IVIR - Universiteit van Amsterdam

Niet Bern maar Brussel: assimilatie en reciprociteit tussen RAAP en VITRA

van Eechoud, M.

In: Auteursrecht, iss. 2, pp. 67-76, 2023.

The right to encryption: Privacy as preventing unlawful access

van Daalen, O.

In: Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 49, 2023.

@article{nokey,

title = {The right to encryption: Privacy as preventing unlawful access},

author = {van Daalen, O.},

url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364923000146},

doi = {10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105804},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-05-23},

journal = {Computer Law \& Security Review},

volume = {49},

abstract = {Encryption technologies are a fundamental building block of modern digital infrastructure, but plans to curb these technologies continue to spring up. Even in the European Union, where their application is by now firmly embedded in legislation, lawmakers are again calling for measures which would impact these technologies. One of the most important arguments in this debate are human rights, most notably the rights to privacy and to freedom of expression. And although some authors have in the past explored how encryption technologies support human rights, this connection is not yet firmly grounded in an analysis of European human rights case law. This contribution aims to fill this gap, developing a framework for assessing restrictions of encryption technologies under the rights to privacy and freedom of expression as protected under the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention) and the Charter of Fundamental rights in the European Union (the Charter). In the first section, the relevant function of encryption technologies, restricting access to information (called confidentiality), is discussed. In the second section, an overview of some governmental policies and practices impacting these technologies is provided. This continues with a discussion of the case law on the rights to privacy, data protection and freedom of expression, arguing that these rights are not only about ensuring lawful access by governments to protected information, but also about preventing unlawful access by others. And because encryption technologies are an important technology to reduce the risk of this unlawful access, it is then proposed that this risk is central to the assessment of governance measures in the field of encryption technologies. The article concludes by recommending that states perform an in-depth assessement of this when proposing new measures, and that courts when reviewing them also place the risk of unlawful access central to the analysis of interference and proportionality.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Encryption technologies are a fundamental building block of modern digital infrastructure, but plans to curb these technologies continue to spring up. Even in the European Union, where their application is by now firmly embedded in legislation, lawmakers are again calling for measures which would impact these technologies. One of the most important arguments in this debate are human rights, most notably the rights to privacy and to freedom of expression. And although some authors have in the past explored how encryption technologies support human rights, this connection is not yet firmly grounded in an analysis of European human rights case law. This contribution aims to fill this gap, developing a framework for assessing restrictions of encryption technologies under the rights to privacy and freedom of expression as protected under the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention) and the Charter of Fundamental rights in the European Union (the Charter). In the first section, the relevant function of encryption technologies, restricting access to information (called confidentiality), is discussed. In the second section, an overview of some governmental policies and practices impacting these technologies is provided. This continues with a discussion of the case law on the rights to privacy, data protection and freedom of expression, arguing that these rights are not only about ensuring lawful access by governments to protected information, but also about preventing unlawful access by others. And because encryption technologies are an important technology to reduce the risk of this unlawful access, it is then proposed that this risk is central to the assessment of governance measures in the field of encryption technologies. The article concludes by recommending that states perform an in-depth assessement of this when proposing new measures, and that courts when reviewing them also place the risk of unlawful access central to the analysis of interference and proportionality.

Generative AI, Copyright and the AI Act

Quintais, J.

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2023.

A Primer and FAQ on Copyright Law and Generative AI for News Media

Diakopoulos, N., Quintais, J.

2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Meiring, A., Quintais, J., Senftleben, M.

Outsourcing Human Rights Obligations and Concealing Human Rights Deficits: The Example of Monetizing User-Generated Content Under the CDSM Directive and the Digital Services Act

In: 2023.

