Document Actions
Citation and metadata
Recommended citation
Matteo Frigeri, Online sharing of Digital Design files as “use of a design”? A reassessment of the current regime of liability, 14 (2023) JIPITEC 462 para 1.
Download Citation
Endnote
%0 Journal Article %T Online sharing of Digital Design files as “use of a design”? A reassessment of the current regime of liability %A Frigeri, Matteo %J JIPITEC %D 2023 %V 14 %N 2023 %@ 2190-3387 %F frigeri2023 %X EU Design law often appears aslacking the same strong identity that characterisestrademark and copyright rights. Divergent conceptions over the scope of protection of these rightshave persisted, disguised behind the pretence of afully harmonised legal framework.New developments in technology, social practicesand business models now force us to question theextent to which design protection could apply to newforms of digital creation, distribution, and consumption of designs.As the European Commission carries out a reappraisal of whether Design law is sufficiently flexibleto remain relevant in the digital economy and whatprotection it can offer to rightsholders against acts ofillegal online sharing of files, this article will attemptto critically assess the jurisprudence, literature, andlegislative history of design legislation to determinewhether immaterial forms of “use of a design” mayconstitute infringing acts – with a particular focus on the online sharing of Digital Design files.This review demonstrates that the extension of protection to forms of immaterial exploitation of designsmay have been an unintended result facilitated bythe ambiguous wording of the legislation.The last section of the article assesses the potentialliability for the sharing of a DD file in a platform environment, a question also recently considered by theCommission’s study. After recognising the crucial roleof the “appearance” of a design as a condition of lia-bility, the article discusses how this may cause De-sign law to be inconsistent or ineffective in tacklingthe online sharing of designs. In the conclusion ofthis article, a few possible solutions are canvassed. Itis submitted that the current Commission Proposaldoes not satisfactorily address the conceptual issuesoutlined in the article, risking rather being a short-sighted and unprincipled response to a much broadernecessity: a general reconceptualisation of what design should protect in the digital ecosystem. %L 340 %K Digital designs %K EU Design law %K Online sharing platforms %K Peer-to-peer sharing %U http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-58490 %P 462-NoneDownload
Bibtex
@Article{frigeri2023,
author = "Frigeri, Matteo",
title = "Online sharing of Digital Design files as ``use of a design''? A reassessment of the current regime of liability",
journal = "JIPITEC",
year = "2023",
volume = "14",
number = "2023",
pages = "462--None",
keywords = "Digital designs; EU Design law; Online sharing platforms; Peer-to-peer sharing",
abstract = "EU Design law often appears aslacking the same strong identity that characterisestrademark and copyright rights. Divergent conceptions over the scope of protection of these rightshave persisted, disguised behind the pretence of afully harmonised legal framework.New developments in technology, social practicesand business models now force us to question theextent to which design protection could apply to newforms of digital creation, distribution, and consumption of designs.As the European Commission carries out a reappraisal of whether Design law is sufficiently flexibleto remain relevant in the digital economy and whatprotection it can offer to rightsholders against acts ofillegal online sharing of files, this article will attemptto critically assess the jurisprudence, literature, andlegislative history of design legislation to determinewhether immaterial forms of ``use of a design'' mayconstitute infringing acts -- with a particular focus on the online sharing of Digital Design files.This review demonstrates that the extension of protection to forms of immaterial exploitation of designsmay have been an unintended result facilitated bythe ambiguous wording of the legislation.The last section of the article assesses the potentialliability for the sharing of a DD file in a platform environment, a question also recently considered by theCommission's study. After recognising the crucial roleof the ``appearance'' of a design as a condition of lia-bility, the article discusses how this may cause De-sign law to be inconsistent or ineffective in tacklingthe online sharing of designs. In the conclusion ofthis article, a few possible solutions are canvassed. Itis submitted that the current Commission Proposaldoes not satisfactorily address the conceptual issuesoutlined in the article, risking rather being a short-sighted and unprincipled response to a much broadernecessity: a general reconceptualisation of what design should protect in the digital ecosystem.",
issn = "2190-3387",
url = "http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-58490"
}
Download
RIS
TY - JOUR AU - Frigeri, Matteo PY - 2023 DA - 2023// TI - Online sharing of Digital Design files as “use of a design”? A reassessment of the current regime of liability JO - JIPITEC SP - 462 EP - None VL - 14 IS - 2023 KW - Digital designs KW - EU Design law KW - Online sharing platforms KW - Peer-to-peer sharing AB - EU Design law often appears aslacking the same strong identity that characterisestrademark and copyright rights. Divergent conceptions over the scope of protection of these rightshave persisted, disguised behind the pretence of afully harmonised legal framework.New developments in technology, social practicesand business models now force us to question theextent to which design protection could apply to newforms of digital creation, distribution, and consumption of designs.As the European Commission carries out a reappraisal of whether Design law is sufficiently flexibleto remain relevant in the digital economy and whatprotection it can offer to rightsholders against acts ofillegal online sharing of files, this article will attemptto critically assess the jurisprudence, literature, andlegislative history of design legislation to determinewhether immaterial forms of “use of a design” mayconstitute infringing acts – with a particular focus on the online sharing of Digital Design files.This review demonstrates that the extension of protection to forms of immaterial exploitation of designsmay have been an unintended result facilitated bythe ambiguous wording of the legislation.The last section of the article assesses the potentialliability for the sharing of a DD file in a platform environment, a question also recently considered by theCommission’s study. After recognising the crucial roleof the “appearance” of a design as a condition of lia-bility, the article discusses how this may cause De-sign law to be inconsistent or ineffective in tacklingthe online sharing of designs. In the conclusion ofthis article, a few possible solutions are canvassed. Itis submitted that the current Commission Proposaldoes not satisfactorily address the conceptual issuesoutlined in the article, risking rather being a short-sighted and unprincipled response to a much broadernecessity: a general reconceptualisation of what design should protect in the digital ecosystem. SN - 2190-3387 UR - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-58490 ID - frigeri2023 ER -Download
