CIPIL Intellectual Property Seminar Series: Recent Episodes
Cambridge University
The Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law CIPIL was founded in 2004. Through its activities, CIPIL aims to promote the investigation, understanding and critical appraisal of these important fields of law. The CIPIL Intellectual Property Seminar Series brings together specialist speakers to discuss prevailing issues in relation to copyright, patents, trademarks, design rights, and other subjects.
The Centre brings together a group of legal academics already recognised for their historical and inter-disciplinary, as well as doctrinal, research. Drawing on the resources of Cambridge University, CIPIL is ideally positioned to carry out and promote well-informed interdisciplinary work.
For more information see the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/
Speaker:
Professor Rochelle Dreyfuss, NYW Law School Biography: Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss is Pauline Newman Professor of Law at NYU Law School and a Co-Director of the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy. She is a leading scholar of intellectual property law as well as other science and technology topics. She was a research chemist prior to law school, and later clerked for Chief Justice Warren Burger of the US Supreme Court. Among her works on international intellectual property issues are A Neofederalist Vision of TRIPS: Building a Resilient International Intellectual Property System(2012, with Graeme Dinwoodie), and several co-edited books, including Framing Intellectual Property Law in the 21st century: Integrating Incentives, Trade, Development, Culture, and Human Rights (2018, with Elizabeth Siew Kuan Ng); and the IILJ Project volume Balancing Wealth and Health: The Battle Over Intellectual Property and Access to Medicines in Latin America (2014, with César Rodríguez-Garavito). She was the Arthur Goodhart Visiting Professor in Legal Science at Cambridge University for 2019–20.
Abstract:
Many countries have responded (or have considered responding) to the COVID pandemic by modifying their intellectual property laws to ensure the availability of vaccines, medicines, diagnostics, and related information. Some have asked the World Trade Organization (WTO) for a waiver to excuse any steps they might take that are inconsistent with obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. Although a waiver would protect WTO members from challenges in the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body, a state that is a party to an international investment agreement (IIA) that includes investor-state dispute resolution has something else to worry about. Investors could claim that its actions amount to an indirect expropriation or a denial fair and equitable treatment in violation of the obligations in the IIA. In this piece, I conduct a thought experiment on how such suits might unfold. The first part describes how states sought or may seek to exercise control over the knowledge and products needed to protect public health during the global pandemic. The second part considers the challenges that investors might lodge and how they might be resolved. I identify the places where safeguards in IIAs that are intended to protect sovereign authority over healthcare may fall short.
For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.
Speaker:
Professor Rochelle Dreyfuss, NYW Law School Biography: Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss is Pauline Newman Professor of Law at NYU Law School and a Co-Director of the Engelberg Center on Innovation Law & Policy. She is a leading scholar of intellectual property law as well as other science and technology topics. She was a research chemist prior to law school, and later clerked for Chief Justice Warren Burger of the US Supreme Court. Among her works on international intellectual property issues are A Neofederalist Vision of TRIPS: Building a Resilient International Intellectual Property System(2012, with Graeme Dinwoodie), and several co-edited books, including Framing Intellectual Property Law in the 21st century: Integrating Incentives, Trade, Development, Culture, and Human Rights (2018, with Elizabeth Siew Kuan Ng); and the IILJ Project volume Balancing Wealth and Health: The Battle Over Intellectual Property and Access to Medicines in Latin America (2014, with César Rodríguez-Garavito). She was the Arthur Goodhart Visiting Professor in Legal Science at Cambridge University for 2019–20.
Abstract:
Many countries have responded (or have considered responding) to the COVID pandemic by modifying their intellectual property laws to ensure the availability of vaccines, medicines, diagnostics, and related information. Some have asked the World Trade Organization (WTO) for a waiver to excuse any steps they might take that are inconsistent with obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. Although a waiver would protect WTO members from challenges in the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body, a state that is a party to an international investment agreement (IIA) that includes investor-state dispute resolution has something else to worry about. Investors could claim that its actions amount to an indirect expropriation or a denial fair and equitable treatment in violation of the obligations in the IIA. In this piece, I conduct a thought experiment on how such suits might unfold. The first part describes how states sought or may seek to exercise control over the knowledge and products needed to protect public health during the global pandemic. The second part considers the challenges that investors might lodge and how they might be resolved. I identify the places where safeguards in IIAs that are intended to protect sovereign authority over healthcare may fall short.
For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars
Dr Peter Coe (University of Reading) gave an evening seminar entitled "Media Freedom in the Age of Citizen Journalism" on 11 March 2022 as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Biography:
Dr Peter Coe has been a Lecturer in Law specialising in Media Law and Criminal Law at the University of Reading since September 2019. Prior to this, he was a practising barrister specialising in privacy, defamation and reputation management, having been Called to Bar by Lincoln's Inn in 2007 as a Lord Denning Scholar and Hardwicke Entrance Scholar. He has also held a Senior Lectureship in Law at Aston University, where he taught Media Law and Criminal Law. His primary research interests are: (i) citizen journalism's impact on free speech, media freedom and regulation, and the concepts of privacy and reputation; (ii) defamation, including the protection of corporate reputation; (iii) media power and plurality, the role the media plays within society and its impact on democracy. His work in these areas has been published in leading journals such as Legal Studies, the University of Melbourne's Media & Arts Law Review, the Journal of Business Law and Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly. Peter is also co-editor (with Professor Paul Wragg) of "Landmark Cases in Privacy Law" which will be published by Hart Publishing in 2022. In 2021, his research led him to be invited to join the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies and Information Law and Policy Centre as an Associate Research Fellow, having been a Research Associate at the ILPC since 2018. In 2020 he was also appointed as an Advisor to the University of East London's Online Harms and Cyber Crime Unit.
For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars
Dr Peter Coe (University of Reading) gave an evening seminar entitled "Media Freedom in the Age of Citizen Journalism" on 11 March 2022 as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Biography:
Dr Peter Coe has been a Lecturer in Law specialising in Media Law and Criminal Law at the University of Reading since September 2019. Prior to this, he was a practising barrister specialising in privacy, defamation and reputation management, having been Called to Bar by Lincoln's Inn in 2007 as a Lord Denning Scholar and Hardwicke Entrance Scholar. He has also held a Senior Lectureship in Law at Aston University, where he taught Media Law and Criminal Law. His primary research interests are: (i) citizen journalism's impact on free speech, media freedom and regulation, and the concepts of privacy and reputation; (ii) defamation, including the protection of corporate reputation; (iii) media power and plurality, the role the media plays within society and its impact on democracy. His work in these areas has been published in leading journals such as Legal Studies, the University of Melbourne's Media & Arts Law Review, the Journal of Business Law and Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly. Peter is also co-editor (with Professor Paul Wragg) of "Landmark Cases in Privacy Law" which will be published by Hart Publishing in 2022. In 2021, his research led him to be invited to join the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies and Information Law and Policy Centre as an Associate Research Fellow, having been a Research Associate at the ILPC since 2018. In 2020 he was also appointed as an Advisor to the University of East London's Online Harms and Cyber Crime Unit.
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.
For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars
Speaker: Professor Herbert Zech, Humboldt University, Berlin
Biography: Professor Dr. Herbert Zech is Chair of Civil Law, Technology Law and IT Law at Humboldt University, Berlin and Director at the Weizenbaum Institute for the Networked Society.
Abstract: In the discussion about the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) on the one hand and access to data for training purposes on the other hand, one aspect has so far been neglected: the liability of data providers. AI training data have a different damage potential than data that are only used in "conventional" big data analyses. This raises the question of how existing liability rules apply and whether these rules should be changed. From a regulatory point of view, the parallel between intellectual property protection and civil liability should also be considered.
For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars
Speaker: Professor Herbert Zech, Humboldt University, Berlin
Biography: Professor Dr. Herbert Zech is Chair of Civil Law, Technology Law and IT Law at Humboldt University, Berlin and Director at the Weizenbaum Institute for the Networked Society.
Abstract: In the discussion about the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) on the one hand and access to data for training purposes on the other hand, one aspect has so far been neglected: the liability of data providers. AI training data have a different damage potential than data that are only used in "conventional" big data analyses. This raises the question of how existing liability rules apply and whether these rules should be changed. From a regulatory point of view, the parallel between intellectual property protection and civil liability should also be considered.
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.
For more information see: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-seminars
On Saturday 7 March 2020, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held the Annual Spring Conference 2020 entitled 'Is IP Good for Our Health?'.
This conference brought together practitioners, scholars and policymakers to examine the latest decisions, research and political developments in intellectual property and health.
For more information about the conference and CIPIL, see https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.
On Saturday 7 March 2020, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held the Annual Spring Conference 2020 entitled 'Is IP Good for Our Health?'.
This conference brought together practitioners, scholars and policymakers to examine the latest decisions, research and political developments in intellectual property and health.
For more information about the conference and CIPIL, see https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
On Saturday 7 March 2020, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held the Annual Spring Conference 2020 entitled 'Is IP Good for Our Health?'.
This conference brought together practitioners, scholars and policymakers to examine the latest decisions, research and political developments in intellectual property and health.
For more information about the conference and CIPIL, see https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.
On Saturday 7 March 2020, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held the Annual Spring Conference 2020 entitled 'Is IP Good for Our Health?'.
This conference brought together practitioners, scholars and policymakers to examine the latest decisions, research and political developments in intellectual property and health.
For more information about the conference and CIPIL, see https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.
On Saturday 7 March 2020, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held the Annual Spring Conference 2020 entitled 'Is IP Good for Our Health?'.
This conference brought together practitioners, scholars and policymakers to examine the latest decisions, research and political developments in intellectual property and health.
For more information about the conference and CIPIL, see https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.
On Saturday 7 March 2020, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held the Annual Spring Conference 2020 entitled 'Is IP Good for Our Health?'.
This conference brought together practitioners, scholars and policymakers to examine the latest decisions, research and political developments in intellectual property and health.
For more information about the conference and CIPIL, see https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.
On Saturday 7 March 2020, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held the Annual Spring Conference 2020 entitled 'Is IP Good for Our Health?'.
This conference brought together practitioners, scholars and policymakers to examine the latest decisions, research and political developments in intellectual property and health.
For more information about the conference and CIPIL, see https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.
On Saturday 7 March 2020, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held the Annual Spring Conference 2020 entitled 'Is IP Good for Our Health?'.
This conference brought together practitioners, scholars and policymakers to examine the latest decisions, research and political developments in intellectual property and health.
For more information about the conference and CIPIL, see https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.
On Saturday 7 March 2020, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held the Annual Spring Conference 2020 entitled 'Is IP Good for Our Health?'.
This conference brought together practitioners, scholars and policymakers to examine the latest decisions, research and political developments in intellectual property and health.
For more information about the conference and CIPIL, see https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.
On Saturday 7 March 2020, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held the Annual Spring Conference 2020 entitled 'Is IP Good for Our Health?'.
This conference brought together practitioners, scholars and policymakers to examine the latest decisions, research and political developments in intellectual property and health.
For more information about the conference and CIPIL, see https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.
On Saturday 7 March 2020, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held the Annual Spring Conference 2020 entitled 'Is IP Good for Our Health?'.
This conference brought together practitioners, scholars and policymakers to examine the latest decisions, research and political developments in intellectual property and health.
For more information about the conference and CIPIL, see https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes.
On Saturday 7 March 2020, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held the Annual Spring Conference 2020 entitled 'Is IP Good for Our Health?'.
This conference brought together practitioners, scholars and policymakers to examine the latest decisions, research and political developments in intellectual property and health.
For more information about the conference and CIPIL, see https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
On Saturday 7 March 2020, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held the Annual Spring Conference 2020 entitled 'Is IP Good for Our Health?'.
This conference brought together practitioners, scholars and policymakers to examine the latest decisions, research and political developments in intellectual property and health.
For more information about the conference and CIPIL, see https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
On Saturday 7 March 2020, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held the Annual Spring Conference 2020 entitled 'Is IP Good for Our Health?'.
This conference brought together practitioners, scholars and policymakers to examine the latest decisions, research and political developments in intellectual property and health.
For more information about the conference and CIPIL, see https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
On Saturday 7 March 2020, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held the Annual Spring Conference 2020 entitled 'Is IP Good for Our Health?'.
This conference brought together practitioners, scholars and policymakers to examine the latest decisions, research and political developments in intellectual property and health.
For more information about the conference and CIPIL, see https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
On Saturday 7 March 2020, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held the Annual Spring Conference 2020 entitled 'Is IP Good for Our Health?'.
This conference brought together practitioners, scholars and policymakers to examine the latest decisions, research and political developments in intellectual property and health.
For more information about the conference and CIPIL, see https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
On Saturday 7 March 2020, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held the Annual Spring Conference 2020 entitled 'Is IP Good for Our Health?'.
This conference brought together practitioners, scholars and policymakers to examine the latest decisions, research and political developments in intellectual property and health.
For more information about the conference and CIPIL, see https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
On Saturday 7 March 2020, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held the Annual Spring Conference 2020 entitled 'Is IP Good for Our Health?'.
This conference brought together practitioners, scholars and policymakers to examine the latest decisions, research and political developments in intellectual property and health.
For more information about the conference and CIPIL, see https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
On Saturday 7 March 2020, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held the Annual Spring Conference 2020 entitled 'Is IP Good for Our Health?'.
This conference brought together practitioners, scholars and policymakers to examine the latest decisions, research and political developments in intellectual property and health.
For more information about the conference and CIPIL, see https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
On Saturday 7 March 2020, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held the Annual Spring Conference 2020 entitled 'Is IP Good for Our Health?'.
This conference brought together practitioners, scholars and policymakers to examine the latest decisions, research and political developments in intellectual property and health.
For more information about the conference and CIPIL, see https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
Professor Harry First (Charles L. Denison Professor of Law, NYU School of Law) spoke on the topic of "Taking Information: The Criminalization of Intellectual Property Law" at a seminar on 17 February 2020.
“They are stealing our intellectual property.”
This statement, made with increasing frequency in the last decade, comes from a diverse group of complainants—government trade-policy makers, the entertainment industry, even a major investment banking company. These complaints have led to increasing efforts to make the acquisition of information, sometimes protected by intellectual property laws, into “crime.”
This talk will describe this developing area of the law and argue that increased criminalization is both inevitable and necessary, but carries risks to society’s interests in innovation and competition. The talk will cover three areas: 1) Where we are: the scope of i-p criminalization; 2) How we got here: history and political economy; 3) How to think about i-p criminalization: criminal law theory. The talk will conclude with some observations regarding the appropriate place for criminal law enforcement in this area.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Professor Alex Peukert (Goethe University) spoke on the topic of "The Destruction of an Artistic Work as an Infringement of Moral Rights - A Test Case for the Ontology of Copyright" at a seminar on 13 February 2020.
In 2019, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) held that the destruction of a three-dimensional installation, which formed an integral part of a museum, can amount to a derogatory treatment of the work in violation of the moral rights of the author. In his talk, Alexander Peukert will show that the decision suffers from a lack of definition what constitutes a “work” in the sense of the right to object to derogatory treatment of work (Sec. 14 German CA, Art. 80-83 CDPA 1988). On the basis of this example, he will outline a general, legal-realist critique of the abstract (immaterial, intellectual) work concept and its far-reaching normative implications.
Alexander Peukert has since 2009 been full professor of civil law and commercial law with a specific focus on international intellectual property law at Goethe University Frankfurt am Main. He studied law and obtained his Dr. iur. (s.c.l.) at the University of Freiburg (1993-1999). After his second state examination (2001), he practiced law in a Berlin law firm specializing in copyright and media law. From 2002 to 2009, he was senior research fellow and head of the U.S. department at the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law in Munich. In 2008, he was awarded the qualification of university lecturer (Habilitation) by Ludwig Maximilians University, Munich. From 2009 to 2019, he was principal investigator of the Cluster of Excellence "The Formation of Normative Orders". His main research interest is in intellectual property and unfair competition law. He is the author of the books Güterzuordnung als Rechtsprinzip (Property as a Legal Principle, 2008), Die Gemeinfreiheit (The Public Domain, 2012), and Kritik der Ontologie des Immaterialgüterrechts (A Critique of the Ontology of Intellectual Property, 2018, English version forthcoming with CUP). For more information and publications see http://www.jura.uni-frankfurt.de/peukert/ and http://ssrn.com/author=1244916.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Professor Joris van Hoboken (Professor of Law, LSTS, Vrije Universiteit Brussel & Senior Researcher, IViR, University of Amsterdam) spoke on the topic of "Platforms as Privacy Regulators" at a seminar on 21 November 2019.
In this talk I will explore the developments and legal consequences of different types of platforms being asked and incentivized to start acting as privacy regulators, setting standards (policy and technical) for the collection and use of personal information by their business users and policing these business users on the basis of these policies. First, I will explain the emergence of platforms as privacy regulators with examples from the United States and conceptually, focusing in particular on the context of smartphone ecosystems. I will show how this development currently challenges other regulatory imperatives, including the calls on platforms to act fairly and transparently vis a vis business users. I will finish by discussing legal developments in Europe related to the concept of (joint) controller and what this means for the application of data protection law to cloud-based service environments and the regulatory role of platforms.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Dr Matt Fisher (UCL) spoke on the topic of "Patents and Equivalents: Words Aren't Walls - A Modest Defence of Taking the Pith" at a seminar on 14 November 2019.
The Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Actavis v Eli Lilly ushered in a new era in patent claim interpretation. It marked an explicitly radical expansion of the patent’s reach through the doctrine of equivalents: a doctrine that extends protection outside of the language chosen by the patentee when claiming their invention to also cover immaterial variants therefrom. This change has provided a platform for disamalgamating (although not disconnecting) the interpretation of claim language from the scope of a patent’s monopoly. By moving away from the entrenched position, a position in which the claims formed an impermeable membrane through which questions of scope could not pass, one of the last bastions of Lord Hoffmann’s influence in the field of documentary interpretation has been stormed and laid open to the elements. Purposive construction as we knew it is dead. The era in which context was King and decisions could be reached based on a common sense understanding of language and its effects, where equivalents could only be taken into account as part of the background knowledge of the person skilled in the art, has been replaced (for now at least) with a different regime. To say that this new approach is contentious is an understatement. To its opponents, it explicitly extends protection outside of linguistic boundaries and into a no-man’s-land of uncertainties: uncontained by language, a Pandora’s Box of possibilities awaits.