@article{nokey,

title = {Outsourcing Human Rights Obligations and Concealing Human Rights Deficits: The Example of Monetizing User-Generated Content Under the CDSM Directive and the Digital Services Act},

author = {Senftleben, M. and Quintais, J. and Meiring, A.},

url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4421150},

year = {2023},

date = {2023-04-26},

abstract = {With the shift from the traditional safe harbor for hosting to statutory content filtering and licensing obligations, EU copyright law has substantially curtailed the freedom of users to upload and share their content creations. Seeking to avoid overbroad inroads into freedom of expression, EU law obliges online platforms and the creative industry to take into account human rights when coordinating their content filtering actions. Platforms must also establish complaint and redress procedures for users. The European Commission will initiate stakeholder dialogues to identify best practices. These “safety valves” in the legislative package, however, are mere fig leaves. Instead of safeguarding human rights, the EU legislator outsources human rights obligations to the platform industry. At the same time, the burden of policing content moderation systems is imposed on users who are unlikely to bring complaints in each individual case. The new legislative design in the EU will thus “conceal” human rights violations instead of bringing them to light. Nonetheless, the DSA rests on the same \textendash highly problematic \textendash approach.

Against this background, the paper discusses the weakening \textendash and potential loss \textendash of fundamental freedoms as a result of the departure from the traditional notice-and-takedown approach. Adding a new element to the ongoing debate on content licensing and filtering, the analysis will devote particular attention to the fact that EU law, for the most part, has left untouched the private power of platforms to determine the “house rules” governing the most popular copyright-owner reaction to detected matches between protected works and content uploads: the (algorithmic) monetization of that content. Addressing the “legal vacuum” in the field of content monetization, the analysis explores outsourcing and concealment risks in this unregulated space. Focusing on large-scale platforms for user-generated content, such as YouTube, Instagram and TikTok, two normative problems come to the fore: (1) the fact that rightholders, when opting for monetization, de facto monetize not only their own rights but also the creative input of users; (2) the fact that user creativity remains unremunerated as long as the monetization option is only available to rightholders. As a result of this configuration, the monetization mechanism disregards users’ right to (intellectual) property and discriminates against user creativity. Against this background, we discuss whether the DSA provisions that seek to ensure transparency of content moderation actions and terms and conditions offer useful sources of information that could empower users. Moreover, we raise the question whether the detailed regulation of platform actions in the DSA may resolve the described human rights dilemmas to some extent.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

With the shift from the traditional safe harbor for hosting to statutory content filtering and licensing obligations, EU copyright law has substantially curtailed the freedom of users to upload and share their content creations. Seeking to avoid overbroad inroads into freedom of expression, EU law obliges online platforms and the creative industry to take into account human rights when coordinating their content filtering actions. Platforms must also establish complaint and redress procedures for users. The European Commission will initiate stakeholder dialogues to identify best practices. These “safety valves” in the legislative package, however, are mere fig leaves. Instead of safeguarding human rights, the EU legislator outsources human rights obligations to the platform industry. At the same time, the burden of policing content moderation systems is imposed on users who are unlikely to bring complaints in each individual case. The new legislative design in the EU will thus “conceal” human rights violations instead of bringing them to light. Nonetheless, the DSA rests on the same – highly problematic – approach.

Against this background, the paper discusses the weakening – and potential loss – of fundamental freedoms as a result of the departure from the traditional notice-and-takedown approach. Adding a new element to the ongoing debate on content licensing and filtering, the analysis will devote particular attention to the fact that EU law, for the most part, has left untouched the private power of platforms to determine the “house rules” governing the most popular copyright-owner reaction to detected matches between protected works and content uploads: the (algorithmic) monetization of that content. Addressing the “legal vacuum” in the field of content monetization, the analysis explores outsourcing and concealment risks in this unregulated space. Focusing on large-scale platforms for user-generated content, such as YouTube, Instagram and TikTok, two normative problems come to the fore: (1) the fact that rightholders, when opting for monetization, de facto monetize not only their own rights but also the creative input of users; (2) the fact that user creativity remains unremunerated as long as the monetization option is only available to rightholders. As a result of this configuration, the monetization mechanism disregards users’ right to (intellectual) property and discriminates against user creativity. Against this background, we discuss whether the DSA provisions that seek to ensure transparency of content moderation actions and terms and conditions offer useful sources of information that could empower users. Moreover, we raise the question whether the detailed regulation of platform actions in the DSA may resolve the described human rights dilemmas to some extent.

