A new study by the European Commission
On 16 May 2024, a report on improving access to and re-use of research results, publications and data for scientific purposes was adopted. This comprehensive study was prepared for the European Commission by Senftleben Martin, Szkalej Kacper, Buijs Doris, Van Eechoud Mireille, Irion Kristina, Buri Ilaria (IVIR); Frigeri Matteo, Karabuga Emircan, King Leona, Margoni Thomas, Schirru Luca, Stähler Leander (KU LEUVEN CiTIP); Sganga Caterina, Turan Pelin, Contardi Magali, Signoretta Camilla, Edwards Ernesto (Sant’Anna Pisa); Stančiauskas Vilius, Kazlauskaitė Deimantė, Dėlkutė-Morgan Rūta, Šiaulytytė Gabija, Kublashvili Anastasia, Voronecki Tomaš (PPMI Group).
The new report “Improving access to and re-use of research results, publications and data for scientific purposes” supports and contributes to the objectives of Action 2 of the European Research Area (ERA) Policy Agenda 2022-2024, which aims to propose an EU legislative and regulatory framework for copyright and data fit for research.
The report provides a comprehensive analysis of the barriers to access and re-use of publicly funded research, including scientific publications and data. The report proposes a set of legislative and non-legislative interventions aimed at improving the existing EU legislative frameworks on copyright and data. The aim of the actions is to adapt the barriers to serve the needs of scientific research and the principles of open research data within the ERA.
ODIPI is organizing ERA KR21 Conference: Barriers and Incentives for Open Science in the Copyright Law that will take place on 2 December, 2024 at Hotel Four Points by Sheraton (Mons) in Ljubljana and also online.
The District Court of Hamburg ruled in the case of Kneschke v. LAION e.V. that LAION did not infringe the copyright of photographer Kneschke, as the use of his photograph was covered by the exception for text and data mining (TDM) for scientific purposes.
“Can copyright bring artificial intelligence to its knees? Which other circumstances may cause that the “making” of generative AI can dramatically change in the (near) future. This short paper presents potential challenges that copyright poses to the training of the machines on large amount of data. Different jurisdictions address these issues differently. In the USA the legality of these activities is tested in several court cases. Do gentlemen’s agreements and pragmatic symbiosis known from the “search engines business model” provide sufficient basis and/or incentive for the business model of “making” generative AI business model as well?