How then to distinguish what is protected from what is public: what is inside from what is outside the patentee’s monopoly? The Supreme Court’s solution, their guide to equivalency, was to refine and reconfigure a test with solid pedigree in the field of purposive construction itself: an improved set of Improver questions therefore now sets the scene for extension outside of the claim. In this talk Dr Fisher explains why accepting the concept of equivalency need not herald uncertainty, but nevertheless why the Supreme Court’s approach to the question leaves much to be desired.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Professor Christine Haight Farley (American University) spoke on the topic of "Unravelling Unfair Competition Law's Misunderstood Development" at a seminar on 5 November 2019.
Tracing the development of U.S. unfair competition law reveals a sequence of events some of which we seem to have forgotten. First, we learn that unfair competition law has always been baffling. The accepted metaphor that trademark law is a species of the genus of unfair competition law distorts both the actual history and the relationship between the two. Second, this back-story suggests that a particularly innovative treaty--incorporated by reference into the Lanham Act--was meant to be the vehicle for unfair competition protection. The misunderstanding of this history has put pressure on trademark claims causing them to expand into unfair competition claims. The result is maximum flexibility in trademark law and an absence of constraints in unfair competition law.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Dr Poorna Mysoor, Leverhulme Trust Early Career Fellow at the University of Oxford spoke on the topic of "Towards a Methodology for Implying Copyright Licences" at a seminar on 31 October 2019.
A person infringes copyright if she exercises one of the exclusive rights without the licence of the copyright owner. An express licence granted by the copyright owner is the most common example of such a licence. Copyright law in most jurisdictions also provides for statutory limitations and exceptions, to balance the competing interests, including those of content users and the public. Such limitations and exceptions address specific instances of permitted uses of copyright works to achieve specific policy objectives. If a person’s actions are covered neither by an express licence, nor by the statutory limitations or exceptions, it does not automatically mean that the person has infringed copyright. It may be possible to imply a licence to cover her actions. In contrast to the rigidity of statutory limitations and exceptions, implied licences are characterised by their malleability in being able to address a more diverse set of circumstances as the need arises, providing an additional mechanism to achieve the copyright balance. However, implication as a process is contentious, and there are no established rules for implying a copyright licence. Given the uncertainty surrounding the doctrine of implied licence, courts have not embraced them as readily as they should. This presentation argues that to allay the fears of uncertainty, one must address the process of implication itself, and make it more methodical and transparent. It draws from aspects of private law, including contract law and property law, to guide the process of implication.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Professor Graham Greenleaf of UNSW, spoke on the topic of "Assessing Data Privacy Laws after 50 Years of Global Enactment" at a seminar on 17 October 2019.
It is (almost) 50 years since the first recognisable data privacy law was enacted in Hesse, Germany. Now there are 136 countries with data privacy laws, in all regions of the world but one, and multiple international agreements. How do we make sense of, and assess, the first half-century of these global legal developments? Such a task requires that we ask (i) how do we determine what privacy principles these laws embody, to enable global comparisons?; (ii) how is the enforcement of such laws to be assessed?; (iii) how do we measure the effectiveness of data privacy laws in 2020 (rather than 1970)?; and even (iv) what are the objective functions of data privacy laws? This presentation will examine what is involved in asking and answering these questions.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Professor Ansgar Ohly, (LMU, Munich) delivered the fourteenth Annual International Intellectual Property Lecture (funded from the Herchel Smith Bequest) at Emmanuel College entitled 'Hybrids between Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition Law' on 12 March 2019 as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Professor Ohly holds law degrees from the Universities of Bonn, Cambridge (LL M) and Munich (Dr jur), and he is the Chair for Civil Law, Intellectual Property and Competition Law at the University of Munich. He is also a Visiting Senior Member of St Peter’s College and an Honorary Bencher of the Middle Temple.
Prior to joining the Munich faculty, he was head of the Commonwealth section of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law and professor at the University of Bayreuth.
Ansgar’s main fields of academic interest are all areas of intellectual property law, the law of unfair competition and the rights of personality and privacy. He is especially interested in European developments and in the comparison of civil law and common law systems. Recent publications include the volume “The Europeanization of Intellectual Property Law” (OUP 2013, co-edited with Dr Justine Pila), a study on German copyright law and the internet (Beck 2014, general report for the German Lawyers’ Congress 2014) and a commentary on the German law of unfair competition (Beck 2016, with Prof Olaf Sosnitza). He is also the co-editor of GRUR, the leading German intellectual property journal.
For more information see the CIPIL website at:
https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/annual-international-intellectual-property-lecture
Professor Annette Kur (Max Planck Institute) spoke on the topic of "The CJEU's Functions Doctrine - where does it come from and where will it take us?" at a seminar on 5 March 2019.
Professor Kur is an Affiliated Research Fellow in Intellectual Property and Competition Law at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition. She is the author of numerous books and articles in the field of national, European and international trade mark, unfair competition and industrial design law and international jurisdiction and choice law and was involved in the MPI study conducted in preparation of the recent trade mark law reform.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Dr Xavier Seuba (CEIPI, University of Strasbourg) spoke on the topic of "Negotiating Intellectual Property Chapters in New European Trade Agreements" at a seminar on 28 February 2019.
Preferential trade agreements have become a crucial source of international intellectual property law. As a proof of this, more than 160 preferential trade agreements presently regulate intellectual property in a relevant manner, and the number continues to increase. By January 2019 the European Union (EU) was negotiating new trade agreements with large trade partners such as India, Mexico, Indonesia and Mercosur. Likewise, a new trade agreement was concluded in 2018 between the EU and Japan, and the revision of older treaties is underway. In all cases intellectual property is among the central themes of the negotiations.
The sophistication of intellectual property chapters of new trade agreements also increases, since they include more and more detailed provisions. Indeed, many of these chapters resemble abridged versions of national intellectual property codes. While well-known features of intellectual property regulation in trade agreements persist -in particular the promotion of higher standards and the transplantation of EU intellectual property provisions- there are also important novelties. The fact that EU trade partners now include states with an important bargaining power may alter the usual content of intellectual property chapters. At the same time, the promises made by the EU to increase transparency and balance will be the object of scrutiny when the final trade agreements go through parliamentary approval. Reminiscences of a new ACTA-like failure should temper some of the most ambitious European proposals, notably in areas relating the protection of public health and intellectual property enforcement.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Antony White QC of Matrix Chambers spoke on the title: 'Mapping the Frontiers of Privacy and Data Protection: Recent Cases and Key Issues' at a seminar on 21 February 2019.
Antony's talk specifically explores:
- Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and criminal investigation/arrest;
- Article 8 and family life;
- The liability of internet intermediaries for the posting of private content;
- The convergence and divergence of privacy and data protection.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Professor Dr Hong Xue of the Beijing Normal University, spoke on the topic of "Copyright on E-Commerce Platforms: An Insight Preview of Chinese New Law" at a seminar on 18 January 2019.
Chinese E-Commerce Law, effective from 1 January 2019, impacts all the stakeholders in the business. This comprehensive Law revamps the copyright system applicable to e-commerce platforms by redefining their roles, responsibility and liability. E-commerce platforms are one of the powerful infrastructures that enable Chinese global business development. The Law’s extra-territoriality may not be overlooked. How would this new system affect the interests of the parties involved? Would it facilitate a balanced copyright system through multi-stakeholder interaction? Is the platform governance relevant to the copyright liability and law enforcement? The answers are in the brain.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Dr Łukasz Żelechowski of Warsaw University, spoke on the topic of "Freedom of Expression and Trade Mark Law: In Search of Legal Mechanisms for Striking a Balance" at a seminar on 20 November 2018.
The tension between protection of trade mark rights and considerations concerning freedom of expression and its limits has grown in recent years. The development of case law in this area in the EU and elsewhere has proven that there might be instances in which there is a need for an intervention taking the form of a balancing of interests of various actors at play.
The speaker examines closer two areas where such tensions are present – first, the interface between the morality/public order registration exclusion and freedom of expression and, second, the issue of balancing of competing interests on the premise of freedom of expression in the area of trade mark infringement. The analysis will focus on the EU perspective and will seek to identify and analyse the relevant legal mechanisms for striking a balance. Particular emphasis is put on the reformed legal framework in EU trade mark law, including references to freedom of expression and other fundamental rights in the preambles of the Trade Mark Directive 2015 and the EUTMR 2017.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Gillian Phillips, Director of Editorial Legal Services at The Guardian News and Media spoke on the topic of "The Ethical and Legal Framework within which the Guardian approaches Information Concerning Natural Persons" at a seminar on 15 November 2018.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Dr Ge Chen (Durham University) spoke on the topic of 'How Copyright Affects Free Expression: A Perspective from Sino-US Trade War' at a seminar on 1 November 2018.
The tension between copyright and freedom of expression has generated a spate of discussion and debates in recent copyright law discourse. Presumably, copyright may both facilitate and hinder free expression in different contexts. China’s copyright law contributes eminently to the study on this subject in that it is historically rooted in the government’s policy of censorship and intertwined with China’s trade relations with major powers of the world. In this seminar, the speaker will reveal a unique and nuanced pattern of interplay between copyright and free expression through a pioneering comparative study of Chinese law and international law. The ongoing China-US trade frictions warrants the significance of this study that highlights the complicated linkage of IP, human rights, and trade.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Professor Robert W. Gomulkiewicz (University of Washington) spoke on the topic of 'Copyright Licensing for Revolutionaries' at a seminar on 26 October 2018.
Open access and open development have become popular approaches to creative and innovative activity. How does law, especially intellectual property law, relate to openness? Drawing on lessons from open source software, this seminar explores the legal tools used by open source revolutionaries and the role of intellectual property and contract in advancing the movement. In doing so, the seminar compares open source to other methods of development.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Dr Yin Harn Lee of Sheffield University, spoke on the topic of 'Rethinking the "Copy" in Copyright' at a seminar on 18 October 2018.
The exclusive right to control the copying of a work has been given a very broad definition in the present day. The adoption of a technology-neutral definition of ‘copying’ means that it now encompasses tangible and intangible copies, permanent and temporary copies, and even copies that are merely incidental to the use of the work. The effect of this has been to expand the scope of the right to uses of works that would not conventionally be thought to fall within the copyright owner’s control.
The aim of this paper is to suggest some principles on the basis of which the scope of this extremely broad right might be limited. It draws inspiration from pre-modern judicial approaches to the concept of ‘copying’ which, as it demonstrates, was interpreted in ways that recognised certain implicit limitations – albeit not always well-articulated – on the scope of the copyright owner’s exclusive right to copy the work. These, it suggests, might serve as useful starting points for the development of a normative basis on which a more restricted interpretation of the right to copy might be justified.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Graeme B. Dinwoodie, Global Professor of Intellectual Property Law, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, spoke on the topic of "Non-Traditional Marks In Europe: Conceptual Lessons From Their Potential Demise" at a seminar on 10 May 2018.
Graeme B. Dinwoodie is Global Professor of Intellectual Property Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law, and co-Director of the Centre for Design, Law and Technology. He returned full-time to Chicago in 2018 after nine years as the Professor of Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law at the University of Oxford, where he was also Director of the Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre, and a Professorial Fellow of St. Peter’s College. Immediately prior to taking up the IP Chair at Oxford, Professor Dinwoodie was for several years a Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law and, from 2005-2009, also held a Chair in Intellectual Property Law at Queen Mary College, University of London. Professor Dinwoodie has held a number of visiting or honorary positions, including as the Yong Shook Lin Visiting Professor of Intellectual Property Law at the National University of Singapore, a Global Professor of Law at New York University School of Law, an Honorary Professor of Law at the University of Strasbourg, the George P. Smith II Distinguished Visiting Chair at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, and a visiting professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law. Professor Dinwoodie holds an LLB (Hons) degree from the University of Glasgow, an LL.M. degree from Harvard Law School (where he was a John F. Kennedy Scholar), and a J.S.D. degree from Columbia Law School (where he was a Burton Fellow). He was elected as a member of the American Law Institute in 2003, and served as President of ATRIP from 2011-2013. In 2008, the International Trademark Association awarded Professor Dinwoodie the Pattishall Medal for Teaching Excellence in Trademark Law. In addition to his book A Neofederalist Vision of TRIPS: The Resilience of the International Intellectual Property Regime (Oxford Univ. Press 2012), co-authored with Rochelle Dreyfuss, he is the author of five casebooks including Trademarks and Unfair Competition: Law and Policy (4th ed 2014) (with Janis), and International Intellectual Property Law and Policy (2d ed. 2008) (with Hennessey, Perlmutter and Austin). His scholarship has appeared in several leading law journals and is widely cited by scholars in Europe, the United States and elsewhere. He received the 2008 Ladas Memorial Award from the International Trademark Association for his article Confusion Over Use: Contextualism in Trademark Law (with Janis). Professor Dinwoodie has served as a consultant to the World Intellectual Property Organization on matters of private international law, as an Adviser to the American Law Institute Project on Principles on Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments in Intellectual Property Matters, and as a consultant to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development on the Protection of Traditional Knowledge. He currently serves as an Adviser on the ALI’s project on the Restatement of Copyright Law and is a door tenant at 3 New Square.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Professor Robert Burrell (University of Sheffield) and Dr Aaron Graham (UCL) spoke on the topic of "The History of Patents,1600-1850" at a seminar on 3 May 2018.
Robert Burrell holds joint appointments as Professor of Law at the University of Sheffield and Melbourne Law School. His previous academic positions include posts at the Australian National University and King’s College London. He has also been a Herbert Smith visiting fellow at the University of Cambridge and a visiting professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. His principal areas of interest are intellectual property and legal history. He is the author (with A. Coleman) of Copyright Exceptions: The Digital Impact (CUP, 2005) and (with M. Handler) of Australian Trade Mark Law (OUP, 2010; 2 nd ed. 2016). His work has been cited by the High Court of Australia, the Federal Court of Australia, the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales and in an Opinion of an Advocate General to the European Court of Justice. Outside of the academy Robert spent several years working as a registered trade marks attorney in Australia, eventually helping to establish a new boutique firm that specialises in intellectual property matters.
Dr Aaron Graham is a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow at the Department of History at UCL, and was previously a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Oxford. His work looks at politics, governance and finance in Britain and the British Empire between 1660 and 1850. He is currently working on the politics, economics and laws of banking regulation in the British Empire between 1800 and 1850, and is writing a book for OUP on society, slavery and the state in Jamaica between 1770 and 1840.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Professor Niva Elkin-Koren, of Haifa Center for Law and Technology delivered the twelth Annual International Intellectual Property Lecture (funded from the Herchel Smith Bequest) at Emmanuel College entitled 'Fair Use by Design' on 14 March 2016 as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Professor Niva Elkin-Koren is the founding director of the Haifa Center for Law & Technology (HCLT) and the former dean of the University of Haifa, Faculty of Law. She is also a Faculty Associate at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University.
Her research focuses on the legal institutions that facilitate private and public control over the production and dissemination of information. She has written and spoken extensively about the privatization of information policy, private ordering, economic analysis of intellectual property, technology transfer and legal strategies for enhancing the public domain. From 2002 to 2006 she was a Member of the Israeli Cinema Commission. She is currently a member of the Patent Authority Audit Commission in Israel, a member of the Academic Directors and Steering Committee of the Jerusalem Center for Ethics, Mishkenot Shaananim, and a co-founder of the Alliance of Israeli Institutions of Higher Education for Promoting Access to Scientific Materials. She is the Chair of the Scientific Advisory Council, of the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society in Berlin, a member of the Executive Committee of Association for the Advancement of Teaching and Research in Intellectual Property (ATRIP), and an Advisory Board Member of the Information Program of the Open Society Foundation.
Prof. Elkin-Koren received her LL.B from Tel-Aviv University Faculty of Law in 1989, her LL.M from Harvard Law School in 1991, and her S.J.D from Stanford Law School in 1995.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Dr Sabine Jacques, UEA Lecturer in IP/IT/Media Law, spoke on the topic of "The Parody Exception in Copyright Law" at a seminar on 26 April 2018.
Sabine Jacques joined UEA in 2016 as Lecturer in IP/IT/Media Law. Previously, Sabine achieved a PhD in copyright law at the University of Nottingham where she studied: ‘The Right to Parody? A comparative analysis’. In this research, she has a specific focus on the music industry as she was partially funded by MPA (Music Publishers Association), BASCA (British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors) and PRS for Music (Performing Right Society). She has now turned her thesis into a monograph for OUP which will be available shortly. Before moving to the UK, Sabine obtained her bachelor and master degrees in law at the University of Liège, Belgium. She later graduated cum laude from an LLM in Intellectual Property law and Knowledge Management at Maastricht University, the Netherlands.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Professor Litman, John F. Nickoll Professor of Law at the University of Michigan, delivered the thirteenth Annual International Intellectual Property Lecture (funded from the Herchel Smith Bequest) at Emmanuel College entitled 'Copyright and Property-Think' on 13 March 2018 as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Professor Jessica Litman is the John F. Nickoll Professor of Law at the University of Michigan, where she teaches copyright law, trademark law, and advanced IP courses. Litman is the author of Digital Copyright and the co-author, with Jane Ginsburg and Mary Lou Kevlin, of the casebook Trademarks and Unfair Competition Law: Cases and Materials. She is an adviser for the American Law Institute's Restatement of Copyright, and has served as a trustee of the Copyright Society of the USA, and chair of the Association of American Law Schools Section on Intellectual Property. In this year’s lecture, she will argue that when we think about the copyright system, our assumptions about legal property rights shape what we see and what we don’t. We assume that broadening or narrowing the scope of copyright will redound to the benefit or detriment of creators. Three hundred years of evidence, though, belie that supposition. We need to think more concretely about copyright law's actual effect on creators, and their ability to communicate and profit from their works.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
The Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) Annual Spring Conference 2018 was held on 10 May 2018, on the subject of 'Intermediary Liability and Responsibility'.
This recording features Przemysław Polanski (Kozminski University).
The creation of open and responsible digital markets is a major policy priority across the globe, linking critically to both economic dynamism and to protecting core societal values in a challenging socio-technological environment. Amongst the most vexed and controversial aspects of this is the multi-faceted issue of ‘intermediary’ liability and responsibility. How active can an information society service be whilst still falling within an intermediary shield (safe harbour)? What potential liability and ongoing responsibilities (or duties of care) should such shielded intermediaries have for potential illegalities on their service? To what extent should the answer to this question depend on the type of intermediary (e.g. host vs conduit) and/or on the type of potential illegality? These are among the questions that are confronting us within this space.
