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 facts of the case are expertly described by Tatiana Synodinou in her comment on the AG’s Opinion and we refer the readers to them. In a nutshell, a specialist search engine engaging in re-use of substantial parts of the database of a job adverts website was accused of violating sui generis databaseright.
Photo by Matt Popovich on Unsplash Introduction The 2019 Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSM) Directive is a complex legislative text that raises several questions of legal interpretation. The Publishers argue that this infringes their exclusive rights to reproduction and to making available their work to the public.
Article 17 Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (“DSM Directive”) is currently being implemented into national law in the EU Member States. 39 with further references). Otherwise, the Directive’s goal of harmonizing and creating a digital single market could be severely hindered.
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.
An agreement was reached in April 2022 between the European Parliament and EU Member States on the Digital Services Act, which was followed by an endorsement by the Parliament’s Internal Market Committee later in June 2022 and (although strictly not in this second trimester) the final text was approved on 5 July.
As readers know, many Member States missed the deadline, so in February 2023 the Commission referred 11 of them to the CJEU for failure to fully transpose the Directive. CDSM Directive implementation The CDSM Directive implementation is still far from over. Almost all EU member states have implementesd the Directive into their national laws.
This case relates to the sui generis databaseright and its application to the activity of search engines. This judgment refers to a challenge brought by Public.Resource.Org, Inc. Some interesting preliminary references to the CJEU to look out for include: Stichting Brein. ( CJEU judgments and AG Opinions.
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