340 Recht
-
340 Recht
(6)
- 341 Völkerrecht
- 342 Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsrecht
- 343 Wehrrecht, Steuerrecht, Wirtschaftsrecht
- 344 Arbeitsrecht, Sozialrecht, Bildungsrecht, Kulturrecht
- 345 Strafrecht
- 346 Privatrecht
- 347 Zivilprozessrecht, Zivilgerichte
- 348 Gesetze, Verordnungen, Rechtsfälle
- 349 Recht einzelner Gebietskörperschaften und Gebiete
Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (7)
- Conference Proceeding (5)
- Other (1)
- Review (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (15)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (15)
Keywords
- Forschungsdaten (8)
- Recht (7)
- Datenschutz (6)
- Personenbezogene Daten (5)
- Urheberrecht (5)
- Digital Humanities (4)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (4)
- Datenschutz-Grundverordnung (3)
- Europäische Union (3)
- Geistiges Eigentum (3)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (8)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (6)
- Postprint (1)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (9)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (3)
Publisher
The debate on the use of personal data in language resources usually focuses — and rightfully so — on anonymisation. However, this very same debate usually ends quickly with the conclusion that proper anonymisation would necessarily cause loss of linguistically valuable information. This paper discusses an alternative approach — pseudonymisation. While pseudonymisation does not solve all the problems (inasmuch as pseudonymised data are still to be regarded as personal data and therefore their processing should still comply with the GDPR principles), it does provide a significant relief, especially — but not only — for those who process personal data for research purposes. This paper describes pseudonymisation as a measure to safeguard rights and interests of data subjects under the GDPR (with a special focus on the right to be informed). It also provides a concrete example of pseudonymisation carried out within a research project at the Institute of Information Technology and Communications of the Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg.
Was darf die sprachwissenschaftliche Forschung? Juristische Fragen bei der Arbeit mit Sprachdaten
(2022)
Sich in der Linguistik mit rechtlichen Themen beschäftigen zu müssen, ist auf den ersten Blick überraschend. Da jedoch in den Sprachwissenschaften empirisch gearbeitet wird und Sprachdaten, insbesondere Texte und Ton- und Videoaufnahmen sowie Transkripte gesprochener Sprache, in den letzten Jahren auch verstärkt Sprachdaten internetbasierter Kommunikation, als Basis für die linguistische Forschung dienen, müssen rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen für jede Art von Datennutzung beachtet werden. Natürlich arbeiten auch andere Wissenschaften, wie z. B. die Astronomie oder die Meteorologie, empirisch. Jedoch gibt es einen grundsätzlichen Unterschied der empirischen Basis: Im Gegensatz zu Temperaturen, die gemessen, oder Konstellationen von Himmelskörpern, die beobachtet werden, basieren Sprachdaten auf schriftlichen, mündlichen oder gebärdeten Äußerungen von Menschen, wodurch sich juristisch begründete Beschränkungen ihrer Nutzung ergeben.
Sometimes legal scholars get relevant but baffling questions from laypersons like: “The reference to a work is personal data, so does the GDPR actually require me to anonymise it? Or, as my voice data is personal data, does the GDPR automatically give me access to a speech recognizer using my voice sample? Or, can I say anything about myself without the GDPR requiring the web host to anonymise or remove the post? What can I say about others like politicians? And, what can researchers say about patients in a research report?” Based on these questions, the authors address the interaction of intellectual property and data protection law in the context of data minimisation and attribution rights, access rights, trade secret protection, and freedom of expression.
Twitter data is used in a wide variety of research disciplines in Social Sciences and Humanities. Although most Twitter data is publicly available, its re-use and sharing raise many legal questions related to intellectual property and personal data protection. Moreover, the use of Twitter and its content is subject to the Terms of Service, which also regulate re-use and sharing. This extended abstract provides a brief analysis of these issues and introduces the new Academic Research product track, which enables authorized researchers to access Twitter API on a preferential basis.
The article focuses on determining responsible parties and the division of potential liability arising from sharing language data (LD) containing personal data (PD). A key issue here is to identify who has to make sure and guarantee the GDPR compliance. The authors aim to answer 1) whether an individual researcher is a controller and 2) whether sharing LD results in joint controllership or separate controllership (whether the data's transferee becomes the controller, the joint controller or the processor). The article also analyses the legal relations of parties involved in data sharing and potential liability. The final section outlines data sharing in the CLARIN context. The analysis serves as a preliminary analytical background for redesigning the CLARIN contractual framework for sharing data.
N-grams are of utmost importance for modern linguistics and language technology. The legal status of n-grams, however, raises many practical questions. Traditionally, text snippets are considered copyrightable if they meet the originality criterion, but no clear indicators as to the minimum length of original snippets exist; moreover, the solutions adopted in some EU Member States (the paper cites German and French law as examples) are considerably different. Furthermore, recent developments in EU law (the CJEU's Pelham decision and the new right of press publishers) also provide interesting arguments in this debate. The paper presents the existing approaches to the legal protection of n-grams and tries to formulate some clear guidelines as to the length of n-grams that can be freely used and shared.
Digital humanities research under United States and European copyright laws. Evolving frameworks
(2021)
This chapter summarizes the current state of copyright laws in the United States and European Union that most affect Digital Humanities research, namely the fair use doctrine in the US and research exceptions in Europe, including the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, which has been finally adopted in 2019. This summary begins with a description of recent copyright advances most relevant to DH research, and finishes with an analysis of a significant remaining legal hurdle which DH researchers face: how do fair use and research exceptions deal with the critical issue of circumventing technological protection measures (TPM, a.k.a. DRM). Our discussion of the lawful means of obtaining TPM-protected material may contribute to both current DH research and planning decisions and inform future stakeholders and lawmakers of the need to allow TPM circumvention for academic research.
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on personal data protection in the European Union entered into application on 25 May 2018. With its 173 recitals and 99 articles, it may be one of the most ambitious pieces of EU legislation to date. Rather than a guide to GDPR compliance for Digital Humanities researchers, this chapter looks at the use of personal data in DH projects from the data subject’s perspective, and examines to what extent the GDPR kept its promise of enabling the data subject to “take control of his data”. The chapter provides an overview of the right to privacy and the right to data protection, a discussion of the relation between the concept of data control and privacy and data protection law, an introduction to the GDPR, and an explanation of its relevance for scientific research in general and DH in particular. The main section of the chapter analyses two types of data control mechanisms (consent and data subject rights) and their impact on DH research.