Annotatie bij Rechtbank Noord-Holland 28 december 2022 (Hendriks/Unibail Rodamco Nederland Winkels B.V.)

Hins, A.

In: Mediaforum, iss. 1, no. 4, pp. 49-51, 2023.

Freedom of Expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights

McGonagle, T., Voorhoof, D.

8th edition, IRIS Themes, vol. III, European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg, 2023, ISBN: 9789287184351.

Fundamental rights assessment of the framework for detection orders under the CSAM proposal

van Daalen, O.

2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Dobber, T., Goodman, E., Helberger, N., Kruikemeier, S.

Shielding citizens? Understanding the impact of political advertisement transparency information

In: New Media & Society, 2023.

Export control of cybersurveillance items in the new dual-use regulation: The challenges of applying human rights logic to export control

Rucz, M., van Daalen, O., van Hoboken, J.

In: Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 48, 2023.

Money after money: Disassembling value/information infrastructures

Ferrari, V.

2023.

@phdthesis{nokey,

title = {Money after money: Disassembling value/information infrastructures},

author = {Ferrari, V.},

url = {https://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=30904422-2233-4400-bc5f-e7971b33f758},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-04-21},

abstract = {This manuscript is a journey through coexisting, emerging or speculated about, types of digital value transfer infrastructures. Using digital value transfer infrastructures as a central case study, this thesis is concerned with unpacking the negotiation processes that shape the governance, design and political purposes of digital infrastructures that are closely linked to the public interest and state sovereignty. In particular, the papers that are assembled in this manuscript identify and inspect three main socio-technical developments occurring in the domain of value transfer technologies: a) the privatization and platformization of digital payment infrastructures; b) the spread of blockchain-based digital value transfer infrastructures; c) the construction of digital value transfer infrastructures as public utilities, from the part of public institutions or organizations. Concerned with the relationship between law, discourse and technological development, the thesis explores four transversal issues that strike differences and peculiarities of these three scenarios: i) privacy; ii) the synergy and mutual influence of legal change and technological development in the construction of digital infrastructures; iii) the role of socio-technical imaginaries in policy-making concerned with digital infrastructures; iv) the geography and scale of digital infrastructures. The analyses lead to the argument that, in the co-development of legal systems and digital infrastructures that are core to public life, conflicts are productive. Negotiations, ruptures and exceptions are constitutive of the unending process of mutual reinforcement, and mutual containment, in which a plurality of agencies \textendash expressed through legal institutions, symbolic systems, as well as information and media structures - are entangled.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {phdthesis}

}

Seeing what others are seeing: Studies in the regulation of transparency for social media recommender systems

Leerssen, P.

2023.

@phdthesis{nokey,

title = {Seeing what others are seeing: Studies in the regulation of transparency for social media recommender systems},

author = {Leerssen, P.},

url = {https://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=18c6e9a0-1530-4e70-b9a6-35fb37873d13},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-04-21},

abstract = {This dissertation asks how the law can shed light on social media recommender systems: the algorithmic tools which platforms use to rank and curate online content. Recommender systems fulfil an important gatekeeping function in social media governance, but their actions are poorly understood. Legal reforms are now underway in EU law to impose transparency rules on social media recommenders, and the goal of this dissertation is to interrogate the accountability relations implied by this regulatory project. What kinds of information is the law demanding about social media recommender systems? Who is included in these new models of accountability, and who is excluded?

This dissertation critiques a dominant paradigm in recent law and policy focused on algorithmic explanations. Building on insights from critical transparency studies and algorithm studies, it argues that disclosure regulation should move from algorithmic transparency toward platform observability: approaching recommenders not as discrete algorithmic artifacts but as complex sociotechnical systems shaped in important ways by their users and operators. Before any attempt to ‘open the black box’ of algorithmic machine learning, therefore, regulating for observability invites us to ask how recommenders find uptake in practice; to demand basic data on recommender inputs, outputs and interventions; to ask what is being recommend, sooner than why.

