringement with an important focus on exceptions.
This case relates to the sui generis databaseright and its application to the activity of search engines. CJEU judgments and AG Opinions. CV-Online Latvia, Court of Justice, Case C ?762/19. On 3 June 2021, the CJEU delivered its judgment in CV-Online Latvia. You can read a comment on the case here.
1] See, [link] [2] A previous proposal to introduce a new copyright and databaseright exception which allows text and data mining for any purpose (including commercial exploitation) was formally abandoned by the UK Government in early 2023. [3]
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