Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Publications (10 of 54) Show all publications
Rosati, E. (2025). CJEU rules on vertical direct effect of InfoSoc Directive and allows national courts to disapply incorrect national transpositions. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 20(3), 131-133
Open this publication in new window or tab >>CJEU rules on vertical direct effect of InfoSoc Directive and allows national courts to disapply incorrect national transpositions
2025 (English)In: Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, ISSN 1747-1532, E-ISSN 1747-1540, Vol. 20, no 3, p. 131-133Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

A key principle of EU law is that of direct effect. The now CJEU recognized it for the first time in the landmark 1963 judgment in Van Gend en Loos (Case 26–62, EU:C:1963:1).

Insofar as EU directives are concerned, the dominant view is that they do not produce any horizontal direct effect. This means that they cannot be relied upon in private-party proceedings and do not impose obligations on individuals. Nevertheless, EU directives may produce—at certain conditions—a vertical direct effect. In cases in which EU law imposes upon Member States ‘the obligation to pursue a particular course of conduct, the useful effect of such an act would be weakened if individuals were prevented from relying on it before their national courts and if the latter were prevented from taking it into consideration as an element of [EU] law’ (van Duyn, Case 41–74, EU:C:1974:133, para 12).

National Category
Law
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:su:diva-242028 (URN)10.1093/jiplp/jpaf001 (DOI)001403127800001 ()2-s2.0-105001016250 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2025-04-14 Created: 2025-04-14 Last updated: 2025-04-14Bibliographically approved
Rosati, E. (2025). Infringing AI: Liability for AI-Generated Outputs under International, EU, and UK Copyright Law. European Journal of Risk Regulation
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Infringing AI: Liability for AI-Generated Outputs under International, EU, and UK Copyright Law
2025 (English)In: European Journal of Risk Regulation, ISSN 1867-299X, E-ISSN 2190-8249Article in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

The analysis of liability aspects facing Artificial Intelligence (‘AI’)-generated outputs under copyright and related rights has been overlooked compared to other issues connected to the development and use of AI. This study fills this gap by exploring pertinent questions under international, EU and UK law. Specifically, the study tackles actionable reproduction, allocation of liability, and availability of defences. The analysis ultimately shows that, while it is clear that each case will need to be decided on its own merits, the generative AI output phase raises several profiles of liability under copyright law. If the goal of policymakers and relevant stakeholders is to ensure the balanced and sustainable development of AI, then the issues related to the generation and dissemination of AI outputs need to be given ample attention and a greater role in the debate than what has been the case so far, whether it is in the context of risk assessment and compliance, licensing initiatives, or in contentious scenarios.

Keywords
AI act, artificial intelligence, copyright, liability
National Category
Law
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:su:diva-241651 (URN)10.1017/err.2024.72 (DOI)2-s2.0-85209635813 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2025-04-03 Created: 2025-04-03 Last updated: 2025-04-03
Rosati, E. (2025). IP is back in fashion or, rather, fashion is back in IP! . Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 20(2), 63-63
Open this publication in new window or tab >>IP is back in fashion or, rather, fashion is back in IP! 
2025 (English)In: Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, ISSN 1747-1532, E-ISSN 1747-1540, Vol. 20, no 2, p. 63-63Article in journal, Editorial material (Other academic) Published
National Category
Law
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:su:diva-242079 (URN)10.1093/jiplp/jpae122 (DOI)001393151800001 ()2-s2.0-85219694617 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2025-04-11 Created: 2025-04-11 Last updated: 2025-04-11Bibliographically approved
Rosati, E. (2025). The DSM Directive Five Years On. NIR: Nordiskt immateriellt rättsskydd (1), 34-46
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The DSM Directive Five Years On
2025 (English)In: NIR: Nordiskt immateriellt rättsskydd, ISSN 0027-6723, no 1, p. 34-46Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Over five years have passed since the adoption of the EU Directive on Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Single Market (‘DSM Directive’). As its title suggests, by adopting this directive, the EU legislature intended to tackle and realize the digital dimension of the EU single market from a copyright and related rights perspective. Yet, looking at the resulting national transpositions, it is highly doubtful that such an objective might be considered achieved. Meanwhile, the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) has been already referred questions on the interpretation of relevant provisions of the directive, in light of doubts regarding the compatibility between these and national transpositions thereof (ONB and Others, C-575/23 (Belgium); Meta Platforms Ireland, C-797/23 (Italy); Streamz and Others, C-663/24 (Belgium)).