Several avenues for observability regulation are explored, including platform ad archives; notices for visibility restrictions (or ‘shadow bans’); and researcher APIs. Through solutions such as these, which render visible recommender outcomes, this dissertation outlines a vision for a more democratic media governance\textemdashone which supports informed and inclusive deliberation about, across and within social media’s personalised publics.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {phdthesis}

}

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 18 oktober 2022 (Chohan)

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, iss. 12, no. 118, pp. 2088-2090, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Quintais, J., Trapova, A.

EU copyright law round up – first trimester of 2023

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Leerssen, P.

An end to shadow banning? Transparency rights in the Digital Services Act between content moderation and curation

In: Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 48, 2023.

@article{nokey,

title = {An end to shadow banning? Transparency rights in the Digital Services Act between content moderation and curation},

author = {Leerssen, P.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/endtoshadowbanning/},

doi = {10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105790},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-04-11},

urldate = {2023-04-11},

journal = {Computer Law \& Security Review},

volume = {48},

abstract = {This paper offers a legal perspective on the phenomenon of shadow banning: content moderation sanctions which are undetectable to those affected. Drawing on recent social science research, it connects current concerns about shadow banning to novel visibility management techniques in content moderation, such as delisting and demotion. Conventional moderation techniques such as outright content removal or account suspension can be observed by those affected, but these new visibility often cannot. This lends newfound significance to the legal question of moderation transparency rights. The EU Digital Services Act (DSA) is analysed in this light, as the first major legislation to regulate transparency of visibility remedies. In effect, its due process framework prohibits shadow banning with only limited exceptions. In doing so, the DSA surfaces tensions between two competing models for content moderation: as rule-bound administration or as adversarial security conflict. I discuss possible interpretations and trade-offs for this regime, and then turn to a more fundamental problem: how to define visibility reduction as a category of content moderation actions. The concept of visibility reduction or ‘demotions’ is central to both the shadow banning imaginary and to the DSA's safeguards, but its meaning is far from straightforward. Responding to claims that demotion is entirely relative, and therefore not actionable as a category of content moderation sanctions, I show how visibility reduction can still be regulated when defined as ex post adjustments to engagement-based relevance scores. Still, regulating demotion in this way will not cover all exercises of ranking power, since it manifests not only in individual cases of moderation but also through structural acts of content curation; not just by reducing visibility, but by producing visibility.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Copyright Content Moderation in the EU: Conclusions and Recommendations

Dergacheva, D., Harkai, I., Katzenbach, C., Mezei, P., Quintais, J., Riis, T., Schwemer, S.

2023.

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 7 oktober 2022 (X / ROC-Nijmegen)

In: Mediaforum, iss. 1, no. 3, pp. 43-45, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Irion, K., Kaminski, M., Yakovleva, S.

Privacy Peg, Trade Hole: Why We (Still) Shouldn’t Put Data Privacy in Trade Law

2023, visited: 28.03.2023.

Remuneration rights and national treatment

Hugenholtz, P.

In: Improving Intellectual Property: A Global Project, S. Frankel, M. Chon, G. Dinwoodie, B. Lauriat, J. Schovsbo (ed.), Edward Elgar Publishing, Chapter 33, pp. 341-352, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

van Eechoud, M.

FAIR, FRAND and open - The institutionalization of research data sharing under the EU data strategy

In: Improving Intellectual Property: A Global Project, S. Frankel, M. Chon, G. Dinwoodie, B. Lauriat, J. Schovsbo (ed.), Edward Elgar Publishing, Chapter 31, pp. 319-329, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Senftleben, M.

Expressive genericity revisited: What EU policymakers can learn from Rochelle Dreyfuss

In: Improving Intellectual Property: A Global Project, S. Frankel, M. Chon, G. Dinwoodie, B. Lauriat, J. Schovsbo (ed.), Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023, Chapter 24, pp. 246-257, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Dergacheva, D., Katzenbach, C., Quintais, J., Riis, T., Schwemer, S.

Impact of content moderation practices and technologies on access and diversity

2023, (D.6.3 Final Evaluation and Measuring Report).

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 22 november 2022 (WM, Sovim SA / Luxembourg Business Registers)

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, iss. 6, no. 62, pp. 1048-1051, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

De Gregorio, G., Magalhães, J.C., Quintais, J.

