Subjects -> PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHTS (Total: 29 journals)
Showing 1 - 9 of 9 Journals sorted alphabetically
Berkeley Technology Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 17)
Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 13)
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 20)
GRUR International     Full-text available via subscription  
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 28)
International Data Privacy Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 29)
International Journal of Innovation Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 11)
International Journal of Intellectual Property Management     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 29)
IP Theory     Open Access   (Followers: 12)
JIPITEC Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law     Open Access   (Followers: 26)
John Marshall Journal of Information Technology & Privacy Law     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law     Free   (Followers: 10)
Journal of Copyright in Education & Librarianship     Open Access   (Followers: 35)
Journal of Data Protection & Privacy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 7)
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 30)
Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR)     Open Access   (Followers: 24)
Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Law, State and Telecommunications Review     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 14)
Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property     Open Access   (Followers: 8)
Propiedad Intelectual     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
Recent Patents on Anti-Cancer Drug Discovery     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 2)
Recent Patents on Anti-Infective Drug Discovery     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 1)
Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Revista La Propiedad Inmaterial     Open Access  
The Journal of World Intellectual Property     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25)
Web Journal of Current Legal Issues     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
World Patent Information     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 17)
Similar Journals
Journal Cover
JIPITEC Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law
Journal Prestige (SJR): 0.158
Number of Followers: 26  

  This is an Open Access Journal Open Access journal
ISSN (Print) 2190-3387
Published by Digital Peer Publishing Homepage  [2 journals]
  • Data-Related Aspects of the Digital Content Directive

    • Authors: Metzger; Axel, Efroni, Zohar, Mischau, Lena, Metzger, Jakob
      Abstract: JIPITEC 9 (2018) 1:
      Keywords: Statement
      PubDate: 2018-05-25T00:00:00Z
  • Against the Dehumanisation of Decision-Making – Algorithmic Decisions at
           the Crossroads of Intellectual Property, Data Protection, and Freedom of

    • Authors: Noto La Diega; Guido
      Abstract: JIPITEC 9 (2018) 1: This work presents ten arguments against algorithmic decision-making. These re-volve around the concepts of ubiquitous discretionary interpretation, holistic intu-ition, algorithmic bias, the three black boxes, psychology of conformity, power of sanctions, civilising force of hypocrisy, pluralism, empathy, and technocracy. Nowadays algorithms can decide if one can get a loan, is allowed to cross a bor-der, or must go to prison. Artificial intelligence techniques (natural language pro-cessing and machine learning in the first place) enable private and public deci-sion-makers to analyse big data in order to build profiles, which are used to make decisions in an automated way. The lack of transparency of the algorithmic deci-sion-making process does not stem merely from the characteristics of the relevant techniques used, which can make it impossible to access the rationale of the deci-sion. It depends also on the abuse of and overlap between intellectual property rights (the “legal black box”). In the US, nearly half a million patented inventions concern algorithms; more than 67% of the algorithm-related patents were issued over the last ten years and the trend is increasing. To counter the increased mo-nopolisation of algorithms by means of intellectual property rights (with trade se-crets leading the way), this paper presents three legal routes that enable citizens to ‘open’ the algorithms. First, copyright and patent exceptions, as well as trade se-crets are discussed. Second, the EU General Data Protection Regulation is critical-ly assessed. In principle, data controllers are not allowed to use algorithms to take decisions that have legal effects on the data subject’s life or similarly significantly affect them. However, when they are allowed to do so, the data subject still has the right to obtain human intervention, to express their point of view, as well as to contest the decision. Additionally, the data controller shall provide meaningful in-formation about the logic involved in the algorithmic decision. Third, this paper critically analyses the first known case of a court using the access right under the freedom of information regime to grant an injunction to release the source code of the computer program that implements an algorithm. Only an integrated ap-proach – which takes into account intellectual property, data protection, and free-dom of information – may provide the citizen affected by an algorithmic decision of an effective remedy as required by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights.
      PubDate: 2018-05-24T08:56:21Z
  • Editorial

    • Authors: Guibault; Lucie, Sein, Karin
      Abstract: JIPITEC 9 (2018) 1:
      PubDate: 2018-05-24T08:56:21Z
  • “This Video is Unavailable”: Analyzing Copyright Takedown of
           User-Generated Content on YouTube

