Lower Benefits to the Refugees in Denmark: Missing Recognition?

This article is a study of the contrast between the Danish law concerning reduced economic benefits for newly arrived refugees and immigrants (known as Start Help or as introductory benefit) and the idea of recognition as the condition for individual self-realization and justice. Our assumption is that Start Help both implies economic discrimination against newly arrived persons in Denmark (especially refugees and their families under family reunification rules) and symbolizes a lack of recognition. We have chosen to adopt the theories of recognition (and redistribution) propounded by Axel Honneth and Nancy Fraser to explore our queries about Start Help and the discriminatory impact on its recipients. Empirically the article is based on in-depth qualitative interviews with six refugees who all receive Start Help.

Creative Commons Olympics. How Big Media is Learning to License From Amateur Authors

NBC Universal’s decision to use Creative Commons-licensed photographs in an Olympic broadcast is an example of how media conglomerates are experimenting with collaboration with amateurs, but it also reveals potential problems of letting non-lawyers negotiate copyright licensing agreements. In the process, NBC’s producers nearly opened the door for a multimillion-dollar infringement law suit. To avoid such pitfalls, media companies need to adopt policies and best practices for using amateur licensed works. These guidelines should instruct how a production can attribute collaborating authors and how the Open Content licensing terms affect the licensing of the productions. The guidelines should also instruct how producers can seek alternative licensing arrangements with amateurs and contribute back to the Open Content community.

Internet Intermediaries and the Law Applicable to Intellectual Property Infringements

The coordination between territoriality restricted intellectual property rights and the potential global reach of Internet activities has been the focus of significant attention in recent years. The liability of Internet intermediaries offering potentially global services that may facilitate infringements of intellectual property rights by others in multiple countries poses a particular challenge in that regard. At a substantive law level, significant differences remain between jurisdictions regarding secondary liability for intellectual property rights infringements and safe harbor provisions for Internet intermediaries. The present article discusses the conflict of laws aspects of the liability of Internet intermediaries in light of the recent international efforts to adopt soft law provisions on intellectual property and private international law.