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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
According to the CJEU, the key to fairly balancing these interest lies in ensuring that the makers of databases can redeem their investment. Content aggregators should be free to create and market new products and services based on the information in publicly available databases, as long as the database maker can still redeem the investment.
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.
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.
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.
Fairness : the use and outcomes of AI systems should not undermine the legal rights of individuals or organisations, discriminate unfairly against individuals or create unfair market outcomes. One thing is for sure – the legal and regulatory framework in the UK with respect to AI is rapidly evolving, so watch this space. [1]
Against this backdrop, larger issues emerge as regards the power wielded by AI companies in the medium to long term especially in a consolidated market, over social, economic and political aspects of our lives. The EU equivalents are contained in Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 2019/790 on Copyright in the Digital Single Market.
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