Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2020 (6), 2020, s. 17 - 24
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.20.008.13011Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2020 (6), 2020, s. 25 - 32
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.20.009.13012Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2020 (6), 2020, s. 33 - 64
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.20.010.13013Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2020 (6), 2020, s. 65 - 86
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.20.011.13014Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2020 (6), 2020, s. 87 - 118
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.20.012.13015Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2020 (6), 2020, s. 119 - 150
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.20.013.13016Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2020 (6), 2020, s. 151 - 176
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.20.014.13017Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2020 (6), 2020, s. 177 - 198
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.20.015.13018Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2020 (6), 2020, s. 199 - 222
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.20.016.13019Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2020 (6), 2020, s. 223 - 250
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.20.017.13020Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2020 (6), 2020, s. 251 - 260
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.20.018.13021Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2020 (6), 2020, s. 261 - 278
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.20.019.13022Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2020 (6), 2020, s. 279 - 292
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.20.020.13023Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2020 (6), 2020, s. 293 - 312
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.20.021.13024Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2020 (6), 2020, s. 313 - 338
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.20.022.13025Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2020 (6), 2020, s. 339 - 354
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.20.023.13026Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2020 (6), 2020, s. 355 - 376
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.20.024.13027Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2020 (6), 2020, s. 377 - 406
https://doi.org/10.4467/2450050XSNR.20.025.13028Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2020 (6), 2020, s. 407 - 409
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2020 (6), 2020, s. 410 - 412
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2020 (6), 2020, s. 413 - 420
Santander Art and Culture Law Review, 2/2020 (6), 2020, s. 421 - 423
Słowa kluczowe: UNESCO, digital cultural heritage, Charter on the Preservation of Digital Heritage, digital heritage, digital surrogates, restitution, colonialism, international law, Holocaust collections, vulnerability, digitization, research ethics, cultural heritage and digitalization, digitization, Indigenous heritage, cultural appropriation, Intellectual Property, curators’ moral rights, Museum of the Second World War in Gdansk, museum exhibition, creative work, copyright, museum, technology, cultural property, cultural heritage, digital, oral history, ethics, human rights museology, digital storytelling, collecting, museums, social media, museum education, museum ethics, Holocaust commemoration, social activism, digital inheritance, digital heritage, access, law & humanities, German Federal Court of Justice, trademark, follow the money, digitization process, cultural objects, cyber threat, digital content, digital heritage, consumer rights, intellectual property, soft law, China, return of cultural property, United States, codes of ethics, human remains, repatriation, France, Maori, Commission scientifique nationale des collections, human body, property rights, cultural heritage, cultural property, China, cultural heritage, urban planning law, architectural quality, urban renewal, digitization, cultural heritage, copyrights, digital heritage
