Category Archives: intellectual property

The Competence of the European Union in Copyright Lawmaking

competence-of-eu-in-copyright-lawmakingBook launch event at the IALS
6pm – 8pm, 15 Dec 2016

Register online at Eventbrite to book your free ticket

Speaker: Dr Ana Ramalho, Assistant Professor of Intellectual Property, Maastricht University

Discussant: Professor Lionel Bently, Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property and Director of the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law, University of Cambridge.

In this seminar Ana Ramalho will discuss her new book, which inquires into the competence of the EU to legislate in the field of copyright and uses content analysis techniques to demonstrate the existence of a normative gap in copyright lawmaking.

To address that gap Ana Ramalho proposes the creation of benchmarks of legislative activity, reasoning that EU secondary legislation, such as directives and regulations, should be based on higher sources of law.

In the book she investigates two such possible sources: the activity of the EU Court of Justice in the pre-legislative era and the EU treaties. From these sources Ana Ramalho establishes concrete benchmarks of legislative activity, which she then tests by applying them to current EU copyright legislation.

This provides examples of good and bad practices in copyright lawmaking and also shows how the benchmarks could be implemented in copyright legislation. Finally, Ana Ramalho offers some recommendations in this regard.

This seminar will be followed by the book launch of “The Competence of the European Union in Copyright Lawmaking: A Normative Perspective of EU Powers for Copyright Harmonization” by Ana Ramalho

EU Copyright Reform: Outside the Safe Harbours, Intermediary Liability Capsizes into Incoherence

In the following piece, Christina Angelopoulos, lecturer in intellectual property law at the University of Cambridge, analyses the aspects of the Commission’s new proposal for the digital single market directive that are relevant to intermediary liability. The post was originally published on the Kluwer Copyright Blog.

As has by now been extensively reported, on 14th September the European Commission released its new copyright reform package. Prominent within this is its proposal for a new Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market.

copyright-40632_1280

The proposal contains an array of controversial offerings, but from the perspective of this intermediary liability blogger, the most interesting provision is the proposed Article 13 on ‘Certain uses of protected content by online services’. This is highly problematic in a number of different ways.

The Supposed Problem

As the Communication on a fair, efficient and competitive European copyright-based economy in the Digital Single Market (which was released in parallel to the proposal) explains, the new Article 13 is intended to address what in Brussels parlance over the past year has come to be termed the ‘value gap’. This refers to the idea that revenues generated from the online use of copyright-protected content are being unfairly distributed between the different players in the value chain of online publishing. A distinction is usually drawn in this regard between ad-funded platforms, such as YouTube, Dailymotion and Vimeo, and subscription-funded platforms, such as Spotify or Netflix. While the latter require the consent of copyright-holders to operate legally, the business model of the former revolves around user-created content (UCC). As a result, they tend to focus not on copyright licensing, but on notice-and-takedown systems, which allow them to tackle any unwanted infringements of copyright snuck onto their websites by their users. [To continue reading this post on the Kluwer Copyright Blog, click here.]

C-494/15 – Tommy Hilfiger: No Difference between Online and Real World Marketplaces for IP Enforcement

In the following piece, Christina Angelopoulos, post-doc researcher at the Information Law and Policy Centre of the University of London, analyses the recent judgment of the CJEU in case C-494/15 Tommy Hilfiger. The post was originally published on the Kluwer Copyright Blog.

On 7 July 2016, the CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union) handed down its decision in Tommy Hilfiger (case C-494/15). The case concerned the imposition of an injunction on Delta Center, a company that sublets sales areas in the “Prague Market Halls” (Pražská tržnice) to traders, after it was found that counterfeit goods were sold in the marketplace.

The requested injunction would require that Delta Center refrain from: a) renting space to persons previously found by the courts to have engaged in trademark infringement; b) include terms in their rental contracts that oblige market traders to refrain from infringement; and c) publish an apology for past infringements by third party traders. [To continue reading the rest of the post on the Kluwer Copyright Blog, click here.]

