Dr Christina Angelopoulos

Contact details

Name:
Dr Christina Angelopoulos
Position/Fellowship type:
Associate Research Fellow
Fellowship term:
03-Oct-2016
Institute:
Institute of Advanced Legal Studies
Email address:
cja58@cam.ac.uk
Website:
https://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/cj-angelopoulos/77871

Research Summary and Profile

Research interests:
Digitisation, Human rights, Law
Regions:
England, Europe, United Kingdom
Summary of research interests and expertise:
Her research interests primarily lie in copyright law, with a particular focus on intermediary liability. This was the topic of her PhD thesis. In particular, her thesis examined the European harmonisation of the liability of online intermediaries for the copyright infringements of third parties. It was written at the Institute for Information Law (IViR) of the University of Amsterdam from 2011 to 2015 and publicly defended in Amsterdam in April 2016. In November 2016, Christina's thesis was published as part of the Information Law Series of Kluwer Law International under the title “European Intermediary Liability in Copyright: A Tort-Based Analysis”. In April 2017, the thesis won Proxime Accessit in the 2016 European Law Faculties Association Award for Outstanding Doctoral Theses in European Law. In August 2017, the book was shortlisted for the Peter Birks Book Prize 2017, offered by the Society of Legal Scholars for outstanding published books by scholars in their early careers.
Publication Details

Related publications/articles:

Date Details
15-Sep-2016 MTE v Hungary: A New ECtHR Judgment on Intermediary Liability and Freedom of Expression

Articles

Case note on Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete and Index.hu Zrt v Hungary, European Court of Human Rights, App No 22947/13, 2 February 2016.

Published with: Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2016) 11(8), p. 582-584.

16-Jun-2016 “Study of Fundamental Rights Limitations for Online Enforcement through Self-Regulation”

Papers

With: A.W. Hins, P.B. Hugenholtz, T. McGonagle, O.L. van Daalen, J.V.J. van Hoboken, A. Brody, T. Margoni & P. Leerssen, “Study of Fundamental Rights Limitations for Online Enforcement through Self-Regulation”, Institute for Information Law (IViR), University of Amsterdam.

01-Feb-2016 “The Term Directive and the Term Extension Directive”

Chapters

This chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the provisions of the EU's Term Directive (Directive 2006/116/EC) and Term Extension Directive (Directive 2011/77/EU).

29-Aug-2015 “Sketching the Outline of a Ghost: the Fair Balance between Copyright and Fundamental Rights in Intermediary Liability”

Articles

Special issue of Info - The journal of policy, regulation and strategy for telecommunications, information and media on the theme of "New Intermediaries in the Hyperconnected Society”, p. 72-96.

In recent years, the national courts of the EU Member States, in an attempt to stem the flow of rampant online copyright infringement, have increasingly sought a convenient enforcement tool in the imposition of obligations on internet intermediaries whose websites and networks are used by the primary wrongdoers. Duties to prevent or remove infringing material have also proliferated.

The emerging case law governing the limits to the imposition of such obligation has rested heavily on the notion of a “fair balance” between conflicting fundamental rights. While recognising that copyright is protected as a fundamental right under Art. 17(2) the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, the CJEU has emphasised that it is not absolute and must therefore be reconciled with the counter-balancing fundamental rights of others (most notably the right of the intermediary to conduct a business and the rights of its users to the protection of their personal data and their freedom of expression). This has elevated the discussion on intermediary liability to the hierarchically higher legal plane of primary law, while also providing a legal basis in EU law beyond the limited reach of the E-Commerce Directive.

But the vagueness of the basic rules invoked inevitably results in poor guidance as to the appropriate solutions. The individual cases heard only shed light on the specific circumstances that concerned them. As a result, the CJEU’s rulings fail to illuminate the boarder picture: where does this “fair balance” lie? Currently, no general standard is discernible. The result is legal uncertainty for intermediaries and right-holders and chilling effects on the exercise of fundamental rights. In other words, as AG Mazák noted in Case C-47/07 Masdar, “as is generally the case with general principles of law as a legal source, until there is settled case-law on the matter discussing the concrete content of such a principle can be very much like discussing the shape of a ghost.”

19-Aug-2014 “Are Blocking Injunctions against ISPs Allowed in Europe? Copyright Enforcement in the Post-Telekabel EU Legal Landscape”

Articles

(2014) 10 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, p. 812-821. Republished in GRUR International, Vol. 11, p. 1089-1096.
 