In 2016 the European Commission announced that it would seek to complement the approach taken by the e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC), developed in the early days of the web, with a new “sectorial, problem-drive approach to regulation” (page 9). This led to the adoption, as a central part of the EU’s Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy, of proposals to regulate certain online platforms in two key areas: those of copyright and child protection and hate speech. The copyright proposal advocates the application of filtering/blocking mechanisms as routine and mandatory measures. The child protection and hate speech proposal places emphasis on platforms proactively adopting a range of measures to manage content, including through their terms and conditions, age verification and reporting/flagging systems. The legislative progress of both proposals is now well advanced. Meanwhile, the soon to be in force General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679) addresses the relationship between the intermediary shields and the responsibilities of both controllers and processors of personal data to safeguard personal information – an aspect of law that has received greater attention following the ground-breaking C-131/12 Google Spain judgment of the Court of Justice on the ‘right to be forgotten’. Finally, thinking in this area has been affected by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, notably the Grand Chamber judgment of Delfi (2015), which specifically explored the responsibilities of online news platforms for defamatory and hate speech material that interfered with an individual’s right to a private life, as well as the follow-up judgments of MTE v Hungary (2016) and Pihl v Sweden (2017).
This year’s one-day conference will provide a unique opportunity to explore where we are in this broad and important area, as well as where we might be going in the future. The morning session will take stock of current law and debate on intermediary liability and responsibility in each of the substantive areas falling under the DSM, whilst also raising critical overarching questions. The afternoon sessions will then focus on specific cross-cutting themes: (i) what should be the reach of notice-based remedies in this area and, in particular, when (if at all) should these extend to filtering/blocking; (ii) should some intermediaries have proactive obligations to respond to illegality; and (iii) what new thinking might be fruitful here, especially for the UK, given the likelihood of an imminent Brexit.
For more information, see the CIPIL website: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
The Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) Annual Spring Conference 2018 was held on 10 May 2018, on the subject of 'Intermediary Liability and Responsibility'.
This recording features Nicolo Zingales (University of Sussex).
The creation of open and responsible digital markets is a major policy priority across the globe, linking critically to both economic dynamism and to protecting core societal values in a challenging socio-technological environment. Amongst the most vexed and controversial aspects of this is the multi-faceted issue of ‘intermediary’ liability and responsibility. How active can an information society service be whilst still falling within an intermediary shield (safe harbour)? What potential liability and ongoing responsibilities (or duties of care) should such shielded intermediaries have for potential illegalities on their service? To what extent should the answer to this question depend on the type of intermediary (e.g. host vs conduit) and/or on the type of potential illegality? These are among the questions that are confronting us within this space.
In 2016 the European Commission announced that it would seek to complement the approach taken by the e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC), developed in the early days of the web, with a new “sectorial, problem-drive approach to regulation” (page 9). This led to the adoption, as a central part of the EU’s Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy, of proposals to regulate certain online platforms in two key areas: those of copyright and child protection and hate speech. The copyright proposal advocates the application of filtering/blocking mechanisms as routine and mandatory measures. The child protection and hate speech proposal places emphasis on platforms proactively adopting a range of measures to manage content, including through their terms and conditions, age verification and reporting/flagging systems. The legislative progress of both proposals is now well advanced. Meanwhile, the soon to be in force General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679) addresses the relationship between the intermediary shields and the responsibilities of both controllers and processors of personal data to safeguard personal information – an aspect of law that has received greater attention following the ground-breaking C-131/12 Google Spain judgment of the Court of Justice on the ‘right to be forgotten’. Finally, thinking in this area has been affected by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, notably the Grand Chamber judgment of Delfi (2015), which specifically explored the responsibilities of online news platforms for defamatory and hate speech material that interfered with an individual’s right to a private life, as well as the follow-up judgments of MTE v Hungary (2016) and Pihl v Sweden (2017).
This year’s one-day conference will provide a unique opportunity to explore where we are in this broad and important area, as well as where we might be going in the future. The morning session will take stock of current law and debate on intermediary liability and responsibility in each of the substantive areas falling under the DSM, whilst also raising critical overarching questions. The afternoon sessions will then focus on specific cross-cutting themes: (i) what should be the reach of notice-based remedies in this area and, in particular, when (if at all) should these extend to filtering/blocking; (ii) should some intermediaries have proactive obligations to respond to illegality; and (iii) what new thinking might be fruitful here, especially for the UK, given the likelihood of an imminent Brexit.
For more information, see the CIPIL website: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
The Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) Annual Spring Conference 2018 was held on 10 May 2018, on the subject of 'Intermediary Liability and Responsibility'.
This recording features Matthias Leistner (LMU Munich).
The creation of open and responsible digital markets is a major policy priority across the globe, linking critically to both economic dynamism and to protecting core societal values in a challenging socio-technological environment. Amongst the most vexed and controversial aspects of this is the multi-faceted issue of ‘intermediary’ liability and responsibility. How active can an information society service be whilst still falling within an intermediary shield (safe harbour)? What potential liability and ongoing responsibilities (or duties of care) should such shielded intermediaries have for potential illegalities on their service? To what extent should the answer to this question depend on the type of intermediary (e.g. host vs conduit) and/or on the type of potential illegality? These are among the questions that are confronting us within this space.
In 2016 the European Commission announced that it would seek to complement the approach taken by the e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC), developed in the early days of the web, with a new “sectorial, problem-drive approach to regulation” (page 9). This led to the adoption, as a central part of the EU’s Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy, of proposals to regulate certain online platforms in two key areas: those of copyright and child protection and hate speech. The copyright proposal advocates the application of filtering/blocking mechanisms as routine and mandatory measures. The child protection and hate speech proposal places emphasis on platforms proactively adopting a range of measures to manage content, including through their terms and conditions, age verification and reporting/flagging systems. The legislative progress of both proposals is now well advanced. Meanwhile, the soon to be in force General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679) addresses the relationship between the intermediary shields and the responsibilities of both controllers and processors of personal data to safeguard personal information – an aspect of law that has received greater attention following the ground-breaking C-131/12 Google Spain judgment of the Court of Justice on the ‘right to be forgotten’. Finally, thinking in this area has been affected by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, notably the Grand Chamber judgment of Delfi (2015), which specifically explored the responsibilities of online news platforms for defamatory and hate speech material that interfered with an individual’s right to a private life, as well as the follow-up judgments of MTE v Hungary (2016) and Pihl v Sweden (2017).
This year’s one-day conference will provide a unique opportunity to explore where we are in this broad and important area, as well as where we might be going in the future. The morning session will take stock of current law and debate on intermediary liability and responsibility in each of the substantive areas falling under the DSM, whilst also raising critical overarching questions. The afternoon sessions will then focus on specific cross-cutting themes: (i) what should be the reach of notice-based remedies in this area and, in particular, when (if at all) should these extend to filtering/blocking; (ii) should some intermediaries have proactive obligations to respond to illegality; and (iii) what new thinking might be fruitful here, especially for the UK, given the likelihood of an imminent Brexit.
For more information, see the CIPIL website: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
The Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) Annual Spring Conference 2018 was held on 10 May 2018, on the subject of 'Intermediary Liability and Responsibility'.
This recording features Christina Angelopoulos (CIPIL, University of Cambridge).
The creation of open and responsible digital markets is a major policy priority across the globe, linking critically to both economic dynamism and to protecting core societal values in a challenging socio-technological environment. Amongst the most vexed and controversial aspects of this is the multi-faceted issue of ‘intermediary’ liability and responsibility. How active can an information society service be whilst still falling within an intermediary shield (safe harbour)? What potential liability and ongoing responsibilities (or duties of care) should such shielded intermediaries have for potential illegalities on their service? To what extent should the answer to this question depend on the type of intermediary (e.g. host vs conduit) and/or on the type of potential illegality? These are among the questions that are confronting us within this space.
In 2016 the European Commission announced that it would seek to complement the approach taken by the e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC), developed in the early days of the web, with a new “sectorial, problem-drive approach to regulation” (page 9). This led to the adoption, as a central part of the EU’s Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy, of proposals to regulate certain online platforms in two key areas: those of copyright and child protection and hate speech. The copyright proposal advocates the application of filtering/blocking mechanisms as routine and mandatory measures. The child protection and hate speech proposal places emphasis on platforms proactively adopting a range of measures to manage content, including through their terms and conditions, age verification and reporting/flagging systems. The legislative progress of both proposals is now well advanced. Meanwhile, the soon to be in force General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679) addresses the relationship between the intermediary shields and the responsibilities of both controllers and processors of personal data to safeguard personal information – an aspect of law that has received greater attention following the ground-breaking C-131/12 Google Spain judgment of the Court of Justice on the ‘right to be forgotten’. Finally, thinking in this area has been affected by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, notably the Grand Chamber judgment of Delfi (2015), which specifically explored the responsibilities of online news platforms for defamatory and hate speech material that interfered with an individual’s right to a private life, as well as the follow-up judgments of MTE v Hungary (2016) and Pihl v Sweden (2017).
This year’s one-day conference will provide a unique opportunity to explore where we are in this broad and important area, as well as where we might be going in the future. The morning session will take stock of current law and debate on intermediary liability and responsibility in each of the substantive areas falling under the DSM, whilst also raising critical overarching questions. The afternoon sessions will then focus on specific cross-cutting themes: (i) what should be the reach of notice-based remedies in this area and, in particular, when (if at all) should these extend to filtering/blocking; (ii) should some intermediaries have proactive obligations to respond to illegality; and (iii) what new thinking might be fruitful here, especially for the UK, given the likelihood of an imminent Brexit.
For more information, see the CIPIL website: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
The Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) Annual Spring Conference 2018 was held on 10 May 2018, on the subject of 'Intermediary Liability and Responsibility'.
This recording features Daithi Mac Sithigh (Queen’s University Belfast).
The creation of open and responsible digital markets is a major policy priority across the globe, linking critically to both economic dynamism and to protecting core societal values in a challenging socio-technological environment. Amongst the most vexed and controversial aspects of this is the multi-faceted issue of ‘intermediary’ liability and responsibility. How active can an information society service be whilst still falling within an intermediary shield (safe harbour)? What potential liability and ongoing responsibilities (or duties of care) should such shielded intermediaries have for potential illegalities on their service? To what extent should the answer to this question depend on the type of intermediary (e.g. host vs conduit) and/or on the type of potential illegality? These are among the questions that are confronting us within this space.
In 2016 the European Commission announced that it would seek to complement the approach taken by the e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC), developed in the early days of the web, with a new “sectorial, problem-drive approach to regulation” (page 9). This led to the adoption, as a central part of the EU’s Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy, of proposals to regulate certain online platforms in two key areas: those of copyright and child protection and hate speech. The copyright proposal advocates the application of filtering/blocking mechanisms as routine and mandatory measures. The child protection and hate speech proposal places emphasis on platforms proactively adopting a range of measures to manage content, including through their terms and conditions, age verification and reporting/flagging systems. The legislative progress of both proposals is now well advanced. Meanwhile, the soon to be in force General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679) addresses the relationship between the intermediary shields and the responsibilities of both controllers and processors of personal data to safeguard personal information – an aspect of law that has received greater attention following the ground-breaking C-131/12 Google Spain judgment of the Court of Justice on the ‘right to be forgotten’. Finally, thinking in this area has been affected by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, notably the Grand Chamber judgment of Delfi (2015), which specifically explored the responsibilities of online news platforms for defamatory and hate speech material that interfered with an individual’s right to a private life, as well as the follow-up judgments of MTE v Hungary (2016) and Pihl v Sweden (2017).
This year’s one-day conference will provide a unique opportunity to explore where we are in this broad and important area, as well as where we might be going in the future. The morning session will take stock of current law and debate on intermediary liability and responsibility in each of the substantive areas falling under the DSM, whilst also raising critical overarching questions. The afternoon sessions will then focus on specific cross-cutting themes: (i) what should be the reach of notice-based remedies in this area and, in particular, when (if at all) should these extend to filtering/blocking; (ii) should some intermediaries have proactive obligations to respond to illegality; and (iii) what new thinking might be fruitful here, especially for the UK, given the likelihood of an imminent Brexit.
For more information, see the CIPIL website: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
The Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) Annual Spring Conference 2018 was held on 10 May 2018, on the subject of 'Intermediary Liability and Responsibility'.
This recording features Mark Bunting (Communications Chambers/Oxford Internet Institute).
The creation of open and responsible digital markets is a major policy priority across the globe, linking critically to both economic dynamism and to protecting core societal values in a challenging socio-technological environment. Amongst the most vexed and controversial aspects of this is the multi-faceted issue of ‘intermediary’ liability and responsibility. How active can an information society service be whilst still falling within an intermediary shield (safe harbour)? What potential liability and ongoing responsibilities (or duties of care) should such shielded intermediaries have for potential illegalities on their service? To what extent should the answer to this question depend on the type of intermediary (e.g. host vs conduit) and/or on the type of potential illegality? These are among the questions that are confronting us within this space.
In 2016 the European Commission announced that it would seek to complement the approach taken by the e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC), developed in the early days of the web, with a new “sectorial, problem-drive approach to regulation” (page 9). This led to the adoption, as a central part of the EU’s Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy, of proposals to regulate certain online platforms in two key areas: those of copyright and child protection and hate speech. The copyright proposal advocates the application of filtering/blocking mechanisms as routine and mandatory measures. The child protection and hate speech proposal places emphasis on platforms proactively adopting a range of measures to manage content, including through their terms and conditions, age verification and reporting/flagging systems. The legislative progress of both proposals is now well advanced. Meanwhile, the soon to be in force General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679) addresses the relationship between the intermediary shields and the responsibilities of both controllers and processors of personal data to safeguard personal information – an aspect of law that has received greater attention following the ground-breaking C-131/12 Google Spain judgment of the Court of Justice on the ‘right to be forgotten’. Finally, thinking in this area has been affected by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, notably the Grand Chamber judgment of Delfi (2015), which specifically explored the responsibilities of online news platforms for defamatory and hate speech material that interfered with an individual’s right to a private life, as well as the follow-up judgments of MTE v Hungary (2016) and Pihl v Sweden (2017).
This year’s one-day conference will provide a unique opportunity to explore where we are in this broad and important area, as well as where we might be going in the future. The morning session will take stock of current law and debate on intermediary liability and responsibility in each of the substantive areas falling under the DSM, whilst also raising critical overarching questions. The afternoon sessions will then focus on specific cross-cutting themes: (i) what should be the reach of notice-based remedies in this area and, in particular, when (if at all) should these extend to filtering/blocking; (ii) should some intermediaries have proactive obligations to respond to illegality; and (iii) what new thinking might be fruitful here, especially for the UK, given the likelihood of an imminent Brexit.
For more information, see the CIPIL website: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
The Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) Annual Spring Conference 2018 was held on 10 May 2018, on the subject of 'Intermediary Liability and Responsibility'.
This recording features Hugh Tomlinson (Matrix Chambers).
The creation of open and responsible digital markets is a major policy priority across the globe, linking critically to both economic dynamism and to protecting core societal values in a challenging socio-technological environment. Amongst the most vexed and controversial aspects of this is the multi-faceted issue of ‘intermediary’ liability and responsibility. How active can an information society service be whilst still falling within an intermediary shield (safe harbour)? What potential liability and ongoing responsibilities (or duties of care) should such shielded intermediaries have for potential illegalities on their service? To what extent should the answer to this question depend on the type of intermediary (e.g. host vs conduit) and/or on the type of potential illegality? These are among the questions that are confronting us within this space.
In 2016 the European Commission announced that it would seek to complement the approach taken by the e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC), developed in the early days of the web, with a new “sectorial, problem-drive approach to regulation” (page 9). This led to the adoption, as a central part of the EU’s Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy, of proposals to regulate certain online platforms in two key areas: those of copyright and child protection and hate speech. The copyright proposal advocates the application of filtering/blocking mechanisms as routine and mandatory measures. The child protection and hate speech proposal places emphasis on platforms proactively adopting a range of measures to manage content, including through their terms and conditions, age verification and reporting/flagging systems. The legislative progress of both proposals is now well advanced. Meanwhile, the soon to be in force General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679) addresses the relationship between the intermediary shields and the responsibilities of both controllers and processors of personal data to safeguard personal information – an aspect of law that has received greater attention following the ground-breaking C-131/12 Google Spain judgment of the Court of Justice on the ‘right to be forgotten’. Finally, thinking in this area has been affected by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, notably the Grand Chamber judgment of Delfi (2015), which specifically explored the responsibilities of online news platforms for defamatory and hate speech material that interfered with an individual’s right to a private life, as well as the follow-up judgments of MTE v Hungary (2016) and Pihl v Sweden (2017).
This year’s one-day conference will provide a unique opportunity to explore where we are in this broad and important area, as well as where we might be going in the future. The morning session will take stock of current law and debate on intermediary liability and responsibility in each of the substantive areas falling under the DSM, whilst also raising critical overarching questions. The afternoon sessions will then focus on specific cross-cutting themes: (i) what should be the reach of notice-based remedies in this area and, in particular, when (if at all) should these extend to filtering/blocking; (ii) should some intermediaries have proactive obligations to respond to illegality; and (iii) what new thinking might be fruitful here, especially for the UK, given the likelihood of an imminent Brexit.
For more information, see the CIPIL website: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
The Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) Annual Spring Conference 2018 was held on 10 May 2018, on the subject of 'Intermediary Liability and Responsibility'.
This recording features Jaani Riordan (8 New Square).
The creation of open and responsible digital markets is a major policy priority across the globe, linking critically to both economic dynamism and to protecting core societal values in a challenging socio-technological environment. Amongst the most vexed and controversial aspects of this is the multi-faceted issue of ‘intermediary’ liability and responsibility. How active can an information society service be whilst still falling within an intermediary shield (safe harbour)? What potential liability and ongoing responsibilities (or duties of care) should such shielded intermediaries have for potential illegalities on their service? To what extent should the answer to this question depend on the type of intermediary (e.g. host vs conduit) and/or on the type of potential illegality? These are among the questions that are confronting us within this space.
In 2016 the European Commission announced that it would seek to complement the approach taken by the e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC), developed in the early days of the web, with a new “sectorial, problem-drive approach to regulation” (page 9). This led to the adoption, as a central part of the EU’s Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy, of proposals to regulate certain online platforms in two key areas: those of copyright and child protection and hate speech. The copyright proposal advocates the application of filtering/blocking mechanisms as routine and mandatory measures. The child protection and hate speech proposal places emphasis on platforms proactively adopting a range of measures to manage content, including through their terms and conditions, age verification and reporting/flagging systems. The legislative progress of both proposals is now well advanced. Meanwhile, the soon to be in force General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679) addresses the relationship between the intermediary shields and the responsibilities of both controllers and processors of personal data to safeguard personal information – an aspect of law that has received greater attention following the ground-breaking C-131/12 Google Spain judgment of the Court of Justice on the ‘right to be forgotten’. Finally, thinking in this area has been affected by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, notably the Grand Chamber judgment of Delfi (2015), which specifically explored the responsibilities of online news platforms for defamatory and hate speech material that interfered with an individual’s right to a private life, as well as the follow-up judgments of MTE v Hungary (2016) and Pihl v Sweden (2017).