    • Authors: Erickson; Kristofer, Kretschmer, Martin
      Abstract: JIPITEC 9 (2018) 1: What factors lead a copyright owner to request removal of potentially infringing user-generated content' So-called “notice-and-takedown” measures are provided in the United States under Section 512 of the U.S. Copyright Act (as amended by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998) and enabled in the European Union under the Directive on Electronic Commerce (2000/31/EC). While the combination of limiting liability (“safe harbor”) and notice-and-takedown procedures was originally conceived as a means of balancing innovation with the interests of rightholders, there has been limited empirical study regarding their effects. This research investigates, for the first time, the factors that motivate takedown of user-generated content by copyright owners. We study takedowns within an original dataset of 1,839 YouTube music video parodies observed between January 2012 and December 2016. We find an overall rate of takedowns within the sample of 32.9% across the 4-year period. We use a Cox proportional hazards model to investigate propositions from rightholder groups about the factors that motivate takedowns: these include concerns about commercial substitution; artistic/moral concerns; cultural differences between firms; and YouTube uploader practices. The main finding is that policy concerns frequently raised by rightholders are not associated with statistically significant patterns of action. For example, the potential for reputational harm from parodic use does not appear to predict takedown behavior. Nor does commercial popularity of the original music track trigger a systematic response from rightholders. Instead, music genre and production values emerge as significant factors. We suggest that evolving policy on intermediary liability - for example with respect to imposing filtering systems (automatically ensuring “stay-down” of potentially infringing content) - should be carefully evaluated against evidence of actual behavior, which this study shows may differ materially from stated policy positions.
      PubDate: 2018-05-24T08:56:21Z
  • Open Science and Public Sector Information – Reconsidering the exemption
           for educational and research establishments under the Directive on re-use
           of public sector information

    • Authors: Richter; Heiko
      Abstract: JIPITEC 9 (2018) 1: The article discusses the possibilities of including public research and educational establishments within the scope of the Directive regulating the re-use of public sector information (2003/98/EC – ‘PSI Directive’). It subsequently evaluates the legal consequences of such an inclusion. Focusing on scientific information, the analysis connects the long-standing debates about open access and open educa-tion to open government data. Their common driving force is the call for a wide-spread dissemination of publicly funded information. However, the regulatory standard set out by the PSI Directive is characterized by considerable legal uncer-tainty. Therefore, it is difficult to derive robust assumptions that can form the ba-sis for predicting the effects of extending the PSI Directive’s scope to research in-formation. A potential revision of the PSI Directive should reduce this uncertain-ty. Moreover, PSI regulation must account for the specific incentives linked to the creation and dissemination of research results. This seems of primary importance for public-private research collaborations because there is a potential risk that a full application of the PSI Directive might unduly affect incentives for such col-laborations.
      PubDate: 2018-05-24T08:56:21Z
  • Informing Consent: Giving Control Back to the Data Subject from a
           Behavioral Economics Perspective

    • Authors: Ramírez López; Santiago
      Abstract: JIPITEC 9 (2018) 1: The development of data privacy legislation in Europe and America has been highly influenced by the idea that individuals must maintain the autonomy to take decisions regarding the general purpose and uses of their personal data; an idea that has been generally instrumentalized with the mechanism of informed con-sent. Recently, both companies and researchers in the field have criticized this idea, arguing that with the new advances and technological progress, consent has lost importance due to the ubiquity of the data processing and the absence of real participation of the data subjects. This article seeks to take into account both points of view, by recognizing the importance of the autonomy of individuals to determine the destination of their personal data, but also by understanding the practical implications and the impossibilities derived from obtaining an informed consent from data subjects that are generally unfamiliar with the topic. Based on the analyses regarding the difficulties of obtaining an effective and informed consent, this contribution will examine how some of the bias and impasses stud-ied through the discipline of behavioral economics may help us to understand the current problems in relation to the way in which consent is requested and provid-ed by the data subjects. This contribution concludes by proposing alternatives that seek to overcome these biases and impasses with an easier provision of infor-mation of the data processing and the implementation of a data management and a value-oriented model, which would benefit the data subjects.
      PubDate: 2018-05-24T08:56:21Z
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762

Your IP address:
Home (Search)
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-