In recent years, the national courts of the EU Member States, in an attempt to stem the flow of rampant online copyright infringement, have increasingly turned to the issuance of blocking injunctions against the intermediaries whose websites and networks are used by third parties to commit infringements. This article examines the legal framework in place at the EU level with regard to the legality of such injunctive orders, making a distinction between filtering measures, used to detect copyright infringements, and blocking measures, used to put an end to them. On the basis of that analysis, a detailed examination will be made of the latest CJEU ruling to apply this framework, Case C-314/12, UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH on the lawfullness of open-ended blocking injunctions against internet access providers.

08-Oct-2013 “Beyond the Safe Harbours: Harmonising Substantive Intermediary Liability for Copyright Infringement in Europe”

Articles

(2013) 3 Intellectual Property Quarterly, p. 253-274.
 

With the adoption and subsequent national implementation of the E-Commerce Directive’s safe harbour regime, the architecture set up for intermediary liability in Europe has become two-tiered: at a first stage, it is necessary to examine whether a given intermediary attracts, in its pursuit of a certain activity, civil liability according to the standards in place in national legislation and only then, in the second instance, must the inapplicability of any immunity be established. As a result, although it provides a veneer of approximation by immunising intermediaries under certain circumscribed conditions, the Directive does not harmonise the underlying substantive liability norms which decide whether the safe harbours will be necessary or redundant. Instead, these are determined by national tort law, leaving ample room for national divergences between the regimes of the various Member States. This paper examines the applicable tort rules currently in place in three selected jurisdictions of the UK, France and Germany, picking out their commonalities and divergences and revealing the confusion that governs the topic across European borders. The intention is to examine the structures in place that could allow for the eventual European harmonisation of substantive intermediary liability beyond the safe harbours.

10-Aug-2012 “The Myth of European Term Harmonisation: 27 Public Domains for the 27 Member States”

Articles

(2012) 5 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC), p. 567-594.

12-Jun-2012 “Determining the Term of Protection for Films: When Does a Film Fall into the Public Domain in Europe?”

Articles

IRIS plus 2012-2, European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg 2012, p. 7-21.

06-Dec-2011 “Amended Directive Extends the Term of Protection for Performers and Sound Recordings”

Articles

(2011) 11 GRUR International, p. 987-989.

06-Jul-2011 Open Content Licensing: From Theory to Practice

Edited Book

(ed. with L Guibault) Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press 2011, p. 243-295

06-Jul-2011 “Chapter IX - Creative Commons and Related Rights in Sound Recordings: Are the Two Systems Compatible?”

Chapters

in: Open Content Licensing: From Theory to Practice, L. Guibault & C. Angelopoulos (ed.),

Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press 2011, p. 243-295

Can the will of the author cancel her copyright? The Creative Commons licensing system depends on a positive answer to this question, and indeed, in the area of copyright proper, for the most part this is the case. But the related rights of performers and phonogram producers are a different matter: in addition to their exclusive rights, performers and phonogram producers are also granted a right to equitable remuneration for the use of their phonograms in communications to the public or broadcasting by wireless means. Given that, in many EU Member States the right to equitable remuneration has been implemented in the form of a (waivable or non-waivable) compulsory licensing scheme, while, even where a voluntary license scheme is in place, the functional reality of collecting societies will limit the flexibility that this will allow right-owners, the following question arises: is the legal framework of related rights and the collective management systems in place for the exploitation of these rights compatible with the use of Creative Commons licenses? This book chapter attempts to answer this complicated question with regard to the law of the two EU Member States of the UK and the Netherlands. The issue is examined against the backdrop of the innovative flexible collective management pilot project was initiated for musical works between Buma/Stemra, the Dutch collecting society for music authors and publishers, and Creative Commons Netherlands, the Dutch branch of Creative Commons. The chapter concludes that, when contemplating the application of Creative Commons licenses to musical works in the context of the user’s obligation to pay equitable remuneration to the performer and phonogram producer for use of a phonogram in a communication to the public or broadcast, three main circumstances must be kept in mind: (a) Whether the work has been published for commercial purposes; (b) Whether the work is offered by the user on an interactive, on-demand basis; (c) What type of licensing scheme is established in the country in question for the management of the right.

14-Jan-2011 Digitisation and Online Exploitation of Broadcasters' Archives

Edited Book

(ed. with S Nikoltchev and S J van Gompel), IRIS Special, European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg 2010.