This year’s one-day conference will provide a unique opportunity to explore where we are in this broad and important area, as well as where we might be going in the future. The morning session will take stock of current law and debate on intermediary liability and responsibility in each of the substantive areas falling under the DSM, whilst also raising critical overarching questions. The afternoon sessions will then focus on specific cross-cutting themes: (i) what should be the reach of notice-based remedies in this area and, in particular, when (if at all) should these extend to filtering/blocking; (ii) should some intermediaries have proactive obligations to respond to illegality; and (iii) what new thinking might be fruitful here, especially for the UK, given the likelihood of an imminent Brexit.
For more information, see the CIPIL website: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
The Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) Annual Spring Conference 2018 was held on 10 May 2018, on the subject of 'Intermediary Liability and Responsibility'.
This recording features Martin Husovec (Tilburg University).
The creation of open and responsible digital markets is a major policy priority across the globe, linking critically to both economic dynamism and to protecting core societal values in a challenging socio-technological environment. Amongst the most vexed and controversial aspects of this is the multi-faceted issue of ‘intermediary’ liability and responsibility. How active can an information society service be whilst still falling within an intermediary shield (safe harbour)? What potential liability and ongoing responsibilities (or duties of care) should such shielded intermediaries have for potential illegalities on their service? To what extent should the answer to this question depend on the type of intermediary (e.g. host vs conduit) and/or on the type of potential illegality? These are among the questions that are confronting us within this space.
In 2016 the European Commission announced that it would seek to complement the approach taken by the e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC), developed in the early days of the web, with a new “sectorial, problem-drive approach to regulation” (page 9). This led to the adoption, as a central part of the EU’s Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy, of proposals to regulate certain online platforms in two key areas: those of copyright and child protection and hate speech. The copyright proposal advocates the application of filtering/blocking mechanisms as routine and mandatory measures. The child protection and hate speech proposal places emphasis on platforms proactively adopting a range of measures to manage content, including through their terms and conditions, age verification and reporting/flagging systems. The legislative progress of both proposals is now well advanced. Meanwhile, the soon to be in force General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679) addresses the relationship between the intermediary shields and the responsibilities of both controllers and processors of personal data to safeguard personal information – an aspect of law that has received greater attention following the ground-breaking C-131/12 Google Spain judgment of the Court of Justice on the ‘right to be forgotten’. Finally, thinking in this area has been affected by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, notably the Grand Chamber judgment of Delfi (2015), which specifically explored the responsibilities of online news platforms for defamatory and hate speech material that interfered with an individual’s right to a private life, as well as the follow-up judgments of MTE v Hungary (2016) and Pihl v Sweden (2017).
This year’s one-day conference will provide a unique opportunity to explore where we are in this broad and important area, as well as where we might be going in the future. The morning session will take stock of current law and debate on intermediary liability and responsibility in each of the substantive areas falling under the DSM, whilst also raising critical overarching questions. The afternoon sessions will then focus on specific cross-cutting themes: (i) what should be the reach of notice-based remedies in this area and, in particular, when (if at all) should these extend to filtering/blocking; (ii) should some intermediaries have proactive obligations to respond to illegality; and (iii) what new thinking might be fruitful here, especially for the UK, given the likelihood of an imminent Brexit.
For more information, see the CIPIL website: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
The Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) Annual Spring Conference 2018 was held on 10 May 2018, on the subject of 'Intermediary Liability and Responsibility'.
This recording features David Erdos (CIPIL, University of Cambridge).
The creation of open and responsible digital markets is a major policy priority across the globe, linking critically to both economic dynamism and to protecting core societal values in a challenging socio-technological environment. Amongst the most vexed and controversial aspects of this is the multi-faceted issue of ‘intermediary’ liability and responsibility. How active can an information society service be whilst still falling within an intermediary shield (safe harbour)? What potential liability and ongoing responsibilities (or duties of care) should such shielded intermediaries have for potential illegalities on their service? To what extent should the answer to this question depend on the type of intermediary (e.g. host vs conduit) and/or on the type of potential illegality? These are among the questions that are confronting us within this space.
In 2016 the European Commission announced that it would seek to complement the approach taken by the e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC), developed in the early days of the web, with a new “sectorial, problem-drive approach to regulation” (page 9). This led to the adoption, as a central part of the EU’s Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy, of proposals to regulate certain online platforms in two key areas: those of copyright and child protection and hate speech. The copyright proposal advocates the application of filtering/blocking mechanisms as routine and mandatory measures. The child protection and hate speech proposal places emphasis on platforms proactively adopting a range of measures to manage content, including through their terms and conditions, age verification and reporting/flagging systems. The legislative progress of both proposals is now well advanced. Meanwhile, the soon to be in force General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679) addresses the relationship between the intermediary shields and the responsibilities of both controllers and processors of personal data to safeguard personal information – an aspect of law that has received greater attention following the ground-breaking C-131/12 Google Spain judgment of the Court of Justice on the ‘right to be forgotten’. Finally, thinking in this area has been affected by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, notably the Grand Chamber judgment of Delfi (2015), which specifically explored the responsibilities of online news platforms for defamatory and hate speech material that interfered with an individual’s right to a private life, as well as the follow-up judgments of MTE v Hungary (2016) and Pihl v Sweden (2017).
This year’s one-day conference will provide a unique opportunity to explore where we are in this broad and important area, as well as where we might be going in the future. The morning session will take stock of current law and debate on intermediary liability and responsibility in each of the substantive areas falling under the DSM, whilst also raising critical overarching questions. The afternoon sessions will then focus on specific cross-cutting themes: (i) what should be the reach of notice-based remedies in this area and, in particular, when (if at all) should these extend to filtering/blocking; (ii) should some intermediaries have proactive obligations to respond to illegality; and (iii) what new thinking might be fruitful here, especially for the UK, given the likelihood of an imminent Brexit.
For more information, see the CIPIL website: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
The Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) Annual Spring Conference 2018 was held on 10 May 2018, on the subject of 'Intermediary Liability and Responsibility'.
Lorna Woods (University of Essex).
The creation of open and responsible digital markets is a major policy priority across the globe, linking critically to both economic dynamism and to protecting core societal values in a challenging socio-technological environment. Amongst the most vexed and controversial aspects of this is the multi-faceted issue of ‘intermediary’ liability and responsibility. How active can an information society service be whilst still falling within an intermediary shield (safe harbour)? What potential liability and ongoing responsibilities (or duties of care) should such shielded intermediaries have for potential illegalities on their service? To what extent should the answer to this question depend on the type of intermediary (e.g. host vs conduit) and/or on the type of potential illegality? These are among the questions that are confronting us within this space.
In 2016 the European Commission announced that it would seek to complement the approach taken by the e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC), developed in the early days of the web, with a new “sectorial, problem-drive approach to regulation” (page 9). This led to the adoption, as a central part of the EU’s Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy, of proposals to regulate certain online platforms in two key areas: those of copyright and child protection and hate speech. The copyright proposal advocates the application of filtering/blocking mechanisms as routine and mandatory measures. The child protection and hate speech proposal places emphasis on platforms proactively adopting a range of measures to manage content, including through their terms and conditions, age verification and reporting/flagging systems. The legislative progress of both proposals is now well advanced. Meanwhile, the soon to be in force General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679) addresses the relationship between the intermediary shields and the responsibilities of both controllers and processors of personal data to safeguard personal information – an aspect of law that has received greater attention following the ground-breaking C-131/12 Google Spain judgment of the Court of Justice on the ‘right to be forgotten’. Finally, thinking in this area has been affected by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, notably the Grand Chamber judgment of Delfi (2015), which specifically explored the responsibilities of online news platforms for defamatory and hate speech material that interfered with an individual’s right to a private life, as well as the follow-up judgments of MTE v Hungary (2016) and Pihl v Sweden (2017).
This year’s one-day conference will provide a unique opportunity to explore where we are in this broad and important area, as well as where we might be going in the future. The morning session will take stock of current law and debate on intermediary liability and responsibility in each of the substantive areas falling under the DSM, whilst also raising critical overarching questions. The afternoon sessions will then focus on specific cross-cutting themes: (i) what should be the reach of notice-based remedies in this area and, in particular, when (if at all) should these extend to filtering/blocking; (ii) should some intermediaries have proactive obligations to respond to illegality; and (iii) what new thinking might be fruitful here, especially for the UK, given the likelihood of an imminent Brexit.
For more information, see the CIPIL website: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
The Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) Annual Spring Conference 2018 was held on 10 May 2018, on the subject of 'Intermediary Liability and Responsibility'.
This recording features Frederik Borgesius (Free University Brussels).
The creation of open and responsible digital markets is a major policy priority across the globe, linking critically to both economic dynamism and to protecting core societal values in a challenging socio-technological environment. Amongst the most vexed and controversial aspects of this is the multi-faceted issue of ‘intermediary’ liability and responsibility. How active can an information society service be whilst still falling within an intermediary shield (safe harbour)? What potential liability and ongoing responsibilities (or duties of care) should such shielded intermediaries have for potential illegalities on their service? To what extent should the answer to this question depend on the type of intermediary (e.g. host vs conduit) and/or on the type of potential illegality? These are among the questions that are confronting us within this space.
In 2016 the European Commission announced that it would seek to complement the approach taken by the e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC), developed in the early days of the web, with a new “sectorial, problem-drive approach to regulation” (page 9). This led to the adoption, as a central part of the EU’s Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy, of proposals to regulate certain online platforms in two key areas: those of copyright and child protection and hate speech. The copyright proposal advocates the application of filtering/blocking mechanisms as routine and mandatory measures. The child protection and hate speech proposal places emphasis on platforms proactively adopting a range of measures to manage content, including through their terms and conditions, age verification and reporting/flagging systems. The legislative progress of both proposals is now well advanced. Meanwhile, the soon to be in force General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679) addresses the relationship between the intermediary shields and the responsibilities of both controllers and processors of personal data to safeguard personal information – an aspect of law that has received greater attention following the ground-breaking C-131/12 Google Spain judgment of the Court of Justice on the ‘right to be forgotten’. Finally, thinking in this area has been affected by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, notably the Grand Chamber judgment of Delfi (2015), which specifically explored the responsibilities of online news platforms for defamatory and hate speech material that interfered with an individual’s right to a private life, as well as the follow-up judgments of MTE v Hungary (2016) and Pihl v Sweden (2017).
This year’s one-day conference will provide a unique opportunity to explore where we are in this broad and important area, as well as where we might be going in the future. The morning session will take stock of current law and debate on intermediary liability and responsibility in each of the substantive areas falling under the DSM, whilst also raising critical overarching questions. The afternoon sessions will then focus on specific cross-cutting themes: (i) what should be the reach of notice-based remedies in this area and, in particular, when (if at all) should these extend to filtering/blocking; (ii) should some intermediaries have proactive obligations to respond to illegality; and (iii) what new thinking might be fruitful here, especially for the UK, given the likelihood of an imminent Brexit.
For more information, see the CIPIL website: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
The Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) Annual Spring Conference 2018 was held on 10 May 2018, on the subject of 'Intermediary Liability and Responsibility'.
This recording features Martin Senftleben (Free University Amsterdam (VU)).
The creation of open and responsible digital markets is a major policy priority across the globe, linking critically to both economic dynamism and to protecting core societal values in a challenging socio-technological environment. Amongst the most vexed and controversial aspects of this is the multi-faceted issue of ‘intermediary’ liability and responsibility. How active can an information society service be whilst still falling within an intermediary shield (safe harbour)? What potential liability and ongoing responsibilities (or duties of care) should such shielded intermediaries have for potential illegalities on their service? To what extent should the answer to this question depend on the type of intermediary (e.g. host vs conduit) and/or on the type of potential illegality? These are among the questions that are confronting us within this space.
In 2016 the European Commission announced that it would seek to complement the approach taken by the e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC), developed in the early days of the web, with a new “sectorial, problem-drive approach to regulation” (page 9). This led to the adoption, as a central part of the EU’s Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy, of proposals to regulate certain online platforms in two key areas: those of copyright and child protection and hate speech. The copyright proposal advocates the application of filtering/blocking mechanisms as routine and mandatory measures. The child protection and hate speech proposal places emphasis on platforms proactively adopting a range of measures to manage content, including through their terms and conditions, age verification and reporting/flagging systems. The legislative progress of both proposals is now well advanced. Meanwhile, the soon to be in force General Data Protection Regulation (2016/679) addresses the relationship between the intermediary shields and the responsibilities of both controllers and processors of personal data to safeguard personal information – an aspect of law that has received greater attention following the ground-breaking C-131/12 Google Spain judgment of the Court of Justice on the ‘right to be forgotten’. Finally, thinking in this area has been affected by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, notably the Grand Chamber judgment of Delfi (2015), which specifically explored the responsibilities of online news platforms for defamatory and hate speech material that interfered with an individual’s right to a private life, as well as the follow-up judgments of MTE v Hungary (2016) and Pihl v Sweden (2017).
This year’s one-day conference will provide a unique opportunity to explore where we are in this broad and important area, as well as where we might be going in the future. The morning session will take stock of current law and debate on intermediary liability and responsibility in each of the substantive areas falling under the DSM, whilst also raising critical overarching questions. The afternoon sessions will then focus on specific cross-cutting themes: (i) what should be the reach of notice-based remedies in this area and, in particular, when (if at all) should these extend to filtering/blocking; (ii) should some intermediaries have proactive obligations to respond to illegality; and (iii) what new thinking might be fruitful here, especially for the UK, given the likelihood of an imminent Brexit.
For more information, see the CIPIL website: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/cipil-spring-conference
Bernt Hugenholtz, Professor of Copyright Law, and Co-Director of the Institute for Information Law (IViR) of the University of Amsterdam, spoke on the topic of "'Orthogonalising' Copyright: Reclaiming lost culture and getting authors paid" at a seminar on 16 November 2017.
Bernt Hugenholtz is Professor of Copyright Law, and Co-Director of the Institute for Information Law (IViR) of the University of Amsterdam. He is also a professor at the University of Bergen (Norway), and lecturer at the Munich Intellectual Property Law Center (Munich). Prof. Hugenholtz has acted as an advisor to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Netherlands government. He is co-author and editor, with Prof. Thomas Dreier (TU Karlsruhe), of Concise European Copyright Law (2nd. ed. 2016), and co-author, with Professor Paul Goldstein (Stanford University), of International Copyright Law (3rd ed. 2013). Prof. Hugenholtz is one of the founders of the Wittem Group that drafted the European Copyright Code, and a co-founder and member of the European Copyright Society.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Dr Judith Townend, lecturer in media and information law at the University of Sussex, spoke on the topic of 'Of data and judges: the conundrum of public access to information from the court' at a seminar on 2 March 2018.
Dr Judith Townend is lecturer in media and information law at the University of Sussex, where she specialises in research relating to freedom of expression and access to information. She has been preoccupied by courts data since 2011 and has written for a wide range of media and academic publications. Prior to joining Sussex in 2016, she was lecturer and director of the Information Law and Policy Centre at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies. Her route into socio-legal research was relatively unorthodox, having studied Archaeology & Anthropology at the University of Cambridge as an undergraduate before training and working in journalism at the beginning of her career. Her doctoral studies at City University's Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism focused on the so-called 'chilling effect' phenomenon in the context of defamation and privacy law.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Patricia Collis, Trade Mark Attorney from Bird & Bird, spoke on the topic of 'The challenges for trade mark practitioners in the age of Brexit' at a seminar on 14 February 2018.
Patricia is a Senior Associate at the international law firm Bird & Bird. She is based in their London office where she works in the brand management team. In addition to helping clients create, exploit and maintain trade mark and design rights across the globe, she advises on contentious matters and has experience of proceedings at the UK Intellectual Property Office, the EU Intellectual Property Office, the High Court and the General Court. She also advises on issues relating to domain names, company names and copyright. Patricia holds an MA and an LLM from the University of Cambridge, and is qualified as a European Trade Mark & Design Attorney, UK Chartered Trade Mark Attorney and Registered Trade Mark Attorney in Ireland. Patricia is co-author of The European Union Trade Mark: A Practical Guide (2016, Globe Law and Business), co-editor of The CITMA & CIPA Community Designs Handbook (Sweet & Maxwell) and sits on the Designs Committee of the European Communities Trade Mark Association (ECTA). She has also been involved in the Brexit Working Group on Designs for the Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorney (CITMA).
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Hugh Tomlinson QC, Matrix Chambers, spoke on the topic of 'Sex, Lies and Unfairly Processed Data: The Information Torts in Practice' at a seminar on 1 February 2018.
Hugh Tomlinson QC is one of the leading practitioners in media and information law. He has appeared in many of the most important and innovative cases in recent years including Clift v Slough BC, Mosley v Google, PJS v News Group Newspapers and Vidal-Hall v Google. He is currently representing five and half million iPhone users in the Lloyd v Google Inc, the first "opt out" data protection action to be brought in the English Courts. He has a wide-ranging practice in both private and public law. His practice also includes advisory work and litigation in the freedom of information field. He is joint author of the leading practitioner texts on the law of human rights and on civil actions against the police and has, most recently edited Online Publication Claims: A Practical Guide.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Martin J Adelman, Theodore and James Pedas Family Professor IP & Technology Law - George Washington University Law School, spoke on the topic of 'The United States law of patent eligibility regarding products of nature and natural laws from nitrogen fixing bacteria to genes' at a seminar on 23 November 2017.
Professor Adelman is currently the Theodore and James Pedas Family Professor of Intellectual Property and Technology Law and Co-Director of the Dean Dinwoodey Center for Intellectual Property Studies at George Washington University Law School. Before a career in academia he practiced for several years as a patent attorney in the Detroit area. The current focus of his teaching and scholarship is in the field of patent law. He has written many law review articles on patent law and patent-antitrust law. From 1977 to 1988 he was one of the co-authors and from 1988-2013 the sole author of the continuously updated nine volume treatise on patent law entitled Patent Law Perspectives. He is a co-author of Cases and Materials on Patent Law and Global Issues in Patent Law. He has testified as an expert in patent law in about 190 patent infringement cases and has lectured at conferences around the world. In addition to his regular three patent law courses at GW, he teaches patent law on a regular basis at Munich Intellectual Property Law Center, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Bar-Ilan University and the University of Washington.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Rebecca Giblin, Associate Professor of Law, Monash University Australia, spoke on the topic of "'Orthogonalising' Copyright: Reclaiming lost culture and getting authors paid" at a seminar on 16 November 2017.