The socio-legal aspects of 3D printing: Between “chaos” and “control”

Socio-legal aspects bookNot so long ago 3D printing was being discussed alongside the internet, file sharing and digital currencies as a sign of the beginning of an era of post-control and post-scarcity.

There were fears that governments would struggle to regulate the activities of a new generation of “prosumers” (producer-consumers) and that economic and legal certainties would be challenged by an increase in the decentralised “free” supply of goods.

Last night, at the Information Law and Policy Centre, Dr Angela Daly and Dr Dinusha Mendis presented a more nuanced view of the prospects of 3D printing as a “disruptive” technology to mark the launch of Daly’s new book, Socio-Legal Aspects of the 3D Printing Revolution.

Daly, a research fellow at Queensland University of Technology Faculty of Law, shared findings from postdoctoral research at the Swinburne University of Technology considering the legal aspects of 3D printing from the standpoint of the US, UK-EU and Australian legal systems.

s200_angela.dalyDaly’s transnational lens enabled her to identify a number of divergent legal approaches to 3D printing in relation to exceptions to infringement, intermediary liability, copyright and DMCA takedowns.

She found that the legal implications of 3D printing were hard to generalise despite attempts at the harmonisation of international law. More often the legal status of 3D printing was both nationally and scenario specific. To this end, Daly noted that it would also be interesting to research how legal jurisdictions in emerging economies were tackling 3D printing.

Focussing particularly on the potential problems created for Intellectual Property law by 3D printing, Daly concluded that the technology was neither leading to “total chaos” nor “total control”.

She highlighted that 3D printing has not yet become a mainstream practice – despite entry level 3D printers selling for around £500, far fewer people own one than they do a smartphone or computer. Daly also emphasised that incumbent businesses and companies are incorporating 3D printing into their business models.

She stated, therefore, that although there was some chaos around the edges – such as the ability for people to print 3D guns – the overall picture was that from a socio-legal perspective the technology was not currently particularly ‘disruptive’.

Dinusha MendisDaly’s position was reinforced by a presentation from Dr Dinusha Mendis, Co-Director of the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Management (CIPPM) at Bournemouth University. Mendis has conducted research on the Intellectual Property and Copyright implications of 3D printing including work which was commissioned by the UK government’s Intellectual Property Office.

Of fundamental concern here is the potential illegal copying and use of the computer-aided design (CAD) files required to print objects in 3D. Her research identified hundreds of online platforms for the distribution of 3D printing files which were providing access to hundreds of thousands of designs.

Mendis’ research into online platforms reveals that interest in 3D printing has grown immensely between 2008 and 2014, but she identified limitations to the spread of the practice.

Potential users do not always have access to the right materials, funds to be able to purchase more sophisticated printers or the legal knowledge to license their work. Moreover, companies and businesses in this field informed her that there was currently little commercial impact on either automotive or domestic products. They predicted that 3D printing would remain limited for the next five to ten years.

For both Mendis and Daly, then, 3D printing has not yet lived up to initial hype over its ‘disruptive’ potential. Mendis recommended a ‘wait and see’ approach to UK government, concerned that legislating too hastily in this area might stifle creativity.

Nevertheless, as 3D printing technology improves and becomes cheaper, it might become the focus of increasing interest for legal scholars in the future.

Further Reading

A. Daly (2016) Socio-Legal Aspects of the 3D Printing Revolution, Palgrave MacMillan: UK
D. Mendis (2015) A Legal and Empirical Study into the Intellectual Property Implications of 3D Printing.
D. Mendis (2014) “Clone Wars”: Episode II – The Next Generation: The Copyright Implications relating to 3D Printing and Computer-Aided Design (CAD) Files. Law, Innovation and Technology, 6 (2), 265-281.
D. Mendis (2013) ‘The Clone Wars’ – Episode 1: The Rise of 3D Printing and its Implications for Intellectual Property Law – Learning Lessons from the Past?,  European Intellectual Property Review, 35 (3), 155-169.