The archives of many television broadcasters now contain materiel which includes more than half a century of contemporary, documentary and entertainment history and are of immense cultural and economic value. Digitisation has created an entirely new technical basis for making these assets available to a wide audience, and there are a whole range of projects aimed at opening up audiovisual archives (including those of broadcasters). However, many projects to open up broadcasters' archives and exploit them online generally run up against serious problems when it comes to clearing the rights for these archived works. These problems arise, firstly, due to a contractual practice that developed in the pre-digital era and to aspects of copyright law that do not really meet the needs of the digital age. Secondly, the very large number of works stored in archives constitutes a challenge that is not easily overcome. The aim of this IRIS Special is to discuss the subject from a number of different perspectives. The team of authors involved is accordingly made up of representatives of many different interests: copyright holders and those who look after their interests, television broadcasters, lawyers and copyright experts.

06-Aug-2010 “Product Placement in European Audiovisual Productions”

Articles

IRIS plus 2010-3, European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg 2010, p. 7-21.

21-May-2009 “Filtering the Internet for Copyrighted Content in Europe”

Articles

IRIS plus 2009-4, European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg 2009, p. 2-12.

30-Mar-2009 “Workshop on Audiovisual Search: Summary of the Discussion”

Chapters

(with J van Hoboken) in Searching for Audiovisual Content, IRIS Special, European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg 2008.

21-Jul-2008 “Freedom of Expression and Copyright – The Double Balancing Act”

Articles

(2008) 3 Intellectual Property Quarterly, p. 328-353.

01-Jul-2008 “Modern Intellectual Property Legislation: Warm for Reform”

Articles

(2008) 2 Entertainment Law Review 35, p. 35-40.

Publications available on SAS-space:

Date Details
Jul-2012 Ecocide is the missing 5th Crime Against Peace

NonPeerReviewed

The term ecocide was used as early as 1970, when it was first recorded at the Conference on War and National Responsibility in Washington, where Professor Arthur W. Galston “proposed a new international agreement to ban ‘ecocide’”2. Ecocide as a term had no strict definition at that time: “although not legally defined, its essential meaning is well-understood; it denotes various measures of devastation and destruction which have in common that they aim at damaging or destroying the ecology of geographic areas to the detriment of human life, animal life, and plant life”. What was recognised was that the element of intent did not always apply. “Intent may not only be impossible to establish without admission but, I believe, it is essentially irrelevant.” Richard A. Falk, in his draft (1973) Ecocide Convention, explicitly states at the outset to recognise “that man has consciously and unconsciously inflicted irreparable damage to the environment in times of war and peace”. By the end of the 1970s the term itself seems to have been well understood. So how was it that an international crime whose name was familiar to many who were involved in the drafting of the initial Crimes Against Peace was completely removed without determination? Documents that have only now been examined and pieced together shed a whole new light on a corner of history that would otherwise be buried forever. What is so remarkable is that the collective memory has erased this crime in just 15 years, and yet documents tell a story of engagement by many governments who supported the criminalisation of ecocide in peacetime as well as in wartime. Extensive debate over 40 years, with committees of experts specifically tasked to undertake examination of ecocide and environmental crimes, documented in the paper trail left behind tells us that this was well-considered law; early drafts, which have been referred to in some of the papers that have been uncovered, provide definitive reference to ecocide as a crime which was to stand alongside genocide as a Crimes Against Peace – both during peacetime as well as wartime.

Extreme Energy As Genocidal Method: Tar Sands and the Indigenous Peoples of Northern Alberta

PeerReviewed

In this paper we discuss the impact of the tar sands development in northern Alberta on the indigenous communities of the Treaty 8 region.[i] While the project has brought income to some, and wealth to the few, its impact on the environment and on the lives of many indigenous groups is profoundly concerning. Their ability to hunt, trap and fish has been severely curtailed and, where it is possible, people are often too fearful of toxins to drink water and eat fish from waterways polluted by the ‘externalities’ of tar sands production. The situation has led some indigenous spokespersons to talk in terms of a slow industrial genocide being perpetrated against them. We begin the paper with a discussion of the treaty negotiations which paved the way for tar sands development before moving on to discuss the impacts of modern day tar sands extraction and the applicability of the genocide concept.