Dr Rebecca Giblin is an ARC Future Fellow and Associate Professor within Monash University's Law Faculty. During 2011 she was the Kernochan Visiting International Intellectual Property Scholar at Columbia Law School in New York, and in 2013 a Senior Visiting Scholar in residence at Berkeley. Dr Giblin has published widely in the areas of copyright, access to knowledge (A2K) and regulation of emerging technologies, including Code Wars (Edward Elgar, 2011) and What if we could reimagine copyright? (ANU Press, 2017). In addition to her ARC Future Fellowship project (introduced in this seminar, see also authorsinterest.org), Giblin is also the lead Chief Investigator of an ARC Linkage Project, working with legal, social and data science researchers, together with library partners in five jurisdictions, to understand the legal and social impacts of library e-lending. She tweets @rgibli.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Susanna HS Leong, Professor of Law at the NUS Business School, National University of Singapore, spoke on the topic of 'Internet Intermediaries and Copyright Infringement – Who makes the copy?' at a seminar on 9 November 2017.
Susanna HS Leong is a Professor of Law at the NUS Business School, National University of Singapore and is an Advocate & Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore. Susanna received her LL.B (Hons) from National University of Singapore and her LL.M (with Merit) from University College London, University of London. She teaches business related law courses such as contract, sale of goods and intellectual property to undergraduate and graduate business students in English and Chinese. Her research interests are in intellectual property and technology-related laws. She has published in several international and local academic journals. She is also the author of “Intellectual Property Law of Singapore”, Academy Publishing, Singapore.
Susanna was the Vice-Dean, Graduate Studies, NUS Business School (January 2008 to December 2016). She is a Senior Fellow at the Intellectual Property Academy of Singapore. She is a member of WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre’s Domain Name Panel, a member of The Regional Centre for Arbitration, Kuala Lumpur (RCAKL) Panel and a member of Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (Hong Kong). She is also a member of the Singapore Copyright Tribunal.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Dan L. Burk, Chancellor’s Professor of Law at the University of California, Irvine, spoke on the topic of 'Algorithmic Fair Use' at a seminar on 3 November 2017.
Dan L. Burk is Chancellor’s Professor of Law at the University of California, Irvine, where he is a founding member of the law faculty. An internationally prominent authority on issues related to high technology, he lectures, teaches, and writes in the areas of patent, copyright, electronic commerce, and biotechnology law. He is the author of numerous papers on the legal and societal impact of new technologies, including articles on Internet regulation, on the structure of the patent system, and on the economic analysis of intellectual property law. He holds a B.S. in Microbiology (1985) from Brigham Young University, an M.S. in Molecular Biology and Biochemistry (1987) from Northwestern University, a J.D. (1990) from Arizona State University, and a J.S.M. (1994) from Stanford University. He has served as a legal advisor to a variety of private, governmental, and intergovernmental organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union Committee on Patent Policy and the OECD Committee on Consumer Protection.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Graeme Austin, Professor of Law, Melbourne University & Chair in Private Law, Victoria University of Wellington, spoke on the topic of 'Trademarks and Private Governance' at a seminar on 19 May 2017.
Graeme Austin is a Professor of Law, Melbourne University and Chair of Private Law, Victoria University of Wellington. He is a graduate of Columbia University Law School (JSD and LLM) and from Victoria University of Wellington. At Columbia he was the Burton Fellow in Residence in Intellectual Property. Before returning to New Zealand in 2010, he was the J. Byron McCormick Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, where he co-convened the intellectual property programme. In 2014, he was the Yong Shook Lin Visiting Professor of Intellectual Property at the National University of Singapore teaching private international law and intellectual property, and, in 2017 he will be the Lionel Sheridan Visiting Professor at NUS. An elected Member of the American Law Institute, he was appointed as an Advisor to its panel on Principles Governing Jurisdiction, Choice of Law, and Judgments in Transnational Disputes. He has been a Herchel Smith Lecturer at Cambridge University, and in 2017 he will be a visitor at Oxford University under the Myers/Oxford fellowship.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Tim Dornis, Leuphana Law School, spoke on the topic of "Behind the Steele Curtain: An Empirical Study of Trademark Conflicts Law, 1952-2016" at a seminar on 18 May 2017.
Tim W. Dornis is a professor of law at Leuphana Law School (Lüneburg, Germany). He studied law and economics in Germany (Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen) and in the United States (Columbia University, LL.M. (James Kent Scholar) and Stanford Law School, J.S.M.). Before joining Leuphana’s faculty, Tim spent several years practicing in an international law firm and as a civil-law judge in Germany. He was also a Hauser Global Fellow at New York University School of Law. His habilitation thesis (University of Zurich, Switzerland) has been published by Cambridge University Press under the title Trademark and Unfair Competition Conflicts: Historical-Comparative, Doctrinal, and Economic Perspectives.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Stephen J. Schulhofer, of New York University, gave an evening seminar entitled "Cross-Border Challenges to Data Privacy" on 17 March 2017 at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law) and LCIL (Lauterpacht Centre for International Law).
Stephen J. Schulhofer, the Robert B. McKay Professor of Law at New York University, is one of America’s leading scholars of criminal justice. He has written more than 50 scholarly articles and seven books, including the leading casebook in the field, and widely cited work on many criminal justice and national security topics. His most recent book, Surveillance, Privacy and Transatlantic Relations (Hart, 2017) (with David Cole & Federico Fabbrini) examines the multiple challenges to democracy and privacy as well as to national security and global economic development posed by technological advance and pressures for effective responses to transnational terrorism. His book More Essential Than Ever: The Fourth Amendment in the Twenty-First Century (Oxford University Press, 2012) provides a comprehensive analysis of Fourth Amendment history and current legal doctrine, along with discussion of contemporary problems concerning searches, electronic surveillance, and the intersection between national security needs and the right to privacy. His journal articles address counterterrorism, police interrogation, drug enforcement, indigent defense, plea bargaining, and many other criminal justice matters. Schulhofer’s current projects include analyses of national security secrecy, the right to privacy in electronic communications, and an empirical study of the impact of counterterrorism policing on immigrant communities in New York and London. Previously, Schulhofer taught at the University of Chicago and the University of Pennsylvania. He completed his BA at Princeton University and his JD at Harvard Law School, both summa cum laude. He then clerked for two years for US Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black and practiced law for three years before beginning his academic career.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Professor Niva Elkin-Koren, of Haifa Center for Law and Technology delivered the twelth Annual International Intellectual Property Lecture (funded from the Herchel Smith Bequest) at Emmanuel College entitled 'Fair Use by Design' on 14 March 2016 as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Professor Niva Elkin-Koren is the founding director of the Haifa Center for Law & Technology (HCLT) and the former dean of the University of Haifa, Faculty of Law. She is also a Faculty Associate at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University.
Her research focuses on the legal institutions that facilitate private and public control over the production and dissemination of information. She has written and spoken extensively about the privatization of information policy, private ordering, economic analysis of intellectual property, technology transfer and legal strategies for enhancing the public domain. From 2002 to 2006 she was a Member of the Israeli Cinema Commission. She is currently a member of the Patent Authority Audit Commission in Israel, a member of the Academic Directors and Steering Committee of the Jerusalem Center for Ethics, Mishkenot Shaananim, and a co-founder of the Alliance of Israeli Institutions of Higher Education for Promoting Access to Scientific Materials. She is the Chair of the Scientific Advisory Council, of the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society in Berlin, a member of the Executive Committee of Association for the Advancement of Teaching and Research in Intellectual Property (ATRIP), and an Advisory Board Member of the Information Program of the Open Society Foundation.
Prof. Elkin-Koren received her LL.B from Tel-Aviv University Faculty of Law in 1989, her LL.M from Harvard Law School in 1991, and her S.J.D from Stanford Law School in 1995.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.
On Saturday 11 March 2017 the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held it's annual Spring Conference, entitled 'Intellectual Property and Human Rights'.
In this recording, Professor Laurence Helfer of Duke University speaks on the topic of 'Using Intellectual Property Tools to Achieve Human Rights Ends: The Example of the Marrakesh VIP Treaty'.
On Saturday 11 March 2017 the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held it's annual Spring Conference, entitled 'Intellectual Property and Human Rights'.
In this recording, Dr Stephanie Palmer of the University of Cambridge speaks on the topic of 'Tobacco Legislation, Trade Mark Rights and the Right to Health'.
On Saturday 11 March 2017 the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held it's annual Spring Conference, entitled 'Intellectual Property and Human Rights'.
In this recording, Dr Siva Thambissety of the LSE speaks on the topic of 'Patents and the Right to Health'.
On Saturday 11 March 2017 the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held it's annual Spring Conference, entitled 'Intellectual Property and Human Rights'.
In this recording, Dr Christina Angelopolous of CIPIL speaks on the topic of 'Human Rights in Intermediary Copyright Liability'.
On Saturday 11 March 2017 the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held it's annual Spring Conference, entitled 'Intellectual Property and Human Rights'.
In this recording, Professor Martin Senftleben of VU Amsterdam speaks on the topic of 'Copyright and Freedom of Expression'.
On Saturday 11 March 2017 the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held it's annual Spring Conference, entitled 'Intellectual Property and Human Rights'.
In this recording, Professor Jonathan Griffiths of QMUL speaks on the topic of 'The Balancing Methodology'.
On Saturday 11 March 2017 the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held it's annual Spring Conference, entitled 'Intellectual Property and Human Rights'.
In this recording, Dr Martin Husovec of the University of Tilburg speaks on the topic of 'The Human Right to Intellectual Property in the Charter'.
On Saturday 11 March 2017 the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held it's annual Spring Conference, entitled 'Intellectual Property and Human Rights'.
In this recording, Dr Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan of the University of Cambridge speaks on the topic of 'Linking Intellectual Property and Human Rights: Concepts, Perspectives, and Tools for Integration'.
On Saturday 11 March 2017 the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held it's annual Spring Conference, entitled 'Intellectual Property and Human Rights'.
In this recording, Dr Surabhi Ranganathan of the University of Cambridge speaks on the topic of 'The International Sources of Human Rights: The UDHR, Covenants, ECHR and EU Charter'.
Rupprecht Podszun is a full professor for civil law and competition law at the University of Düsseldorf in Germany. Previously, he held the chair for civil law, IP law and economic law at the University of Bayreuth. He was a Senior Research Fellow with the Munich Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition from 2007-2012 and a case officer at the German national competition authority from 2005 to 2007. He is an editor of the leading German competition law journal Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb and of the Journal of European Consumer and Market Law. At present, Rupprecht is a Visiting Scholar at Cambridge.
Rupprecht gave an evening seminar entitled "Contextualising the IP versus competition law clash – an evolutionary approach to the Huawei case" on 2 March 2017 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Dr Kathy Bowrey is Professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. Her research explores laws and practices that inform the production, distribution and reception of culture and knowledge creation, with a particular interest in analysing the impact of the regulatory environment on creative practice, public institutions and understandings of community, identity and nationhood. Her primary expertise relates to intellectual property, media and information technology regulation, informed by legal history, feminist legal scholarship and a concern for Indigenous rights.
Kathy gave an evening seminar entitled "Myths, Legends and Imaginary Legal Subjects: Reconsidering the legal and business relations of Lewis Carroll, Beatrix Potter, Felix the Cat and Mickey Mouse" on 2 February 2017 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Professor Michael Madison is Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Innovation Practice Institute at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. He writes and teaches about intellectual property law and policy, and about questions concerning the production and distribution of knowledge and innovation. He is the author of more than 30 journal articles and book chapters, the co-author of The Law of Intellectual Property (Wolters Kluwer, 4th edition 2013) and the co-editor of Governing Knowledge Commons (Oxford University Press 2014). He is the co-founder of the global research network titled the Workshop on Governing Knowledge Commons. Classroom subjects include various disciplines of intellectual property law, contracts and commercial law, and property law. His research and scholarship address the emerging discipline of knowledge commons, governance of innovation institutions, and knowledge as a subject of legal regulation. He joined the Pitt Law faculty in 1998. Before becoming a law professor, Professor Madison practiced law in San Francisco and Silicon Valley for nine years. He received his JD from Stanford University and his BA from Yale.
Michael gave an evening seminar entitled "Governing Medical Knowledge Commons" on 25 October 2016 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Dr Rufus Pollock is Founder and President of Open Knowledge, an international non-profit using advocacy, technology and training to unlock information and see it used to create insight that drives change. He was formerly a Shuttleworth Foundation Fellow and a Mead Fellow in Economics at Emmanuel College, University of Cambridge and remains an Associate of the Centre for Information and Intellectual Property Law at Cambridge. He is an adviser on open data to several governments and has worked extensively as a scholar, activist and technologist on the social, legal and technical challenges surrounding the creation and sharing of knowledge.
Rufus gave an evening seminar entitled "Making an Open Information Age: Law, Politics and Economics" on Wednesday 11 May 2016 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
On Thursday 28 April, Dr David Erdos, University Lecturer in Law and the Open Society, Faculty of Law & WYNG Fellow in Law, Trinity Hall, University of Cambridge gave a CELS/CIPIL Joint Seminar on the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
This seminar takes a first look at the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) now finally agreed by the European institutions. Is it a “historic victory” for EU citizens as argued by Viviane Reding - the EU Commissioner responsible for its inception in 2012 - or does it as DIGITALEUROPE suggests fail to "strike the proper balance between protecting citizens’ fundamental rights to privacy and the ability for business in Europe to become more competitive" as well as appropriately reconcile the right to data protection with other fundamental rights? The talk will argue that, whilst the GDPR will further the EU’s track record of safeguarding individuals in a world of ever accelerating technological threats, it is also likely to both entrench and augment many of its pathologies including a lack of clarity as regards goals, a poor fit with liberal freedoms, an excess of bureaucratic red tape, and a large and growing gap between the law on the books and contemporary digital realities.
Slides for this presentation are available at:
http://www.slideshare.net/DavidErdos1/historic-victory-or-false-dawn-analysing-the-eu-data-protection-regulation
Session 4: What else might a law do? The effects on consumers, the internet, new entrants to the market, and freedom of expression. Professor Ian Hargreaves (University of Cardiff), chairs a panel discussing these issues comprised of Professor John Naughton (University of Cambridge), Agustín Reyna (BEUC), James Mckenzie (Cutbot), Professor Mireille van Eechoud (University of Amsterdam)
This is a recording of a conference entitled "Conference: Copyright, related rights and the news in the EU: Assessing potential new laws" held on Saturday 23rd April 2016 at the University of Amsterdam.
The difficulties of commercial journalism
Like music and other branches of publishing, commercial news journalism has faced radical challenges over the last two decades. There is talk of the "death of the newspaper" and questions have been raised about the very future of journalism. While with music, books and films, the greatest threat to existing business models have been seen as the unauthorised and unremunerated home copying and peer-to-peer distribution, with commercial news journalism much of the challenge derives from the fact that advertising has not followed the shift of print-newspapers to the Internet. Such difficulties are compounded, from the point of view of news publishers, by the relatively free availability of news from other online sources. And they’ve been further compounded by the recent rise of social media, particularly Facebook, as a main route to the news.
Questions that arise
Is there sufficient rationale to alter copyright or related laws in a way that benefits news publishers? Should commercial news publishers benefit from any change in the law, given that other means exist for gathering and disseminating news? How strong is an economic case for such a right? To what extent is any economic case for change supplemented by other arguments, such as reward and natural rights arguments, and arguments about media plurality? Should European law treat news publishers in a similar way to other content producers, such as phonogram producers and broadcasters, who benefit from a related right? Would individual journalists benefit from a right afforded to news publishers, and if so, to what extent? Should news publishers benefit from levies and compensation schemes designed to benefit author-journalists?
This one day conference at IViR sought to address these questions. The conference was part of a two-year, AHRC funded project at CIPIL, Cambridge University, entitled Appraising Potential Legal Responses to Threats to the Production of News in a Digital Environment, which the IViR kindly hosted and facilitated.
The conference brought together an interdisciplinary combination of academics and practitioners to discuss the issue, including representatives from news producing, publishing and disseminating organizations, both traditional and online.
More information: http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/conference-copyright-related-rights-and-news-eu-assessing-potential-new-laws
Session 3: Could a new law help? What is the economic evidence? What legal restraints would a new law have to observe? What political concerns are likely to be raised by a new law? Professor Lionel Bently (University of Cambridge), chairs a panel discussing these issues comprised of Bertin Martens (European Commission, speaking in a personal capacity), Professor Bernt Hugenholtz (University of Amsterdam), Marietje Schaake MEP
This is a recording of a conference entitled "Conference: Copyright, related rights and the news in the EU: Assessing potential new laws" held on Saturday 23rd April 2016 at the University of Amsterdam.
The difficulties of commercial journalism
Like music and other branches of publishing, commercial news journalism has faced radical challenges over the last two decades. There is talk of the "death of the newspaper" and questions have been raised about the very future of journalism. While with music, books and films, the greatest threat to existing business models have been seen as the unauthorised and unremunerated home copying and peer-to-peer distribution, with commercial news journalism much of the challenge derives from the fact that advertising has not followed the shift of print-newspapers to the Internet. Such difficulties are compounded, from the point of view of news publishers, by the relatively free availability of news from other online sources. And they’ve been further compounded by the recent rise of social media, particularly Facebook, as a main route to the news.
Questions that arise
Is there sufficient rationale to alter copyright or related laws in a way that benefits news publishers? Should commercial news publishers benefit from any change in the law, given that other means exist for gathering and disseminating news? How strong is an economic case for such a right? To what extent is any economic case for change supplemented by other arguments, such as reward and natural rights arguments, and arguments about media plurality? Should European law treat news publishers in a similar way to other content producers, such as phonogram producers and broadcasters, who benefit from a related right? Would individual journalists benefit from a right afforded to news publishers, and if so, to what extent? Should news publishers benefit from levies and compensation schemes designed to benefit author-journalists?
This one day conference at IViR sought to address these questions. The conference was part of a two-year, AHRC funded project at CIPIL, Cambridge University, entitled Appraising Potential Legal Responses to Threats to the Production of News in a Digital Environment, which the IViR kindly hosted and facilitated.
The conference brought together an interdisciplinary combination of academics and practitioners to discuss the issue, including representatives from news producing, publishing and disseminating organizations, both traditional and online.