The complexity of the situation is further increased by the adoption, after the DSM Directive, of horizontal legislation – including but not limited to the Digital Services Act (‘DSA’) – that, while not copyright-specific, also serve to construe relevant provisions of the directive and, insofar as the DSA in particular is concerned, be in a lex generalis to lex specialis relationship with, e.g., a key provision of directive like its Article 17. 

By focusing in particular on Articles 15 and 17 of the DSM Directive, as transposed into national law, this contribution reflects critically on the current state of EU copyright and considers what the future might hold for this area of EU law. It ultimately concludes that the approach to copyright harmonization is in need of serious rethinking, and so are the goals and the legislative instruments needed to in this regard.

Keywords
DSM Directive, copyright, press publishers' right, OCSSPs
National Category
Law (excluding Law and Society)
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:su:diva-234579 (URN)
Available from: 2024-10-19 Created: 2024-10-19 Last updated: 2025-05-09Bibliographically approved
Rosati, E. (2024). Should the EU unify copyright laws?. Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 19(8), 621-622
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Should the EU unify copyright laws?
2024 (English)In: Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, ISSN 1747-1532, Vol. 19, no 8, p. 621-622Article in journal, Editorial material (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

hould the EU unify the copyright laws of its Member States and introduce, over 30 years after the start of the harmonization process, a unitary copyright title? The short answer is: yes. And that will be unavoidable too.Therefore, the real question is another: how to go about doing that? In order to answer this, it is necessary to start from the beginning and retrace the steps of a harmonization process that has led to a framework, which is an understatement to call ‘complex’.

National Category
Law
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:su:diva-238156 (URN)10.1093/jiplp/jpae053 (DOI)001230594700001 ()2-s2.0-85198845406 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2025-01-31 Created: 2025-01-31 Last updated: 2025-01-31Bibliographically approved
Rosati, E. (2023). Copyright at the CJEU: Back to the Start (of Copyright Protection). In: Hayleigh Bosher; Eleonora Rosati (Ed.), Developments and Directions in Intellectual Property Law: 20 Years of The IPKat (pp. 211-228). Oxford: Oxford University Press
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Copyright at the CJEU: Back to the Start (of Copyright Protection)
2023 (English)In: Developments and Directions in Intellectual Property Law: 20 Years of The IPKat / [ed] Hayleigh Bosher; Eleonora Rosati, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023, p. 211-228Chapter in book (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

In its 2009 decision in Infopaq (C–5/08), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) achieved a landmark result: the de facto, horizontal harmonization of the originality requirement. After that, nothing could stay the same. After providing an overview of the harmonization process in the copyright field over the past thirty years or so and, with that, the environment in which Infopaq came to be, this chapter considers Infopaq and the expansive effect of subsequent case law on other copyright subsistence requirements. The analysis also notes how the eventual outcome of Cofemel (C–683/17), insofar as works of applied art are concerned, is perfectly in line with such jurisprudence. The chapter further considers the legal and institutional difficulties that such a string of CJEU decisions has given rise to, and is yet to resolve, before concluding that further questions are likely to be posed to the CJEU in the not too distant future. In other words: the construction of EU copyright is far from over. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023
National Category
Law (excluding Law and Society)
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:su:diva-204308 (URN)10.1093/oso/9780192864475.003.0013 (DOI)2-s2.0-85146078919 (Scopus ID)9780192864482 (ISBN)9780192864475 (ISBN)
Available from: 2022-04-29 Created: 2022-04-29 Last updated: 2024-03-25Bibliographically approved
Rosati, E. (2023). Copyright reformed: the narrative of flexibility and its pitfalls in policy and legislative initiatives (2011–2021). Asia Pacific Law Review, 31(1), 33-54
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Copyright reformed: the narrative of flexibility and its pitfalls in policy and legislative initiatives (2011–2021)
2023 (English)In: Asia Pacific Law Review, ISSN 1019-2557, E-ISSN 1875-8444, Vol. 31, no 1, p. 33-54Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This article reviews selected copyright policy and legislation at the international, regional and national levels during the period 2011–2021. It identifies a common and consistent narrative that supported reform initiatives in the surveyed jurisdictions: the modernization of copyright requires greater flexibility so that the undertaking of certain acts without authorization is not unduly restricted and a fairer balance of rights and interests may be, as a result, achieved. Through the analysis of reform initiatives in different areas of copyright and across several different jurisdictions, it is shown how the flexibility narrative has on occasion had the effect of unduly altering the preventive nature of copyright’s exclusive rights, inappropriately referring to exceptions and limitations as rights of users, overlooking relevant legal obligations and introducing undue rigidity within the system of private autonomy. It is ultimately submitted that flexibility should not be conflated with fairness. As such, policy- and law-makers should be wary of superficially framing ongoing and future reform discourse around such a narrative without considering the shortcomings that it has led and might unduly lead to. 