How platforms govern users’ copyright-protected content: Exploring the power of private ordering and its implications

In: Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 48, 2023.

@article{nokey,

title = {How platforms govern users’ copyright-protected content: Exploring the power of private ordering and its implications},

author = {Quintais, J. and De Gregorio, G. and Magalh\~{a}es, J.C.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/computer_law_and_security_review_2023/},

doi = {10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105792},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-02-24},

journal = {Computer Law \& Security Review},

volume = {48},

abstract = {Online platforms provide primary points of access to information and other content in the digital age. They foster users’ ability to share ideas and opinions while offering opportunities for cultural and creative industries. In Europe, ownership and use of such expressions is partly governed by a complex web of legislation, sectoral self- and co-regulatory norms. To an important degree, it is also governed by private norms defined by contractual agreements and informal relationships between users and platforms. By adopting policies usually defined as Terms of Service and Community Guidelines, platforms almost unilaterally set use, moderation and enforcement rules, structures and practices (including through algorithmic systems) that govern the access and dissemination of protected content by their users. This private governance of essential means of access, dissemination and expression to (and through) creative content is hardly equitable, though. In fact, it is an expression of how platforms control what users \textendash including users-creators \textendash can say and disseminate online, and how they can monetise their content.



As platform power grows, EU law is adjusting by moving towards enhancing the responsibility of platforms for content they host. One crucial example of this is Article 17 of the new Copyright Directive (2019/790), which fundamentally changes the regime and liability of “online content-sharing service providers” (OCSSPs). This complex regime, complemented by rules in the Digital Services Act, sets out a new environment for OCSSPs to design and carry out content moderation, as well as to define their contractual relationship with users, including creators. The latter relationship is characterized by significant power imbalance in favour of platforms, calling into question whether the law can and should do more to protect users-creators.



This article addresses the power of large-scale platforms in EU law over their users’ copyright-protected content and its effects on the governance of that content, including on its exploitation and some of its implications for freedom of expression. Our analysis combines legal and empirical methods. We carry our doctrinal legal research to clarify the complex legal regime that governs platforms’ contractual obligations to users and content moderation activities, including the space available for private ordering, with a focus on EU law. From the empirical perspective, we conducted a thematic analysis of most versions of the Terms of Services published over time by the three largest social media platforms in number of users \textendash Facebook, Instagram and YouTube \textendash so as to identify and examine the rules these companies have established to regulate user-generated content, and the ways in which such provisions shifted in the past two decades. In so doing, we unveil how foundational this sort of regulation has always been to platforms’ functioning and how it contributes to defining a system of content exploitation.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Online platforms provide primary points of access to information and other content in the digital age. They foster users’ ability to share ideas and opinions while offering opportunities for cultural and creative industries. In Europe, ownership and use of such expressions is partly governed by a complex web of legislation, sectoral self- and co-regulatory norms. To an important degree, it is also governed by private norms defined by contractual agreements and informal relationships between users and platforms. By adopting policies usually defined as Terms of Service and Community Guidelines, platforms almost unilaterally set use, moderation and enforcement rules, structures and practices (including through algorithmic systems) that govern the access and dissemination of protected content by their users. This private governance of essential means of access, dissemination and expression to (and through) creative content is hardly equitable, though. In fact, it is an expression of how platforms control what users – including users-creators – can say and disseminate online, and how they can monetise their content.

As platform power grows, EU law is adjusting by moving towards enhancing the responsibility of platforms for content they host. One crucial example of this is Article 17 of the new Copyright Directive (2019/790), which fundamentally changes the regime and liability of “online content-sharing service providers” (OCSSPs). This complex regime, complemented by rules in the Digital Services Act, sets out a new environment for OCSSPs to design and carry out content moderation, as well as to define their contractual relationship with users, including creators. The latter relationship is characterized by significant power imbalance in favour of platforms, calling into question whether the law can and should do more to protect users-creators.