More information: http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/conference-copyright-related-rights-and-news-eu-assessing-potential-new-laws
Session 2: What went before? What legal responses have there been in other countries, and what can be learnt from these about the prospects, requirements and effect of any new law? Professor Bernt Hugenholtz (University of Amsterdam) chairs a panel discussing these issues, comprised of Professor Michael Grünberger (University Bäyreuth), Professor Raquel Xalabarder (Universitat Oberta de Catalunya), Søren Christian Søborg Andersen (Horten), and Chris Beall (LSKS Law)
Slides for this session are available at:
- Professor Raquel Xalabarder:
http://resources.law.cam.ac.uk/cipil/documents/copyright_related_rights_and_the_news_in_the_eu/Xalabarder_2016_News_IVIR.pdf
- Professor Michael Grünberger:
http://resources.law.cam.ac.uk/cipil/documents/copyright_related_rights_and_the_news_in_the_eu/Gruenberger%20Ancillary%20Right.pdf
This is a recording of a conference entitled "Conference: Copyright, related rights and the news in the EU: Assessing potential new laws" held on Saturday 23rd April 2016 at the University of Amsterdam.
The difficulties of commercial journalism
Like music and other branches of publishing, commercial news journalism has faced radical challenges over the last two decades. There is talk of the "death of the newspaper" and questions have been raised about the very future of journalism. While with music, books and films, the greatest threat to existing business models have been seen as the unauthorised and unremunerated home copying and peer-to-peer distribution, with commercial news journalism much of the challenge derives from the fact that advertising has not followed the shift of print-newspapers to the Internet. Such difficulties are compounded, from the point of view of news publishers, by the relatively free availability of news from other online sources. And they’ve been further compounded by the recent rise of social media, particularly Facebook, as a main route to the news.
Questions that arise
Is there sufficient rationale to alter copyright or related laws in a way that benefits news publishers? Should commercial news publishers benefit from any change in the law, given that other means exist for gathering and disseminating news? How strong is an economic case for such a right? To what extent is any economic case for change supplemented by other arguments, such as reward and natural rights arguments, and arguments about media plurality? Should European law treat news publishers in a similar way to other content producers, such as phonogram producers and broadcasters, who benefit from a related right? Would individual journalists benefit from a right afforded to news publishers, and if so, to what extent? Should news publishers benefit from levies and compensation schemes designed to benefit author-journalists?
A one day conference at IViR will seek to address these questions. The conference is part of a two-year, AHRC funded project at CIPIL, Cambridge University, entitled Appraising Potential Legal Responses to Threats to the Production of News in a Digital Environment, which the IViR will kindly host and facilitate.
The conference brings together an interdisciplinary combination of academics and practitioners to discuss the issue. Representatives from news producing, publishing and disseminating organizations, both traditional and online, have been invited and speakers will include Andrew Hughes from the NLA Media Access. Academic speakers include Lionel Bently and John Naughton from Cambridge; Bernt Hugenholtz and Mireille van Eechoud from IViR; Ian Hargreaves from Cardiff University; Raquel Xalabarder (UOC Barcelona) and Jan Hegemann (FU Berlin).
More information: http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/conference-copyright-related-rights-and-news-eu-assessing-potential-new-laws
Session 1: Why are we here? What problems face news publishers? Why is this important? Why might we expect a new European copyright or related law to help resolve them? Professor Ian Hargreaves (University of Cardiff) chairs a panel discussing these issues, comprised of Dr Richard Danbury (University of Cambridge), Professor Dr Jan Hegemann (Raue LLP), Matt Rogerson (The Guardian), Andrew J Hughes (NLA Media Access, speaking in a personal capacity), Mark Seeley (RELX).
Slides for this session are available at:
http://resources.law.cam.ac.uk/cipil/documents/copyright_related_rights_and_the_news_in_the_eu/slidesNewsCopyrightconference(v.1).pdf
This is a recording of a conference entitled "Conference: Copyright, related rights and the news in the EU: Assessing potential new laws" held on Saturday 23rd April 2016 at the University of Amsterdam.
The difficulties of commercial journalism
Like music and other branches of publishing, commercial news journalism has faced radical challenges over the last two decades. There is talk of the "death of the newspaper" and questions have been raised about the very future of journalism. While with music, books and films, the greatest threat to existing business models have been seen as the unauthorised and unremunerated home copying and peer-to-peer distribution, with commercial news journalism much of the challenge derives from the fact that advertising has not followed the shift of print-newspapers to the Internet. Such difficulties are compounded, from the point of view of news publishers, by the relatively free availability of news from other online sources. And they’ve been further compounded by the recent rise of social media, particularly Facebook, as a main route to the news.
Questions that arise
Is there sufficient rationale to alter copyright or related laws in a way that benefits news publishers? Should commercial news publishers benefit from any change in the law, given that other means exist for gathering and disseminating news? How strong is an economic case for such a right? To what extent is any economic case for change supplemented by other arguments, such as reward and natural rights arguments, and arguments about media plurality? Should European law treat news publishers in a similar way to other content producers, such as phonogram producers and broadcasters, who benefit from a related right? Would individual journalists benefit from a right afforded to news publishers, and if so, to what extent? Should news publishers benefit from levies and compensation schemes designed to benefit author-journalists?
This one day conference at IViR sought to address these questions. The conference was part of a two-year, AHRC funded project at CIPIL, Cambridge University, entitled Appraising Potential Legal Responses to Threats to the Production of News in a Digital Environment, which the IViR kindly hosted and facilitated.
The conference brought together an interdisciplinary combination of academics and practitioners to discuss the issue, including representatives from news producing, publishing and disseminating organizations, both traditional and online.
More information: http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/seminars-and-events/conference-copyright-related-rights-and-news-eu-assessing-potential-new-laws
Dr Orla Lynskey of the London School of Economics gave an evening seminar entitled "The Consolidation of Personal Datasets: From Data Protection to Data Plurality" on Thursday 21 April 2016 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
On Saturday 12 March 2016 the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held it's annual Spring Conference, entitled 'The Essence of IP: Scope of Protection'.
In this recording, Sara Ashby (Redd Solicitors) speaks on the topic of 'Scope of Designs: Missed Opportunities, Mysteries and Misunderstood'.
On Saturday 12 March 2016 the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held it's annual Spring Conference, entitled 'The Essence of IP: Scope of Protection'.
In this recording, Simon Malyniz QC (3 New Square) speaks on the topic of 'Not Just Black and White: Distilling the Ingredients of Trade Mark Scope'.
On Saturday 12 March 2016 the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL) held it's annual Spring Conference, entitled 'The Essence of IP: Scope of Protection'.
In this recording, Michael Silverleaf QC (11 South Square) speaks on the topic of 'Fair Protection or Reasonable Certainty: Which is it to Be?'.
Professor Alain Strowel delivered the eleventh Annual International Intellectual Property Lecture (funded from the Herchel Smith Bequest) at Emmanuel College entitled 'Big Data in the platform economy: A need to redesign the rules?' on 8 March 2016 as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Alain serves as a professor at the Saint-Louis University (Brussels) and the UCLouvain (Belgium). He teaches as well at the KULeuven and the Munich Intellectual Property Law Center. His courses cover mainly copyright, media and design law.
Alain graduated in law (1983) and obtained a Ph. D. in law (1992) from the UCLouvain. In addition, he obtained graduate degrees in economics (1984) and philosophy (1985). He has authored numerous articles and a few books, including Droit d’auteur et copyright (LGDJ and Bruylant, 1993), Droit d’auteur et numérique: logiciels, bases de données, multimédia (with Estelle Derclaye, Bruylant, 2001) and Quand Google défie le droit (De Boeck et Larcier, 2011). He has edited various books among which: Of Authors and Origins (with Brad Sherman, Clarendon Press, 1994), Droit d’auteur et liberté d’expression (with Fr. Tulkens, Larcier, 2006), Intellectual Property and Theories of Justice (with A. Gosseries et A. Marciano, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), Peer-to-Peer File Sharing and Secondary Liability in Copyright Law (Edward Elgar, 2009), Le téléchargement d’œuvres sur Internet (with C. Doutrelepont et Fr. Dubuisson, Larcier, 2012), Net Neutrality in Europe – La neutralité de l’Internet en Europe (Bruylant, 2013).
Alain Strowel is a avocat at the Brussels bar since 1988. Alain Strowel’s practice concentrates on intellectual property, media and information technology law. Prior to join the U.S. firm Covington & Burling LLP (2001-2014), Alain worked in the Brussels IP section of the Dutch firm NautaDutilh.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.
Professor Alain Strowel delivered the eleventh Annual International Intellectual Property Lecture (funded from the Herchel Smith Bequest) at Emmanuel College entitled 'Big Data in the platform economy: A need to redesign the rules?' on 8 March 2016 as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Alain serves as a professor at the Saint-Louis University (Brussels) and the UCLouvain (Belgium). He teaches as well at the KULeuven and the Munich Intellectual Property Law Center. His courses cover mainly copyright, media and design law.
Alain graduated in law (1983) and obtained a Ph. D. in law (1992) from the UCLouvain. In addition, he obtained graduate degrees in economics (1984) and philosophy (1985). He has authored numerous articles and a few books, including Droit d’auteur et copyright (LGDJ and Bruylant, 1993), Droit d’auteur et numérique: logiciels, bases de données, multimédia (with Estelle Derclaye, Bruylant, 2001) and Quand Google défie le droit (De Boeck et Larcier, 2011). He has edited various books among which: Of Authors and Origins (with Brad Sherman, Clarendon Press, 1994), Droit d’auteur et liberté d’expression (with Fr. Tulkens, Larcier, 2006), Intellectual Property and Theories of Justice (with A. Gosseries et A. Marciano, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), Peer-to-Peer File Sharing and Secondary Liability in Copyright Law (Edward Elgar, 2009), Le téléchargement d’œuvres sur Internet (with C. Doutrelepont et Fr. Dubuisson, Larcier, 2012), Net Neutrality in Europe – La neutralité de l’Internet en Europe (Bruylant, 2013).
Alain Strowel is a avocat at the Brussels bar since 1988. Alain Strowel’s practice concentrates on intellectual property, media and information technology law. Prior to join the U.S. firm Covington & Burling LLP (2001-2014), Alain worked in the Brussels IP section of the Dutch firm NautaDutilh.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Dev Gangjee joined Oxford in 2013 as an Associate Professor in Intellectual Property within the Law Faculty as well as a Tutorial Fellow at St Hilda's College. He is presently Director of the Oxford Diploma in IP Law and Practice. Prior to this, he was a senior lecturer at the London School of Economics. Dev is a graduate of the National Law School of India and Oxford, where he was a Rhodes Scholar. He has acted in an advisory capacity for national governments, law firms, international organisations and the European Commission on IP issues.
Dev's research focuses on Intellectual Property (IP), with a special emphasis on Branding and Trade Marks, Geographical Indications and Copyright law. Additional research interests include the history and political economy of IP, collective and open innovation, and the interface between IP and theories of development. He is an Academic Member of the Oxford IP Research Centre and a Research Affiliate with IP Osgoode, Canada. He is also an Editorial Board member of the Modern Law Review and editor for its Legislation and Reports Section.
Dr Dev S Gangjee, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford gave an evening seminar entitled "Is Functionality Functioning? Exclusions for 3D Marks in the EU" on Thursday 25 February 2016 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Patricia Collis is a UK and European trade mark and design attorney at Bird & Bird in London. She has worked in the field of brand management for almost 10 years, and acted for some of the world’s largest brands. Prior to embarking on this career she studied for a law degree and then an LLM at the University of Cambridge.
Patricia gave an evening seminar entitled "A Career in Brand Management: Becoming A Trade Mark Attorney" on Wednesday 17 February 2016 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Christopher Kuner Professor of Law and Co-Chairman (with Prof. Paul De Hert) of the Brussels Privacy Research Hub at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, gave an evening seminar entitled "Reality and illusion in EU data protection law post Schrems" on Monday 25 January 2016 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
BACKGOUND TO THE TALK: The path-breaking Grand Chamber judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Schrems case (2015) declared invalid the Commission's Safe Harbour Decision - which had been a principal mechanism for ensuring the transfer of personal information between the EU and US for well over a decade - on the basis that it failed to ensure "adequate" protection. The Court also stated that, irrespective of any Commission Decision, Data Protection Authorities were in fact responsible for investigating whether "adequacy" had in fact been achieved and suggested that "adequate" had the stringent meaning of "essentially equivalent" to the EU regime.
ABOUT THE SPEAKER: Christopher Kuner is Professor of Law and Co-Chairman (with Prof. Paul De Hert) of the Brussels Privacy Research Hub at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB or Free University of Brussels, a major research university located in central Brussels). He is also an associate professor in the Law Faculty of the University of Copenhagen, an affiliated lecturer and Honorary Fellow of the Centre for European Legal Studies of the University of Cambridge, a Visiting Professor in the Department of Law in the London School of Economics and Political Science and Senior Privacy Counsel in the Brussels office of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. He is also editor-in-chief of the periodical 'International Data Privacy Law' published by Oxford University Press. He previously founded and led the European data protection practice at Hunton & Williams in Brussels, and also worked at the law firms of Morrison & Foerster (Brussels) and Gleiss Lutz (Stuttgart and Frankfurt).
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Professor Carlos Maria Correa (Director of the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies on Industrial Property at the Law Faculty, University of Buenos Aires) gave a seminar entitled "The Role of Intellectual Property for Development – Experiences from 20 Years of TRIPS" on Thursday 26 November 2015 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Professor Carlos Maria Correa is Director of the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies on Industrial Property at the Law Faculty, University of Buenos Aires, and Special Advisor on Intellectual Property and Trade of the South Centre. He has been visiting professor in post-graduate courses of several universities and consultant to various regional and international organizations. He has advised several governments on intellectual property, innovation policy and public health. He was a member of the UK Commission on Intellectual Property, of the Commission on Intellectual Property, Innovation and Public Health established by the World Health Assembly and of the FAO Panel of Eminent Experts on Ethics in Food and Agriculture. He is the author of several books and numerous articles.
Abstract: One of the key arguments of the proponents of the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) adopted as a component of the World Trade Organization was that high levels of intellectual property protection would boost innovation globally. The world map of R&D, however, does not show a general improvement of R&D outcomes in the last twenty years, particularly in developing countries. Moreover, many economic studies have cast doubts about the impact of intellectual property, notably patents, on innovation in developed economies.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Rebecca MacKinnon (Director of the Ranking Digital Rights project at New America) gave a seminar entitled "Ranking Digital Rights Project" on Friday 20 November 2015 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Rebecca MacKinnon is Director of the Ranking Digital Rights project at New America. Author of Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle For Internet Freedom and co-founder of Global Voices Online, she was a founding board member of the Global Network Initiative and now serves on the Board of the Committee to Protect Journalists. Fluent in Mandarin Chinese, MacKinnon was a Bureau Chief and correspondent for CNN in China and Japan in the late 90s and early 00s. She is a visiting affiliate at the Annenberg School for Communication’s Center for Global Communication Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, was an adjunct lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and served on the faculty at the University of Hong Kong’s Journalism and Media Studies Centre. She has held fellowships at Harvard’s Shorenstein and Berkman Centers, the Open Society Foundations, and Princeton’s Center for Information Technology Policy.
Abstract: We rely on dozens of companies – such as Facebook, Google and AT&T – for the products and services that power our digital lives. But how committed are these companies to respecting our digital rights like privacy and freedom of expression? In early November, New America's Ranking Digital Rights project will launch its inaugural Corporate Accountability Index with a ranking of 16 of the world’s most powerful Internet and telecommunications companies on their commitments and disclosed practices affecting users’ freedom of expression and privacy. Which companies are doing better than others? What concrete steps can companies take to improve? Come hear director Rebecca MacKinnon explain the most important and surprising findings from the Index.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
On Tuesday 10 November 2015, Lionel Bently and Jane C Ginsburg presented a discussion on 'Fair Quotation and Fair Use: Appropriation Art, Data-mining, and Google Books' in the Harrods Room at Emmanuel College, University of Cambridge.
Professor Jane Ginsburg FBA is Morton L Janklow Professor of Literary and Artistic Property Law at Columbia University in the City of New York and an Honorary Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. She is the inaugural CIPIL Visiting Fellow.
Professor Lionel Bently is Director of CIPIL in the Faculty of Law, and a Professorial Fellow, Emmanuel College, Cambridge.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/
Professor Dan Burk (University of California, Irvine) gave an evening seminar entitled "Inventing Around Copyright" on Thursday 23 April 2015 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Dan L. Burk is Chancellor’s Professor of Law at the University of California, Irvine, where he is a founding member of the law faculty. An internationally prominent authority on issues related to high technology, he lectures, teaches, and writes in the areas of patent, copyright, electronic commerce, and biotechnology law. He is the author of numerous papers on the legal and societal impact of new technologies, including articles on Internet regulation, on the structure of the patent system, and on the economic analysis of intellectual property law.
Professor Burk holds a B.S. in Microbiology (1985) from Brigham Young University, an M.S. in Molecular Biology and Biochemistry (1987) from Northwestern University, a J.D. (1990) from Arizona State University, and a J.S.M. (1994) from Stanford University. Prior to joining the faculty at UC Irvine, he taught at the University of Minnesota. He has served as a legal advisor to a variety of private, governmental, and intergovernmental organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union Committee on Patent Policy and the OECD Committee on Consumer Protection.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Mireille van Eechoud, Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam, gave an evening seminar entitled "Open Data in European Intellectual Property Law" on Thursday 13 March 2015 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Mireille van Eechoud is associate professor, and teaches in IViR's Information Law master programme. A substantial part of her research focuses on international and European intellectual property law, especially copyright, related rights and database protection. Her most recent book in this field, co-authored with Hugenholtz et al. is Harmonizing European Copyright Law. The Challenges of Better Law Making (Kluwer Law International 2009).
She is a member of the European Max-Planck Group for Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property (CLIP). This international group of scholars develops principles and aims to provide independent advice to European and national law-makers. Mireille is the project leader of a multidisciplinary research project on creativity and collaborative authorship in copyright law (2010-2012). This is a collaborative research project funded by ESF/HERA, in which IViR partners with Infomedia (University of Bergen, Norway) and CIPIL.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Professor Pamela Samuelson, UC Berkeley, delivered the Tenth Annual International Intellectual Property Lecture (funded from the Herchel Smith Bequest) at Emmanuel College entitled 'Functionality and Expression in Computer Programs: A Pragmatic Approach' on Tuesday 10 March as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Pamela Samuelson is the Richard M. Sherman Distinguished Professor of Law and Information at the University of California, Berkeley. She is recognized as a pioneer in digital copyright law, intellectual property, cyberlaw and information policy. Since 1996, she has held a joint appointment at Berkeley Law School and UC Berkeley's School of Information. Samuelson is a director of the internationally-renowned Berkeley Center for Law & Technology. She serves on the board of directors of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, as well as on the advisory boards for the Center for Democracy & Technology, Public Knowledge, and the Berkeley Center for New Media.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Professor Pamela Samuelson, UC Berkeley, delivered the Tenth Annual International Intellectual Property Lecture (funded from the Herchel Smith Bequest) at Emmanuel College entitled 'Functionality and Expression in Computer Programs: A Pragmatic Approach' on Tuesday 10 March as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Pamela Samuelson is the Richard M. Sherman Distinguished Professor of Law and Information at the University of California, Berkeley. She is recognized as a pioneer in digital copyright law, intellectual property, cyberlaw and information policy. Since 1996, she has held a joint appointment at Berkeley Law School and UC Berkeley's School of Information. Samuelson is a director of the internationally-renowned Berkeley Center for Law & Technology. She serves on the board of directors of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, as well as on the advisory boards for the Center for Democracy & Technology, Public Knowledge, and the Berkeley Center for New Media.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.