Ecocide is the missing 5th crime against peace

NonPeerReviewed

The term ‘ecocide’, the extensive destruction of ecosystems, has been around since the 1970s when it was first recorded at the Conference on War and National Responsibility, Washington in February of that year. From the 1970s onwards many academics and legal scholars argued for the criminalisation of ecocide and debated the elements required for such an international crime. During the 1970s, 80s and 90s making ecocide an international crime was also considered by the United Nations International Law Commission (ILC) for inclusion in the Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind (‘the Code’), which later became the Rome Statute,1 and by the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities for inclusion in the extension of the Convention on Genocide.2 A number of questions kept arising: Should ecocide be a crime in peacetime and wartime? Does the offender’s intent to commit the crime matter or are the consequences of extensive destruction of ecosystems severe enough to warrant ecocide being a crime of strict liability regardless of the offender’s intent? This report pieces together and examines the history of the Law of Ecocide, shedding a whole new light on a corner of history that would otherwise have remained buried. Perhaps one of the most interesting issues highlighted by this report concerns the manner in which ecocide, a concept that was familiar and supported by many as one that should be enshrined in international law, was dropped by the ILC in 1996.

Throwing petrol on a fire: the human and environmental cost of tar sands production

PeerReviewed

In this opinion piece, independent researcher Jennifer Huseman and Senior Lecturer in Human Rights in the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, Dr Damien Short, examine Canada’s tar sands oil industry and its effect on indigenous communities. They describe how the industry ‘externalities’ of environmental degradation and pollution are seriously affecting the health of indigenous communities and threatening their physical and cultural survival. Furthermore,due to the enormous carbon footprint associated with the exploitation of the tar sands, the authors argue that they are a danger to us all. They call for a halt to tar sands expansion, the instigation of effective environmental clean-up procedures and measures to address the health issues facing indigenous peoples as a result of tar sands operations. They also call on national and international financial institutions to immediately withdraw funding from the tar sands expansion and operations.

Nov-2015 Researching and studying human rights: interdisciplinary insight

PeerReviewed

Since 1948, the study of human rights has been dominated by legal scholarship that has sought to investigate the development of human rights law, emerging jurisprudence, regional systems, the decisions and recommendations of human rights mechanisms and institutions and to a lesser extent the ‘compliance gaps’ between state commitments and actions. Even so, in all of these spheres there are elements that cannot be fully understood through a purely legal lens, moreover, if we understand ‘human rights’ more broadly, and look into the practical world of human rights work and human rights discourse, advocacy and activism, then we need to go beyond legal analysis. Indeed, to understand the world of human rights in both theory and practice requires interdisciplinary insight, as it covers an enormous range of social, political, economic and environmental issues. In this chapter, I will outline the contributions of two disciplines that were slow to contribute to the field of human rights but which offer vitally important insights that can guide both academic research and human rights advocacy.

May-2015 Extreme energy, ‘fracking’ and human rights: a new field for human rights impact assessments?

PeerReviewed

This article explores the potential human rights impacts of the ‘extreme energy’ process, specifically focussing on the production of shale gas, coal-bed methane (CBM) and ‘tight oil’, known colloquially as ‘fracking’. The article locates the discussion within a broader context of resource depletion, the ‘limits to growth’ and the process of extreme energy itself. Utilising recent secondary data from the United States and Australia, combined with the preliminary findings of our ethnographic fieldwork in the United Kingdom, the article outlines a prima facie case for investigating ‘fracking’ development through a human rights lens. Indeed, based on considerable emerging evidence we argue that ‘fracking’ development poses a significant risk to a range of key human rights and should thus form the subject of a multitude of comprehensive, interdisciplinary human rights impact assessments (HRIAs) as a matter of urgency. Finally, given the close relationships between government and extractive industries, we argue that these impact assessments must do more than bolster corporate social responsibility (CSR) statements and should be truly independent of either government or industry influence.

Additional Publications

Research Projects & Supervisions

Research projects:

Details
The European Harmonisation of Intermediary Civil Liability for Online Copyright Infringement

PhD research project, 2011-2015

With the adoption and subsequent national implementation of the E-Commerce Directive’s safe harbour regime, the architecture set up for intermediary liability in Europe has become two-tiered: at a first stage, it is necessary to examine whether a given intermediary attracts, in its pursuit of a certain activity, civil liability according to the standards ensconced in the Member States’ legislation and only then, in the second instance, must the inapplicability of any immunity be established. As a result, although it provides a veneer of approximation by immunising intermediaries under certain circumscribed conditions, the Directive does not harmonise the underlying substantive liability norms which determine whether the safe harbours will be necessary or redundant. This leaves ample room for national divergences, particularly as concerns new types of intermediaries whose eligibility for the existing safe harbours is uncertain.

This PhD research seeks to explore the liability in Europe of online intermediaries for secondary or indirect copyright infringement, i.e. where the material act of infringement is committed by a third party, regardless of the applicability of the safe harbour regime. It will therefore begin with an investigation of the current law relating to intermediary liability for copyright infringement in the legal jurisdictions of England, France and Germany, these three jurisdictions representing each of the three major European extra-contractual liability traditions. The relationship between these rules and national substantive tort principles in the selected countries will subsequently be examined. This shall be done with a view to uncovering common European tort principles that can potentially lead the way to a harmonised, clear and comprehensive European liability regime of intermediaries for copyright infringement.
 