Keywords
Exceptions and limitations, exclusive rights, fair balance, fair use, three-step test
National Category
Other Legal Research Criminology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:su:diva-208135 (URN)10.1080/10192557.2022.2117482 (DOI)000853188500001 ()2-s2.0-85138364306 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2022-08-19 Created: 2022-08-19 Last updated: 2025-02-20Bibliographically approved
Bosher, H. & Rosati, E. (Eds.). (2023). Developments and Directions in Intellectual Property Law: 20 Years of The IPKat (Firsted.). Oxford: Oxford University Press
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Developments and Directions in Intellectual Property Law: 20 Years of The IPKat
2023 (English)Collection (editor) (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

This book celebrates the twentieth anniversary of award-winning intellectual property (IP) blog The IPKat, originally founded in 2003. Over the past two decades, The IPKat has covered and commented on many of the most topical developments in the IP field from a substantive, practical, and policy standpoint alike. Today, The IPKat is considered the ‘Most Popular Intellectual Property Law Blawg’ of all time (source: Justia) and its readers are academics, members of the judiciary, policy- and lawmakers, practitioners, and students from all over the world. By bringing back together several of the current and past contributors to The IPKat—PermaKats, GuestKats, SpecialKats, and InternKats—alongside a cast of eminent Katfriends, this book reflects on the developments which have occurred and directions which have emerged in the IP field over the past twenty years. Topics covered include changes within the main substantive IP rights, as well as IP law, policy, and practice broadly intended and from a global perspective.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023. p. 752 Edition: First
Keywords
intellectual property law, copyright, trade marks, designs, patents, trade secrets, geographical indications
National Category
Law (excluding Law and Society)
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:su:diva-207407 (URN)10.1093/oso/9780192864475.001.0001 (DOI)2-s2.0-85173802119 (Scopus ID)9780192864475 (ISBN)9780191954993 (ISBN)
Available from: 2022-07-17 Created: 2022-07-17 Last updated: 2024-11-05Bibliographically approved
Rosati, E. (2023). Duct-taped bananas and copyright absurdity. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 18(9), 619-620
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Duct-taped bananas and copyright absurdity
2023 (English)In: Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, ISSN 1747-1532, E-ISSN 1747-1540, Vol. 18, no 9, p. 619-620Article in journal, Editorial material (Other academic) Published
Keywords
copyright
National Category
Law (excluding Law and Society)
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:su:diva-219154 (URN)10.1093/jiplp/jpad064 (DOI)001026184500001 ()2-s2.0-85172321056 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2023-07-11 Created: 2023-07-11 Last updated: 2024-11-04Bibliographically approved
Rosati, E. (2023). The localization of IP infringements in the online environment: from Web 2.0 to Web 3.0 and the Metaverse. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 18(10), 720-742
Open this publication in new window or tab >>The localization of IP infringements in the online environment: from Web 2.0 to Web 3.0 and the Metaverse
2023 (English)In: Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, ISSN 1747-1532, E-ISSN 1747-1540, Vol. 18, no 10, p. 720-742Article, review/survey (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]
  • Over time, technological advancements have resulted in novel ways both to exploit content and to infringe rights – including intellectual property rights (IPRs) – vesting in them.  Legislative instruments have consistently clarified that pre-existing rights continue to apply to new media, i.e., means to disseminate intangible assets, including in digital and online contexts.  In terms of rights enforcement, however, the progressive dematerialization of content and dissemination modalities has given rise to challenges, including when it comes to determining where an alleged IPR infringement has been committed. 
  • This study seeks to answer the following questions: Can the same criteria and notions developed in relation to other dissemination media find application in the context of IPR infringements carried out through and within the metaverses?  Does the distinction between centralized and decentralized metaverses have substantial implications insofar as the localization of IPR infringements is concerned?
  • Insofar as the questions presented above are concerned, the one asking whether the same criteria and notions developed in relation to other media may find application in the context of IPR infringements carried out through and within the metaverses is answered in the affirmative.  It is further submitted that the distinction between centralized and decentralized metaverses – while of substantial relevance to the determination of enforcement options – may not have significant implications insofar as the localization of IPR infringements is concerned. 
Keywords
metaverse, intellectual property, infringement, localization, jurisdiction, applicable law
National Category
Law (excluding Law and Society)
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:su:diva-220189 (URN)10.1093/jiplp/jpad077 (DOI)001068323700001 ()2-s2.0-85174838081 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2023-08-21 Created: 2023-08-21 Last updated: 2024-03-26Bibliographically approved
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0002-7357-5978

Search in DiVA

Show all publications