Laura A. Heymann, William & Mary Law School, gave an evening seminar entitled "Dialogues of Authenticity" on Thursday 26 February 2015 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Laura Heymann is Vice-Dean at William & Mary Law School, where she is also a Professor of Law. She is a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall), where she was elected to Order of the Coif and served as the Book Review Editor on the California Law Review. Prior to her appointment, Professor Heymann was the inaugural Frank H. Marks Visiting Associate Professor of Law and Administrative Fellow in the Intellectual Property Law Program at The George Washington University Law School. She has also served as an assistant general counsel at America Online, Inc.; as an associate at Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering in Washington, D.C.; and as a law clerk to the Hon. Patricia M. Wald of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Prior to attending law school, Professor Heymann worked as an assistant editor at St. Martin's Press in New York. She received her B.A. in English, magna cum laude, from Yale. Professor Heymann was selected by the 2008 graduating class as the recipient of the Walter L. Williams, Jr., Memorial Teaching Award and was the 2012 recipient of the College's Thomas Jefferson Teaching Award. She received a Plumeri Award for Faculty Excellence in 2012 and was the Class of 2014 Professor of Law from 2011 to 2014.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Jennifer Davis (University of Cambridge) gave an evening seminar entitled "The problem with the average consumer in European trade mark law" on Thursday 19 February 2015 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
The talk considers the problem of identifying the average consumer in EU trade mark law. It suggests that his or her position in case law relating to both distinctiveness and confusion is increasingly uncertain. It considers explanations for this uncertainty. These include challenges to neo-classical economic orthodoxy, changes in retailing including the rise of internet shopping and the expansion of the EU itself.The talk then considers whether the concept of the average consumer might be replaced by a more evidence based approach to assessing both distinctiveness and confusion.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Manuel Desantes of the University of Alicante, gave an evening seminar entitled "The New European Patent Environment: an Opportunity or a Failure?" on Thursday 12 February 2015 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Abstract: The non-existence of an actual EU patent system is an important obstacle for the achievement of the internal market. For the first time, after more than 50 years of negotiations, an agreement between most of the Member States of the EU has been achieved in order to attribute both unitary effects to European patents in their territories, and exclusive competence to a newly created Unified Patent Court for all sort of infringements and actions for revocation of European patents. The experience is unique in the history of private law, but it does not come at any cost: it explains at the same time until what extent the European construction becomes more and more intergovernmental and less and less institutional, marking a dangerous tendency to move from a delegation/supervision scheme to a simple replacement of the EU institutions by the Member States themselves. European Union, quo vadis?
Speaker: Manuel Desantes is Professor of Law, University of Alicante (Spain), since 1992, Member of Counsel of the IP firm ELZABURU, and Vice-President of the Spanish Jury of Design. Professor Desantes served in the past as Vice-President and President in acting of the University of Alicante (1996-1998), as Member of the Legal Service of the European Commission, responsible for Intellectual Property and Electronic Commerce (1998-2001), and as Vice-President (Directorate-General 5, Legal and International Affairs) of the European Patent Office (2001-2008). He founded and was the Director of the Magister Lvcentinvs (Intellectual Property and Information Technology Master's Degree), University of Alicante (1994-1997).
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Professor Thomas Cottier of the University of Bern, gave an evening seminar entitled "International Trade and Intellectual Property Protection: Past, Present and Future" on Thursday 29 January 2015 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Abstract: The talk will deal with the fundamentals in the relation between Intellectual Property (IP) protection and international trade. With a focus on the multilateral system in the context of the World Trade Oraganization (WTO), it considers the idea of fair trade and what it means for protecting IP rights around the globe. This inevitably leads to a discussion of the origins and rationale of the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in whose negotiations Thomas Cottier has been deeply involved. He examines how TRIPS has developed in the last 20 years - driven in particular by external influences. Using Competition Law as an example, Professor Cottier compares how issues affected by IP protection can be regulated within and outside TRIPS.
Speaker: Thomas Cottier is a Professor of European and International Economic Law at the University of Mern. He was the managing director of the World Trade Institute (WTI) from 2000-2014 and directed the national research programme on trade law and policy (NCCR Trade Regulation: From Fragmentation to Coherence), located at the WTI. He was educated at the University of Bern, University of Michigan Law School, and was a visiting fellow at Cambridge University, UK. He taught at the University of St. Gallen, Neuchatel and the Geneva Graduate Institute in Geneva and also regularly teaches at the Europa Institut Saarbrucken, Germany, Paris I (Sorbonne), Turin University, Italy and Wuhan University, China. He was a member of the Swiss National research Council from 1997 to 2004 and served on the Board of the International Plant Genetic resources Institute (IPGRI), Rome, during the same period. He served the Baker & McKenzie law firm of Counsel from 1998 to 2005.
Professor Cottier has a long-standing involvement in GATT/WTO activities. He served on the Swiss negotiating team of the Uruguay Round from 1986 to 1993, first as Chief negotiator on dispute settlement and subsidies for Switzerland and subsequently as Chief negotiator on TRIPs. He was the Deputy-Director General of the Swiss Intellectual Property Office and served as a member or chair of several GATT and WTO panels. Professor Cottier has written and publishes on a wide range of trade, European law and international law issues. His main research interests are in constitutional theory of multilevel governance and theory of international law, external relations of the EU, intellectual property, innovation and the challenges of climate change in international economic law.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Professor Martin Senftleben (VU University Amsterdam) gave a seminar entitled "Protecting Mickey Mouse and the Mona Lisa in Perpetuity? - The Need to Leave Cultural Material Free From Trade Mark Protection" on Tuesday 18 November 2014 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Professor Senftleben is an expert on the law of copyright and trade marks, and is author of a book on the 'three -step test.'
Listeners to this seminar will benefit particularly from reading the following: Senftleben, Martin, 'Public Domain Preservation in EU Trademark Law - A Model for Other Regions?' (September 16, 2013). The Trademark Reporter, Vol. 103, No. 4 (2013), pp. 775-827. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2331598
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Simon Davies (partner and patent attorney at D Young & Co.) and Julian Potter (partner, patent attorney and trade mark attorney at WP Thompson) gave an evening seminar entitled "Software patents - legal and commercial perspectives" on Thursday 1 May 2014 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Professor Kevin Outterson (Professor of Health Law, Bioethics and Human Rights, Boston University and Visiting Fellow at Chatham House, Centre on Global Health Security) gave an evening seminar entitled "The legal ecology of resistance, or why normal IP rules shouldn't apply to antibiotics" on Thursday 24 April 2014 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Christopher Rennie-Smith, of the Board of Appeal - European Patent Office, gave an evening seminar entitled "Bioscience, patent law, and the generally-overlooked requirement of industrial application" on Thursday 13 February 2014 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
The requirement that an invention be capable of industrial application – the third limb of patent law’s ‘trinity’, along with novelty and inventive step – is a provision that traditionally reared its head in the context of perpetual motion machines, flying saucers or frictionless water wheels. More recently, and of far more economic significance, it has been directed at bioscience inventions. Christopher Rennie-Smith, chairman of a Board of Appeal handling biotechnology cases at the European Patent Office, will share his insights on the fascinating question of whether early stage biotechnology research, often in silico, is better characterised as invention or research programme, and the implications this has for scientific research. In the same context, he will also talk from experience of the parallel decision-making processes of domestic courts and the EPO Boards of Appeal, the increasing role of the Court of Justice of the EU and the future Unitary Patent Court.
Christopher Rennie-Smith is a Chairman of a Board of Appeal and member of the Enlarged Board of Appeal at the European Patent Office. He was previously a lecturer in law at Sheffield University and then practiced for over twenty years as a lawyer in London, specializing in intellectual property litigation.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Julius Stobbs, Founder, Stobbs, gave a lunchtime seminar entitled "What makes a trade mark inherently distinctive?" on Thursday 30 January 2014 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Prior to founding Stobbs, Julius was Head of Trade Marks at Ipulse. He was also a Partner at a major European firm for seven years. He has extensive experience in contentious trade mark proceedings. In the UK his experience includes many appearances before the Appointed Person, and he is the most often heard trade mark attorney in inter partes proceedings at the UK Intellectual Property Office. He also has experience of proceedings before the UK High Court and the Patents County Court. Julius also has vast experience of dealing with oppositions, cancellations and appeals before OHIM and of further appeals to the General Court and the European Court of Justice.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Professor Alice Lee, Associate Professor, Hong Kong University, gave a lunchtime seminar entitled "An Exception for Parody - A Common Concern in the Recent Copyright Consultation in UK and Hong Kong" on Thursday 5 December 2013 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Alice Lee specializes in property/land law and intellectual property law. Her academic interests also extend to legal bilingualism. She has taught undergraduate and postgraduate students at HKU, students from Tsinghua University and Santa Clara University, as well as Hong Kong civil servants. In recognition of her excellence in teaching, she was awarded the title "University Teaching Fellow" in November 1999.
She is a contributing author of the LexisNexis looseleaf publication Intellectual Property Rights: Hong Kong SAR and PRC (with Michael Pendleton and Jared Margolis).
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Dr Eleonora Rosati (Research Associate, CRASSH and CIPIL), gave a lunchtime seminar entitled "If You Expect Nothing From Anybody, You're Never Disappointed: Orphan Works in the EU and UK" on Thursday 14 November 2013 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Eleonora is currently a Research Associate at the University of Cambridge, where she is working on the AHRC-funded project 'The Creative Economy, Digital Technology and Innovation'. The project, which is led by the Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities (CRASSH), intends to explore and address, among other things, the various copyright issues facing digitization of collections of UK museums and libraries. Eleonora holds two top-rate law degrees from the University of Florence (Italy), and an LLM from the University of Cambridge.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Professor Sam Ricketson, Professor of Law at Melbourne Law School, gave a lunchtime seminar entitled "The Past and Present of the Paris Convention" on Thursday 7 November 2013 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Dr Ge Chen gave a lunchtime seminar entitled "From Shevill to Pinckney: How the European Courts Balance Information Regarding Rights in Internet Jurisdiction" on Thursday 24 October 2013 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Dr Chen is a Research Associate in intellectual property and global regulation at the University of Cambridge, where he is working on a CIGREF-funded project entitled "Intellectual Property Law and Freedom: between the national and the international". The project is based at the Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities (CRASSH) and committed to studying the intertwining relationship between freedom and regulation in copyright and privacy law in digital environment from both national and international perspectives. The project aims at exploring the issue under different national jurisdictions and international law and establishing models for understanding the legal issue in order to facilitate future strategies and policies.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Professor Tim Wu, Isidor and Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, gave a lunchtime seminar entitled "Net Neutrality and Freedom of Speech" on Thursday 30th May 2013 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
The Internet has been widely understood, at least in the United States, as a boon to new forms of speech, though some of the quality of the speech generated is criticized. Net Neutrality is a relatively recent regulatory and normative principle that concerns the carriage of content on the Internet. In legal form it is usually mandates non-discrimination among similar content by carriers. Recently, Net Neutrality rules have been challenged as an infringement of the free speech of the telephone companies, most notably, Verizon in the United States. In this talk I'll discuss the challenge, and discuss more broadly the impact of Net Neutrality rules, or the lack thereof, on speech on the Internet.
Tim Wu, currently visiting Cambridge, is the Isidor and Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law at Columbia Law School. Tim Wu's best known work is the development of Net Neutrality theory, and his general fields are private power, free speech, copyright and antitrust. Outside of academia, he recently served as a senior advisor to the Federal Trade Commission in the United States, was former Chair of Media reform group Free Press, a fellow at Google, and worked for Riverstone Networks in Silicon Valley. He was a law clerk for Judge Richard Posner and Justice Stephen Breyer. He graduated from McGill University (B.Sc.), and Harvard Law School.
Wu has also been a visiting professor at Harvard, Stanford, and Chicago law schools. His 2010 book, The Master Switch was named a best book of the year by the New Yorker, Amazon, Scribes, Publisher's Weekly, and other publications. He was recognized as one of Harvard's 100 most influential graduates by 02138 magazine, and in 2013 he was recognized as one of America's 100 most influential lawyers by the National Law Journal
Wu is a regular contributor to the New Yorker's business and technology vertical, and a contributing editor at the New Republic. He has also twice won the Lowell Thomas Award for travel writing.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Rajeev Sachdev, Ph.D researcher at Maastricht University, gave an evening seminar entitled "Towards an Improved Legal Framework for Trademarks and Copyrights in Social Media and Mobile Apps: Web 2.0 Legal Lessons from the Silicon Valley" on Tuesday 21st May 2013 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
A presentation of research on how key Californian social media giants are dealing with intellectual property disputes and some pertinent legal gaps in both the US and EU.
Rajeev Sachdev is a Californian Lawyer, holds an MBA in Marketing, graduated magna cum laude with an LLM (concentration in E-Commerce) and is currently a PhD researcher at Maastricht University. His research is focused on the intersection of IP law and Cyberlaw. He will be a Visiting Researcher at UC Berkeley School of Law this summer. He has taught over 30 business and legal courses and been a guest speaker on issues of IP and Cyberlaw at a number of institutions.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Professor Christopher Marsden, University of Sussex, and Mr Ian Brown, Oxford University, gave an evening seminar entitled "Regulating Code: Good Governance and Better Regulation in the Information Age" on Thursday 10th May 2013 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Christopher T. Marsden is Professor of Law at the University of Sussex. He is the author of Net Neutrality: Towards a Co-Regulatory Solution, Internet Co-Regulation, and three other books. Ian Brown is Senior Research Fellow at Oxford University’s Oxford Internet Institute. He is the editor of the Research Handbook on Governance of the Internet.
Internet use has become ubiquitous in the past two decades, but governments, legislators, and their regulatory agencies have struggled to keep up with the rapidly changing Internet technologies and uses. In this presentation, based on their recent book of the same title, regulatory lawyer Christopher Marsden and computer scientist Ian Brown analyze the regulatory shaping of ‘code’ – the technological environment of the Internet – to achieve more economically efficient and socially just regulation.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Justin Turner QC, gave an evening seminar entitled "Do we need patents for Embryonic Stem Cells?" on Thursday 2nd May 2013 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Do patents matter? Stem cell science is, to a greater or lesser extent, to be denied patent protection. Apparently it is unethical, notwithstanding that it has been funded by national governments and the Commission. The reasons for this (which do not always appear in the judgments) will be considered. Unusually for IP, this talk will encompass political intrigue, the machinations of the Catholic church and, in a manner of speaking, sex.
Justin Turner QC is a barrister who specialises in IP. He represented WARF before the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO in the leading case on stem cell patents and sat on GTAC, a government advisory committee on stem cell research.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Dr Yahong Li, Associate Professor and Deputy Head at the Department of Law, University of Hong Kong, gave a lunchtime seminar entitled "Changes in Chinese patent law and the impact on innovation in China" on Thursday 2nd May 2013 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
China has become a patent powerhouse lately, but has China become more innovative? Have the frequent changes in Chinese patent law affected the trend of patenting and innovation in China? Using China as a case study, this talk attempts to find correlation, if any, between patenting, patent law reform and innovation.
Dr Yahong Li is an Associate Professor and Deputy Head at the Department of Law, University of Hong Kong. She is also an Associate Director at HKU Technology Transfer Office. She specializes in intellectual property law with a focus on cross-disciplinary study on intellectual property and cutting-edge technologies such as biotechnology and information technology, and publishes extensively in relevant area including a book entitled Imitation to Innovation in China: the Role of Patents in Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Industries (Edward Elgar, 2010).
Dr Li is currently an elected Council Member of the Intellectual Property Law Association of China Law Society; a Regional Coordinator for copyright law amendment project under China State Administration of Copyright, a co-Legal Project Lead of Hong Kong Creative Commons, an Honorary Advisor to Hong Kong Institute of Patent Attorneys, and an Associate External Academic Advisor for City University of Hong Kong School of Law.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Professor Paul Heald, University of Illinois School of Law, gave an seminar entitled "Do Bad Things Happen When Works Enter the Public Domain? Empirical Tests of Copyright Term Extension" on Thursday 28th February 2013 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Paul Heald (University of Illinois School of Law) lectures on patent, copyright and international intellectual property law around the world and has previously held visiting positions at universities in London, Lyon, Regensburg and Innsbruck, and at the University of Chicago, University of Texas and Vanderbilt University. He also taught in the UGA/OSU program at St. Anne's College, Oxford University, during the spring of 2009.
Professor Heald is a Herbert Smith Visiting Fellow at the Faculty during the Lent and Easter terms 2013.
According to the current copyright statute, in 2018, copyrighted works of music, film, and literature will begin to transition into the public domain. While this will prove a boon for users and creators, it could be disastrous for the owners of these valuable copyrights. Accordingly, the next few years will witness another round of aggressive lobbying by the film, music, and publishing industries to extend the terms of already-existing works. These industries, and a number of prominent scholars, claim that when works enter the public domain bad things will happen to them. They worry that works in the public domain will be underused, overused, or tarnished in ways that will undermine the works’ cultural and economic value. Although the validity of their assertions turn on empirically testable hypotheses, very little effort has been made to study them.
This research attempts to fill that gap by studying the market for audiobook recordings of bestselling novels. Data from our research, including a novel human subjects experiment, suggest that the claims about the public domain are suspect. Our data indicate that audio books made from public domain bestsellers (1913-22) are significantly more available than those made from copyrighted bestsellers (1923-32). In addition, our experimental protocol suggests that professionally made recordings of public domain and copyrighted books are of similar quality. Finally, while a low quality recording seems to lower a listener's valuation of the underlying work, our data do not suggest any correlation between that valuation and legal status of the underlying work. Accordingly, ourresearch indicates that the significant costs of additional copyright protection for already-existing works are not justified by the benefits claimed for it. These findings will be crucially important to the inevitable congressional and judicial debate over copyright term extension in the next few years.