Wordbib
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <b:Sources SelectedStyle="" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" > <b:Source> <b:Tag>frigeri2023</b:Tag> <b:SourceType>ArticleInAPeriodical</b:SourceType> <b:Year>2023</b:Year> <b:PeriodicalTitle>JIPITEC</b:PeriodicalTitle> <b:Volume>14</b:Volume> <b:Issue>2023</b:Issue> <b:Url>http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-58490</b:Url> <b:Pages>462-None</b:Pages> <b:Author> <b:Author><b:NameList> <b:Person><b:Last>Frigeri</b:Last><b:First>Matteo</b:First></b:Person> </b:NameList></b:Author> </b:Author> <b:Title>Online sharing of Digital Design files as “use of a design”? A reassessment of the current regime of liability</b:Title> <b:Comments>EU Design law often appears aslacking the same strong identity that characterisestrademark and copyright rights. Divergent conceptions over the scope of protection of these rightshave persisted, disguised behind the pretence of afully harmonised legal framework.New developments in technology, social practicesand business models now force us to question theextent to which design protection could apply to newforms of digital creation, distribution, and consumption of designs.As the European Commission carries out a reappraisal of whether Design law is sufficiently flexibleto remain relevant in the digital economy and whatprotection it can offer to rightsholders against acts ofillegal online sharing of files, this article will attemptto critically assess the jurisprudence, literature, andlegislative history of design legislation to determinewhether immaterial forms of “use of a design” mayconstitute infringing acts – with a particular focus on the online sharing of Digital Design files.This review demonstrates that the extension of protection to forms of immaterial exploitation of designsmay have been an unintended result facilitated bythe ambiguous wording of the legislation.The last section of the article assesses the potentialliability for the sharing of a DD file in a platform environment, a question also recently considered by theCommission’s study. After recognising the crucial roleof the “appearance” of a design as a condition of lia-bility, the article discusses how this may cause De-sign law to be inconsistent or ineffective in tacklingthe online sharing of designs. In the conclusion ofthis article, a few possible solutions are canvassed. Itis submitted that the current Commission Proposaldoes not satisfactorily address the conceptual issuesoutlined in the article, risking rather being a short-sighted and unprincipled response to a much broadernecessity: a general reconceptualisation of what design should protect in the digital ecosystem.</b:Comments> </b:Source> </b:Sources>Download
ISI
PT Journal AU Frigeri, M TI Online sharing of Digital Design files as “use of a design”? A reassessment of the current regime of liability SO JIPITEC PY 2023 BP 462 EP None VL 14 IS 2023 DE Digital designs; EU Design law; Online sharing platforms; Peer-to-peer sharing AB EU Design law often appears aslacking the same strong identity that characterisestrademark and copyright rights. Divergent conceptions over the scope of protection of these rightshave persisted, disguised behind the pretence of afully harmonised legal framework.New developments in technology, social practicesand business models now force us to question theextent to which design protection could apply to newforms of digital creation, distribution, and consumption of designs.As the European Commission carries out a reappraisal of whether Design law is sufficiently flexibleto remain relevant in the digital economy and whatprotection it can offer to rightsholders against acts ofillegal online sharing of files, this article will attemptto critically assess the jurisprudence, literature, andlegislative history of design legislation to determinewhether immaterial forms of “use of a design” mayconstitute infringing acts – with a particular focus on the online sharing of Digital Design files.This review demonstrates that the extension of protection to forms of immaterial exploitation of designsmay have been an unintended result facilitated bythe ambiguous wording of the legislation.The last section of the article assesses the potentialliability for the sharing of a DD file in a platform environment, a question also recently considered by theCommission’s study. After recognising the crucial roleof the “appearance” of a design as a condition of lia-bility, the article discusses how this may cause De-sign law to be inconsistent or ineffective in tacklingthe online sharing of designs. In the conclusion ofthis article, a few possible solutions are canvassed. Itis submitted that the current Commission Proposaldoes not satisfactorily address the conceptual issuesoutlined in the article, risking rather being a short-sighted and unprincipled response to a much broadernecessity: a general reconceptualisation of what design should protect in the digital ecosystem. ERDownload
Mods
<mods>
<titleInfo>
<title>Online sharing of Digital Design files as “use of a design”? A reassessment of the current regime of liability</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="family">Frigeri</namePart>
<namePart type="given">Matteo</namePart>
</name>
<abstract>EU Design law often appears as
lacking the same strong identity that characterises
trademark and copyright rights. Divergent conceptions over the scope of protection of these rights
have persisted, disguised behind the pretence of a
fully harmonised legal framework.
