Lessons from IP Markets for Data Markets: On Moral Rights, Property Rules, and Resale Royalties Dr Philipp Hacker * Comparative law; Compensation; EU law; Intellectual property;; Personal data; Resale right; United States Abstract IP law offers manifold insights to the current debate on the optimal regulatory environment for markets in personal data. This article contributes to this transdisciplinary debate by making three novel interventions. First, it shows that IP rights and personal data are comparable not only with respect to their theoretical foundations, but also in light of recent empirical studies from the US and the EU about user attitudes and valuations of the respective rights. On this basis, secondly, the article explores how far the interlinked system of property, liability and inalienability rules in existing IP law offers a blueprint for the contested regulation of markets in personal data. In both fields, the interests of control, access and adequate compensation have to be balanced. In the digital economy, control is increasingly illusory; therefore, the question of adequate compensation to users for data they share becomes ever more relevant. Hence, thirdly, the article proposes transplanting the artists’ resale right from copyright law to guarantee users a fair share in the value of their personal data as it unfolds over time. Overall, the article shows that a careful analysis of the similarities, and differences, between IP rights and personal data can make a meaningful contribution to the pressing question of control, access and compensation in the digital economy. Introduction In January 2017, the European Commission published a Communication entitled “Building a European Data Economy”. 1 In it, the Commission proposes a principle of free movement of data within the EU in order to advance the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the EU treaties. 2 Furthermore, it hints at a “data producers’ right” that could govern the use of non-personal data 3 ; the Commission intends to subject personal data, by contrast, to the current “notice and consent” regime epitomised by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). 4 Generally, the Commission aims to create a comprehensive framework for data access, trade and ownership that leads to a “fair sharing of benefits between data holders, processors and application providers”. 5 Shortly after the Communication, in March 2017, the Republican-led US House of Representatives voted to repeal privacy protection for personal data processed by internet providers, removing consent requirements and effectively handing over user data to cable companies and * A.SK Fellow, WZB Berlin Social Science Center; Research Fellow, Centre for Law, Economics and Society, and Centre for Blockchain Technologies, both UCL. 1 Commission, “Building a European Data Economy”, COM(2017) 9 final. 2 Commission, “Building a European Data Economy”, COM(2017) 9 final, pp.5–6. 3 Commission, “Building a European Data Economy”, COM(2017) 9 final, p.13. 4 Commission, “Building a European Data Economy”, COM(2017) 9 final, p.13. 5 Commission, “Building a European Data Economy”, COM(2017) 9 final, p.11 (emphasis added). 45 [2018] I.P.Q., Issue 1 © 2018 Thomson Reuters and Contributors