Recent publications have focused on economic aspects of IP law, including theoretical papers on optimal patent remedies, the role transaction costs in patent law and the problem of patent pricing as well as empirical studies on best-selling fiction and musical compositions from 1913 to 1932 and the behavior of famous trademarks in product and service markets. He has also written two books on law and literature, and his first novel, No Regrets, was published by St. James Music Press in 2002.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Professor Graeme Dinwoodie, Professor of Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law at the University of Oxford, gave an evening seminar entitled "Mapping Marks and Markets: the Unitary Nature of the CTM" on Thursday 14th February 2013 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
About the speaker:
Graeme Dinwoodie is the Professor of Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law at the University of Oxford. He is also Director of the Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre, and a Professorial Fellow of St. Peter's College. Prior to taking up the IP Chair at Oxford, Professor Dinwoodie was a Professor of Law and Director of the Program in Intellectual Property Law at the Chicago-Kent College of Law. He has also previously taught at the University of Cincinnati College of Law and University of Pennsylvania School of Law, and from 2005-2009 held a Chair in Intellectual Property Law at Queen Mary College, University of London. He teaches and writes in all aspects of intellectual property law, with an emphasis on the international and comparative aspects of the discipline.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Petroula Vantsiouri, Doctoral Candidate at the University of Cambridge, gave an evening seminar entitled "The Justifications Behind the Legal Protection of Self-help Mechanisms" on Friday 30th November 2012 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Petroula Vantsiouri is a Doctoral Candidate at the University of Cambridge. Her research interests lie in intellectual property law and information law. Her doctoral thesis takes a comparative stand towards the intended and unintended consequences of anticircumvention regulation in the European Union and in the United States, as they are applied in different sectors, namely broadcasting, software and other copyright works.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
This session brought together representatives from two very different organisations that have frequently advocated for reform of the current copyright regime. The objective of this session was to tease out the similarities and differences in the nature of each organisation’s respective criticisms of and objections to copyright law in its present form, as well as the similarities and differences in their preferred approaches and strategies for copyright reform.
The session was held by CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law) on 15th November 2012 at the Faculty of Law.
About the speakers:
Amelia Andersdotter is a Member of the European Parliament for the Pirate Party in Sweden. She works with industrial policy in the parliamentary committee ITRE and is a substitute member of the committees for international trade, INTA, and budget control, CONT. She's the Patron of EPFSUG, the European Parliament Free Software User Group. She also works in the delegations for the Korean peninsula and the Andean Community. She is currently the youngest member of the European Parliament, and assumed office in December 2011.
Benjamin White is the Head of Intellectual Property at the British Library. He has a background in publishing, having worked for Pearson Education internationally, as well as for Ordnance Survey. He is active in the Intellectual Property field within the UK having sat on a number of bodies including the BBC's Creative Archive Advisory Board, the UK Government's Creative Economy Programme (Competition and Intellectual Property), i2010 Digital Libraries Programme, CBI Intellectual Property Board as well as the Institute of Public Policy Research's Advisory Board on Intellectual Property and the Public Sphere. He currently chairs the copyright group of the Council for European National Librarians; he sits on the UK Intellectual Property Office’s Copyright Research Expert Advisory Group and is a member of the advisory panel for the Digital Copyright Exchange Feasibility Study.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Sean Bottomley, Ph.D candidate in History, University of Cambridge, gave a lunchtime seminar entitled "The Specification Requirement and the Diffusion of Technology During the Eighteenth Century" on Thursday 17th May 2012 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.
Helen Gubby, Adjunct Professor, Rotterdam School of Management and the School of Law, Erasmus University, gave an evening seminar entitled "Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose: Why the Patent Disputes of the Industrial Revolution Shed Light on the Patent Disputes of the Digital Age" on Thursday 17th May 2012 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Helen Gubby’s background is in law and history. She studied in England and was called to the Bar in 1978. Since 1980 she has worked in the Netherlands, as a legal translator and editor, lawyer, lecturer and academic. She has a master’s degree in history from the University of Leiden and a Ph.D. in law from the Erasmus School of Law. Her doctoral research traces the development of a legal paradigm for patents during the Industrial Revolution in England (1750s-1830s).
Her current research, carried out for the Rotterdam School of Management, examines the patent strategy of managers of small and medium sized companies. Helen Gubby’s publications reflect her background. She has written several textbooks on English legal terminology (English legal terminology: legal concepts in language (2011), which is now in its third edition, and Practical legal English: legal terminology (2006), the second edition will appear in 2012), co-authored a book on computers and law (Sentencing by computer: an experiment, Oslo, Universitetsforlaget, 1982), a number of articles on this subject (including Legal decision making by computer: an experiment in sentencing, Computer/Law Journal, 1983) and more recently on patents (Taking patents seriously, International Law and Trade, and International Journal of Intellectual Property Management, vol. 2, 2007). Her book Developing a legal paradigm for patents will be published in January 2012.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.
Keith Schilling, Senior Partner and Co-Founder of Schillings, gave an evening seminar entitled "Law, Celebrity and the Internet" on Wednesday 9th May 2012 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Keith Schilling is Senior Partner and Co-Founder of Schillings, which is regarded as the pre-eminent claimant law firm in England, specialising in safeguarding the reputations and privacy rights of celebrities, international corporations, brands, as well as high-profile business and political figures. He also specialises in Divorce and family law where his expertise in handling consequential media issues involving threats to privacy and reputation of those involved is highly valued.
Keith is a Solicitor-Advocate and in 2008 was placed 10th in the Times list of the 100 most powerful and influential lawyers in England for his work in achieving a number of landmark decisions in privacy law and was named as one of the 1000 most influential people in London for the second year according to the Evening Standard’s 2009 survey. He has been described as "the Rottweiler" by Private Eye magazine, as well as the "Injunction King" by the Guardian, and a "formidable litigation lawyer"” by the Telegraph.
In an interview by the Sunday Times, Keith was quoted as being "… exactly the sort of lawyer you need in the libel trenches with you in dangerous times." and The Economist magazine has referred to Schillings as being"…the City’s most fearsome defamation lawyers". His work in defamation, privacy, breach of confidence, copyright and divorce, has made him one of the most sought-after media lawyers in Britain. He has helped to protect the reputations of film, sport and entertainment stars as well as top companies and business executives.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.
David Lametti, Associate Professor of Law, McGill University, a member of the Institute of Comparative Law, and of the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy (CIPP), gave a lunchtime seminar entitled "The Cloud as Enclosure 3.0" on Thursday 24th May 2012 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law). This was the first of two presentations.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.
David Lametti, Associate Professor of Law, McGill University, a member of the Institute of Comparative Law, and of the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy (CIPP), gave a lunchtime seminar entitled "Virtue Ethics and IP/Property: The Briefest of Introductions" on Thursday 24th May 2012 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law). This was the second of two presentations.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.
David Lametti, Associate Professor of Law, McGill University, a member of the Institute of Comparative Law, and of the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy (CIPP), gave a lunchtime seminar entitled "The Cloud as Enclosure 3.0" on Thursday 24th May 2012 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law). This was the first of two presentations.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
David Lametti, Associate Professor of Law, McGill University, a member of the Institute of Comparative Law, and of the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy (CIPP), gave a lunchtime seminar entitled "Virtue Ethics and IP/Property: The Briefest of Introductions" on Thursday 24th May 2012 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law). This was the second of two presentations.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Helen Gubby, Adjunct Professor, Rotterdam School of Management and the School of Law, Erasmus University, gave an evening seminar entitled "Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose: Why the Patent Disputes of the Industrial Revolution Shed Light on the Patent Disputes of the Digital Age" on Thursday 17th May 2012 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Helen Gubby’s background is in law and history. She studied in England and was called to the Bar in 1978. Since 1980 she has worked in the Netherlands, as a legal translator and editor, lawyer, lecturer and academic. She has a master’s degree in history from the University of Leiden and a Ph.D. in law from the Erasmus School of Law. Her doctoral research traces the development of a legal paradigm for patents during the Industrial Revolution in England (1750s-1830s).
Her current research, carried out for the Rotterdam School of Management, examines the patent strategy of managers of small and medium sized companies. Helen Gubby’s publications reflect her background. She has written several textbooks on English legal terminology (English legal terminology: legal concepts in language (2011), which is now in its third edition, and Practical legal English: legal terminology (2006), the second edition will appear in 2012), co-authored a book on computers and law (Sentencing by computer: an experiment, Oslo, Universitetsforlaget, 1982), a number of articles on this subject (including Legal decision making by computer: an experiment in sentencing, Computer/Law Journal, 1983) and more recently on patents (Taking patents seriously, International Law and Trade, and International Journal of Intellectual Property Management, vol. 2, 2007). Her book Developing a legal paradigm for patents will be published in January 2012.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Sean Bottomley, Ph.D candidate in History, University of Cambridge, gave a lunchtime seminar entitled "The Specification Requirement and the Diffusion of Technology During the Eighteenth Century" on Thursday 17th May 2012 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Keith Schilling, Senior Partner and Co-Founder of Schillings, gave an evening seminar entitled "Law, Celebrity and the Internet" on Wednesday 9th May 2012 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Keith Schilling is Senior Partner and Co-Founder of Schillings, which is regarded as the pre-eminent claimant law firm in England, specialising in safeguarding the reputations and privacy rights of celebrities, international corporations, brands, as well as high-profile business and political figures. He also specialises in Divorce and family law where his expertise in handling consequential media issues involving threats to privacy and reputation of those involved is highly valued.
Keith is a Solicitor-Advocate and in 2008 was placed 10th in the Times list of the 100 most powerful and influential lawyers in England for his work in achieving a number of landmark decisions in privacy law and was named as one of the 1000 most influential people in London for the second year according to the Evening Standard’s 2009 survey. He has been described as "the Rottweiler" by Private Eye magazine, as well as the "Injunction King" by the Guardian, and a "formidable litigation lawyer"” by the Telegraph.
In an interview by the Sunday Times, Keith was quoted as being "… exactly the sort of lawyer you need in the libel trenches with you in dangerous times." and The Economist magazine has referred to Schillings as being"…the City’s most fearsome defamation lawyers". His work in defamation, privacy, breach of confidence, copyright and divorce, has made him one of the most sought-after media lawyers in Britain. He has helped to protect the reputations of film, sport and entertainment stars as well as top companies and business executives.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Jennifer Davis, University of Cambridge, gave an seminar entitled "Trade mark law and brand values (or Arsenal v Reed Ten Years On)" on Tuesday 7th February 2012 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Over the past couple of decades the language of brands has become inextricably linked with the language of commerce. This lecture begins from the assumption that trade marks are not the same as brands, but that trade mark protection might extend to cover what are often termed ‘brand values’. The decision of the Court of Justice in Arsenal v Reed (2002) recognized that a trade mark might have multiple functions apart from acting as a badge of origin. The decision is often seen as introducing the possibility that the protection afforded to a registered trade mark will also extend to its role as a brand. This lecture is by way of a progress report ten years on from Arsenal v Reed. It will consider how and to what extent the Trade Mark Directive has been interpreted by the Court of Justice to offer increasing protection to brand values. It will suggest that, in light of a run of recent cases including L’Oreal v Bellure (2009), Google v Louis Vuitton (2010) and, in particular, Interflora v Marks & Spencer (2012), the protection which trade mark registration will offer to brand values has massively increased. The lecture will conclude that the direction that the Court of Justice has taken since Arsenal v Reed in relation to the protection of brand values is difficult to justify either in principle or practice.
Jennifer Davis is the author of Intellectual Property Law, 3rd edition (Oxford: OUP, 2008) and with Tanya Aplin, Intellectual Property: Text, Cases and Materials (Oxford: OUP, 2009). Together with Lionel Bently and Jane Ginsburg, she edited Trade Marks and Brands: An Interdisciplinary Critique (Cambridge: CUP, 2008). She has a particular interest in trade mark law, brands and unfair competition and has published extensively on these topics. Before joining the Faculty of Law, Dr Davis practised as a lawyer in the area of intellectual property litigation.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Professor Thomas Pogge, Leitner Professor of Philosophy and International Affairs, Yale University, gave an evening seminar entitled "Patents, Pharmaceuticals and the Health Impact Fund" on Friday 27th January 2012 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Thomas Pogge is a German philosopher and currently the Leitner Professor of Philosophy and International Affairs at Yale University. Previously he was Professorial Fellow at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the Australian National University, and Professor of Political Science at Columbia University. He has ongoing appointments as Research Director in the Centre for the Study of Mind in Nature at the University of Oslo, and Adjunct Professor in the Centre for Professional Ethics at the University of Central Lancashire.
Pogge has written extensively on political philosophy, especially on Rawls, Immanuel Kant, cosmopolitanism, and, more recently, extreme poverty. His book World Poverty and Human Rights (Polity, 2002, 2nd edn. 2008) is widely regarded as one of the most important works on global justice.
Pogge's work has been, along with that of Charles Beitz and Henry Shue, one of the most important in the "first wave" of work on global justice. Yet what makes Pogge's contribution to the debate on global justice and the eradication of world poverty original is his emphasis on negative duties rather than on the positive duties stressed by Beitz and Shue. According to Pogge, the global rich have—quite apart from their positive duty to help others in need when they can at little cost to themselves—a stringent negative duty not to contribute to the imposition of a global institutional order that predictably and avoidably impedes the fulfillment of basic socioeconomic rights. This negative duty entails obligations to take decisive steps toward the eradication of global poverty.
Pogge received his Ph.D. from Harvard University with a dissertation supervised by John Rawls. He is currently working on Incentives for Global Health, a non-profit organization dedicated to developing market-based, systemic solutions to health challenges faced by the world's poor. IGH aims to increase access to medicines by altering the incentives for innovation in the health sector.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Mr Christopher J. Buccafusco, Assistant Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law, gave an evening seminar entitled "Valuing Attribution and Publication in Intellectual Property" on Thursday 26th January 2012 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Professor Buccafusco joined the Chicago-Kent faculty in 2009 and was voted Professor of the Year by the Student Bar Association for 2009-10. He teaches torts and copyright law. His research interests include intellectual property law, behavioral law and economics, law and psychology, and legal history. His recent work focuses on experimental research on intellectual property, psychological challenges to legal notions of rationality, and the application of happiness research to the law. His published articles have appeared in the Columbia Law Review, University of Chicago Law Review (twice), California Law Review, Cornell Law Review (twice), and Georgetown Law Journal.
Professor Buccafusco is a Ph.D. candidate in legal history at the University of Chicago. He graduated from the University of Georgia School of Law in 2004 and earned a B.S. degree from Georgia Tech in 2001. Before coming to Chicago-Kent, Professor Buccafusco taught for a year as a visiting faculty member at the University of Illinois College of Law.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Mireille van Eechoud, Associate Professor, Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam, gave an evening seminar entitled "Of Interfaces, snippets and sequences. Is the European Court of Justice fragmenting or integrating the notion of copyright works?" on Thursday 24th November 2011 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Many of the EU directives that harmonize copyright law focus on exclusive rights and their limitations and not on what exactly the subject-matter of these rights is. When is something a work? The domestic laws of Member States give different answers. The EU Court of Justice has now stepped in, seemingly developing a pan-European notion of the copyright work in Infopaq (2009), BSA (2011) and most recently in Football Association Premier League (2011). This is not just an acute problem for UK copyright law, but raises more fundamental questions about how we can arrive at a shared European concept of work(s) of authorship. This seminar explores such questions.
Mireille van Eechoud is associate professor, and teaches in IViR's Information Law master programme. A substantial part of her research focuses on international and European intellectual property law, especially copyright, related rights and database protection. Her most recent book in this field, co-authored with Hugenholtz et al. is Harmonizing European Copyright Law. The Challenges of Better Law Making (Kluwer Law International 2009).
She is a member of the European Max-Planck Group for Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property (CLIP). This international group of scholars develops principles and aims to provide independent advice to European and national law-makers. Mireille is the project leader of a multidisciplinary research project on creativity and collaborative authorship in copyright law (2010-2012). This is a collaborative research project funded by ESF/HERA, in which IViR partners with Infomedia (University of Bergen, Norway) and CIPIL.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk
Mr Nic Garnett, Principal Consultant, Interight, London, gave an evening seminar entitled "Copyright, Technology and the Music Industry" on Thursday 11th November 2011 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Nic is an IP and IT specialist with extensive international experience in the management and protection of intellectual property rights. He holds law degrees from the universities of Cambridge and Bordeaux. He advises leading edge technology and media companies, institutions and governments throughout the world on copyright enforcement, IP/technology licensing, digital rights management, on-line media technology deployment, regulatory compliance in on-line media delivery, e-commerce policy and legislative and technology standards development.
Since establishing Interight some 4 years ago, Nic has conducted a considerable amount of leading edge research into the relationship between copyright law and DRM systems.
From 1999 to 2002 Nic was Senior Vice President and in house counsel with InterTrust Technologies in Silicon Valley, focusing on the operational and policy aspects of deployment of the InterTrust DRM systems. Nic was the Director General and CEO of the International Federation of Phonographic Industries from 1992 to 1999 and before that, IFPI's Regional Director for South East Asia, based in Singapore and Hong Kong. In both roles he played an important part in assisting with the global development of copyright. Nic is a regular speaker on rights management and technology in conferences throughout the world. He spoke at Copyright and Technology conferences organised by WIPO at Harvard University (1993), The Louvre (1994) and in the WIPO E-Commerce conference at Geneva in September 2001. He has been a regular visitor to China for the last 20 years and has interacted frequently with the Chinese authorities in the development of the Chinese copyright system and the efforts to deal with piracy in China.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk.
Mr Feargal Sharkey, CEO of UK Music, gave an evening seminar entitled "Copyright, Technology and the Music Industry" on Thursday 11th November 2011 at the Faculty of Law as a guest of CIPIL (the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).
Born in Derry, Northern Ireland, Feargal found fame as lead singer in The Undertones and later as a solo artist – enjoying some 12 years of world tours, hit albums, late nights and the finest transport café cuisine money can buy. Hanging up his pop star boots, he successfully transferred to the business side of the industry; holding posts as A&R manager, record label MD, Member of the Radio Authority and Chair of the Live Music Forum.
In February 2008, Feargal was appointed CEO of British Music Rights. Eight months later, this role was expanded significantly with the creation of UK Music. Headed by Feargal, UK Music is an umbrella organisation that represents the collective interests of the UK’s commercial music industry – from composers, songwriters, artists, musicians and record producers to music managers, music publishers, record labels and collecting societies.
For more information see the CIPIL website at http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk