Subjects -> PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHTS (Total: 28 journals)
Showing 1 - 9 of 9 Journals sorted alphabetically
Berkeley Technology Law Journal     Free   (Followers: 15)
Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal     Open Access   (Followers: 17)
GRUR International     Full-text available via subscription  
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 24)
International Data Privacy Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 27)
International Journal of Innovation Science     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 9)
International Journal of Intellectual Property Management     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 26)
Invention Disclosure     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
IP Theory     Open Access   (Followers: 10)
JIPITEC Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law     Open Access   (Followers: 21)
John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law     Free   (Followers: 8)
Journal of Copyright in Education & Librarianship     Open Access   (Followers: 29)
Journal of Data Protection & Privacy     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 5)
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 25)
Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR)     Open Access   (Followers: 22)
Journal of Knowledge-based Innovation in China     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 4)
Law, State and Telecommunications Review     Open Access  
Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 13)
Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property     Open Access   (Followers: 7)
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: 22)
World Patent Information     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 15)
Similar Journals
Journal Cover
International Data Privacy Law
Number of Followers: 27  
 
  Hybrid Journal Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
ISSN (Print) 2044-3994 - ISSN (Online) 2044-4001
Published by Oxford University Press Homepage  [419 journals]
  • Untrodden paths towards the right to privacy in the digital era under
           African human rights law

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Ayalew Y.
      Pages: 16 - 32
      Abstract: Key Points
      PubDate: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/idpl/ipab027
      Issue No: Vol. 12, No. 1 (2022)
       
  • Putting a price on data protection infringement

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Lintvedt M.
      Pages: 1 - 15
      Abstract: Key PointsThere is an assumption that the use of fines as an enforcement tool will have a deterrent effect and lead to compliance with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This article gives a critical analysis of the fines in Article 83 of the GDPR, and whether the introduction of elevated fines have led to the desired behavioural changes.The GDPR has no provisions that ensure harmonisation of the imposing and calculation of fines. This has already led to diverging practices by the Data Protection Authorities (DPAs). Neither does the GDPR require transparency about imposed fines. Without transparency, the deterrent effect of fines can be questioned.Monetary sanctions may not always lead to better compliance and ultimately better data protection for individuals. The GDPR has other enforcement measures that may have a more immediate effect in adjusting undesired processing of personal data, such as a temporary or definitive ban on processing which may be more harmful for a data-driven controller than a fine.The fines may function as punishment and deterrence, but not as restoration. Individuals who are affected by an infringement are not benefited by the imposed fine. Although Article 82 of the GDPR gives any person suffering material or non-material damage resulting from an infringement a right to compensation, the right is more theoretical than practical.The article concludes that adjustments should be made to ensure transparency and harmonisation. Also, changes should be considered to ensure that individuals are duly compensated in the event of damages suffered by data protection infringements.
      PubDate: Mon, 06 Dec 2021 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/idpl/ipab024
      Issue No: Vol. 12, No. 1 (2021)
       
  • Revisiting the definition of health data in the age of digitalized health
           care

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Schäfke-Zell W.
      Pages: 33 - 43
      PubDate: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/idpl/ipab025
      Issue No: Vol. 12, No. 1 (2021)
       
  • Nigeria’s data protection legal and institutional model: an overview

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Babalola O.
      Pages: 44 - 52
      Abstract: Key PointsIn the past two decades, the unprecedented incursion of technology into the economic and socio-cultural activities in Nigeria increasingly posed many unanswered questions on data protection and privacy. Consequently, this led to the country’s numerous attempts to enact a principal data protection legislation in addition to the existing sectoral laws on the subject.Despite its ratification of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Supplementary Act on data protection in 2010, Nigeria carried on without a general data protection legislation until nine years later when the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA), in a face-saving regulatory move, issued the Nigeria Data Protection Regulation (NDPR) as Nigeria’s first all-encompassing and comprehensive, albeit subsidiary legislation on data protection.This article provides an analytical synopsis of Nigeria’s current legal framework on data protection touching its brief history, the general and sectoral enactments on data protection, the enforcement mechanism created under the NDPR as well as the Implementation Framework issued in the mould of guidance notes.
      PubDate: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/idpl/ipab023
      Issue No: Vol. 12, No. 1 (2021)
       
  • International Transfers: Johnson v Secretary of State for the Home
           Department [2020] and Diplomatic Missions

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Jervis C.
      Pages: 53 - 62
      Abstract: Key PointsThis comment will begin with a discussion of the decision of the UK Court of Appeal in Clayton Leslie Johnson v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020]. Specifically, the suggestion made there, that a transfer of personal data from the UK to one of its diplomatic missions abroad was an international transfer to which the prohibition in Article 44 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) applied. It will explain why the better view is that it should not be regarded as such.It will go on to consider the related questions of how transfers of data from EU and UK diplomatic missions to entities in third countries (including the receiving State), and transfers from entities in EU Member States or the UK to the diplomatic missions of third countries located there should be treated.It will conclude with a brief analysis of the territorial scope provisions in Article 3(1) GDPR which appear to capture processing in diplomatic missions, giving rise to the risk that the controller in respect of such processing (the sending State) may be subject to overlapping and conflicting applicable laws in the small number of cases in which immunity is curtailed.This piece is germane to both the GDPR and UKGDPR. It does not, however, discuss the position of International Organizations. Nor does it consider international transfers under the Law Enforcement Directive.
      PubDate: Mon, 06 Dec 2021 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/idpl/ipab026
      Issue No: Vol. 12, No. 1 (2021)
       
  • On (some aspects of) social privacy in the social media space

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Kuenzler A.
      Pages: 63 - 73
      Abstract: Key PointsThis commentary ties in with an emerging field in privacy scholarship that focuses on collective rather than individualistic viewpoints: recent debates address privacy in digital markets in terms of individual rights to choose between different options, such as between Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, or Twitter, while users of digital platforms try to make sense of who they are and how they fit into networked contexts.In such contexts, audiences are hidden and almost anything that users share is in plain view. Privacy is thus to be found within public environments rather than in opposition to them—that is, by controlling access to meaning rather than by controlling access to content.While legal scholarship is mostly built around the assumption that consumers have to choose to be private or to be public, in digital markets, privacy and publicity are inevitably muddled.Drawing on the German Federal Court of Justice’s recent Facebook decision, the commentary observes that reclaiming privacy in digital markets depends not just on selecting between different options but also on being able to make choices in relation to them.
      PubDate: Wed, 20 Oct 2021 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/idpl/ipab022
      Issue No: Vol. 12, No. 1 (2021)
       
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
 


Your IP address: 3.235.176.80
 
Home (Search)
API
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-