Relevant Events

Related events:

Date Details
13-Jul-2016 "Online platforms and copyright - All you wanted to know but never asked"

Training session hosted by MEP Catherine Stihler (S&D), European Parliament, Brussels, Belgium.

12-Jul-2016 “3D Printing in Law and Society”

Chair at book launch of 'Socio-Legal Aspects of the 3D Printing Revolution' by Angela Day (Palgrave 2016), Institute for Advanced Legal Studies, London, UK.

16-Jun-2016 “European Intermediary Liability and Fair Balance” presentation at “Privatising the Rule of Law Online: Freedom of Speech, Copyright and Platforms in the Digital Single Market”

Presentation at event hosted by MEP Marietje Schaake (ALDE Group), European Parliament, Brussels, Belgium.

10-Jun-2016 “The Rules in the Digital World – Economy v. Human Rights”

Participant in panel session, EuroDIG conference, Brussels, Belgium.

10-Jun-2016 “Intermediaries and Human Rights – between Co-Opted Law Enforcement and Human Rights Protection”,

"Key participant" focusing on the notion of a “fair balance” between conflicting fundamental rights and how to achieve it, as this relates to the area of intermediary liability. EuroDIG conference, Brussels, Belgium.

11-Apr-2016 “Notice-And-Fair-Balance: The Law of Fundamental Rights in European Intermediary Liability”

With Stijn Smet, Ghent Univerisity. Presentation at 2016 BILETA Conference, University of Hertfordshire, UK.

08-Apr-2016 “Accommodating freedom of expression within copyright: independent exception?”

Chair of session at CREATe “Copyright and Free Speech” workshop, Information Law and Policy Centre (IALS), London, UK. Main academic organisers: Dr Daithi Mac Sithigh, Newcastle University and Dr Emily Laidlaw, University of Calgary. Host support provided by IALS.

18-Mar-2016 “European Intermediary Liability in Copyright: A Tort-Based Analysis”

Presentation at Institute for Information Law (IViR), University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

16-Mar-2016 “Intermediary liability through the back door: Consequences of extending digital copyright for the open internet”

OpenForum Europe, Brussels, Belgium.
 

11-Feb-2016 “The Definition of Online Intermediaries and their Liability”

Lecture at “Annual Training on Business Models, Innovation and Regulation of the Digital World”, Florence School of Regulation, Communications and Media, European University Institute, Florence, Italy.

13-Apr-2015 The European Harmonisation of Intermediary Accessory Liability for Online Copyright Infringement: at the Intersection of Tort Law and Fundamental Rights

Academic organiser, Roundtable Discussion, Institute for Information Law (IViR), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

13-Apr-2015 Developing Eurocopytort: the European Harmonisation of Intermediary Liability for Third Party Copyright Infringement

Presentation at Roundtable Discussion on “The European Harmonisation of Intermediary Accessory Liability for Online Copyright Infringement: at the Intersection of Tort Law and Fundamental Rights”, Institute for Information Law (IViR), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

24-Mar-2015 Sketching the Outline of a Ghost: The Fair Balance between Copyright and Fundamental Rights in Intermediary Liability

Presentation at EuroCPR, Brussels, Belgium.

08-Sep-2014 Beyond the Safe Harbours: Substantive Third Party Intermediary Liability for Copyright in Europe

Presentation at workshop on “Secondary liability of hosting Internet Service Providers in the European Union”, Maastricht University, the Netherlands.

03-Jul-2014 Filtering away Infringement: Copyright, Injunctions and the Role of ISPs

Academic organiser, panel discussion, Information Influx Conference, 2-4 July 2014, Institute for Information Law (IViR), Amsterdam, the Netherlands

30-May-2014 Their Users’ Keepers? Harmonising Intermediary Liability for Third Party Copyright Infringement in Europe

Presentation at 6th International Conference on Information Law and Ethics (ICIL 2014), Thessaloniki, Greece.

11-Apr-2014 How to Build a Public Domain Calculator

Presentation at workshop on “The Public Domain Calculators”, Bournemouth University, UK.

24-Apr-2010 The Digitisation and Online Exploitation of Broadcasters’ Archives

Academic organisation, Joint Expert Workshop, European Audiovisual Observatory/Institute for Information Law (IViR), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Back to top