New developments in technology, social practices
and business models now force us to question the
extent to which design protection could apply to new
forms of digital creation, distribution, and consumption of designs.
As the European Commission carries out a reappraisal of whether Design law is sufficiently flexible
to remain relevant in the digital economy and what
protection it can offer to rightsholders against acts of
illegal online sharing of files, this article will attempt
to critically assess the jurisprudence, literature, and
legislative history of design legislation to determine
whether immaterial forms of “use of a design” may
constitute infringing acts – with a particular focus on the online sharing of Digital Design files.
This review demonstrates that the extension of protection to forms of immaterial exploitation of designs
may have been an unintended result facilitated by
the ambiguous wording of the legislation.
The last section of the article assesses the potential
liability for the sharing of a DD file in a platform environment, a question also recently considered by the
Commission’s study. After recognising the crucial role
of the “appearance” of a design as a condition of lia-
bility, the article discusses how this may cause De-
sign law to be inconsistent or ineffective in tackling
the online sharing of designs. In the conclusion of
this article, a few possible solutions are canvassed. It
is submitted that the current Commission Proposal
does not satisfactorily address the conceptual issues
outlined in the article, risking rather being a short-
sighted and unprincipled response to a much broader
necessity: a general reconceptualisation of what design should protect in the digital ecosystem.</abstract>
<subject>
<topic>Digital designs</topic>
<topic>EU Design law</topic>
<topic>Online sharing platforms</topic>
<topic>Peer-to-peer sharing</topic>
</subject>
<classification authority="ddc">340</classification>
<relatedItem type="host">
<genre authority="marcgt">periodical</genre>
<genre>academic journal</genre>
<titleInfo>
<title>JIPITEC</title>
</titleInfo>
<part>
<detail type="volume">
<number>14</number>
</detail>
<detail type="issue">
<number>2023</number>
</detail>
<date>2023</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>462</start>
<end>None</end>
</extent>
</part>
</relatedItem>
<identifier type="issn">2190-3387</identifier>
<identifier type="urn">urn:nbn:de:0009-29-58490</identifier>
<identifier type="uri">http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-58490</identifier>
<identifier type="citekey">frigeri2023</identifier>
</mods>
Download
Full Metadata
| Bibliographic Citation | Journal of intellectual property, information technology and electronic commerce law 14 (2023) 2023 |
|---|---|
| Title |
Online sharing of Digital Design files as “use of a design”? A reassessment of the current regime of liability (eng) |
| Author | Matteo Frigeri |
| Language | eng |
| Abstract | EU Design law often appears as lacking the same strong identity that characterises trademark and copyright rights. Divergent conceptions over the scope of protection of these rights have persisted, disguised behind the pretence of a fully harmonised legal framework. New developments in technology, social practices and business models now force us to question the extent to which design protection could apply to new forms of digital creation, distribution, and consumption of designs. As the European Commission carries out a reappraisal of whether Design law is sufficiently flexible to remain relevant in the digital economy and what protection it can offer to rightsholders against acts of illegal online sharing of files, this article will attempt to critically assess the jurisprudence, literature, and legislative history of design legislation to determine whether immaterial forms of “use of a design” may constitute infringing acts – with a particular focus on the online sharing of Digital Design files. This review demonstrates that the extension of protection to forms of immaterial exploitation of designs may have been an unintended result facilitated by the ambiguous wording of the legislation. The last section of the article assesses the potential liability for the sharing of a DD file in a platform environment, a question also recently considered by the Commission’s study. After recognising the crucial role of the “appearance” of a design as a condition of lia- bility, the article discusses how this may cause De- sign law to be inconsistent or ineffective in tackling the online sharing of designs. In the conclusion of this article, a few possible solutions are canvassed. It is submitted that the current Commission Proposal does not satisfactorily address the conceptual issues outlined in the article, risking rather being a short- sighted and unprincipled response to a much broader necessity: a general reconceptualisation of what design should protect in the digital ecosystem. |
| Subject | Digital designs, EU Design law, Online sharing platforms, Peer-to-peer sharing |
| DDC | 340 |
| Rights | DPPL |
| URN: | urn:nbn:de:0009-29-58490 |