This article addresses the power of large-scale platforms in EU law over their users’ copyright-protected content and its effects on the governance of that content, including on its exploitation and some of its implications for freedom of expression. Our analysis combines legal and empirical methods. We carry our doctrinal legal research to clarify the complex legal regime that governs platforms’ contractual obligations to users and content moderation activities, including the space available for private ordering, with a focus on EU law. From the empirical perspective, we conducted a thematic analysis of most versions of the Terms of Services published over time by the three largest social media platforms in number of users – Facebook, Instagram and YouTube – so as to identify and examine the rules these companies have established to regulate user-generated content, and the ways in which such provisions shifted in the past two decades. In so doing, we unveil how foundational this sort of regulation has always been to platforms’ functioning and how it contributes to defining a system of content exploitation.

Gebruikersrechten door de achterdeur. Nationale implementaties van artikel 17 DSM-richtlijn en de uitspraak van het HvJ EU in de zaak Polen/EU (C-401/19)

Keller, P.

In: Auteursrecht, iss. 1, pp. 12-17, 2023.

Ongehoord Nederland! Underdog en waakhond.

Hins, A.

In: Ars Aequi, vol. 72, pp. 114-117, 2023, (Opinie).

Protecting creatives or impeding progress? Machine learning and the EU copyright framework

Keller, P.

2023, visited: 20.02.2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Appelman, N., Buri, I., Fahy, R., Quintais, J., Straub, M., van Hoboken, J.

Putting the DSA into Practice: Enforcement, Access to Justice and Global Implications

2023, ISBN: 9783757517960.

Diakopoulos, N., Helberger, N.

ChatGPT and the AI Act

In: Internet Policy Review, vol. 12, iss. 1, 2023.

Polen is plotseling de verdediger van de Europese grondwet. Een beschouwing over de zaak Polen/Europees Parlement: HvJ EU 22 april 2022, zaak C-401/19

In: Auteursrecht, vol. 2022, iss. 4, pp. 219-227, 2023.

Utilisme ‘on steroids’: effectief altruïsme, longtermism en uitlevering aan big tech

Sax, M.

In: De Nederlandse Boekengids, vol. 2023, iss. 2, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Quintais, J., Trapova, A.

EU copyright law round up – fourth trimester of 2022

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Dodds, T., Helberger, N., Resendez, V., Seipp, T., Vreese, C. de

In: Journalism Studies, 2023.

Dealing with Opinion Power in the Platform World: Why We Really Have to Rethink Media Concentration Law

Ausloos, J., Helberger, N., Seipp, T., Vreese, C.H. de

In: Digital Journalism, 2023.

De uitspraak C-817/19 van het HvJ EU inzake de PNR-richtlijn en de gevolgen voor nationale implementatiewetgeving en in het bijzonder de Nederlandse PNR-wet

Es, R. van, Irion, K.

In: Mediaforum, vol. 2022, no. 6, pp. 185-192, 2022.

Towards a Normative Perspective on Journalistic AI: Embracing the Messy Reality of Normative Ideals

Drunen, M. van, Eskens, S., Helberger, N., Möller, J., Vrijenhoek, S.

In: Digital Journalism, vol. 10, iss. 10, pp. 1605-1626, 2022.

Freedom of Expression and the EU’s Ban on Russia Today: A Dangerous Rubicon Crossed

Fahy, R., Voorhoof, D.

In: Communications Law, vol. 27, iss. 4, pp. 186-193, 2022.

Is Spotify the New Radio? The Scope of the Right to Remuneration for "Secondary Uses" in Respect of Audio Streaming Services

Hugenholtz, P.

In: Gestaltung der Informationsrechtsordnung: Festschrift für Thomas Dreier zum 65. Geburtstag, Fischer, Nolte, Senftleben & Specht-Riemenschneider (ed.), C.H. Beck: München, pp. 161-176, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

van Eechoud, M.

Territoriality Roundtables (combined report)

2022, (ReCreating Europe, D4.4).

ALLEA Statement on Open Access Publication under “Big Deals” and the New Copyright Rules

Hugenholtz, P.

(Links | BibTeX)

Butler, B., Carroll, M., Cohen-Sasson, O., Contreras, J.L., Craig, C., Flynn, S., Guibault, L., Jaszi, P., Jütte, B.J., Katz, A., Margoni, T., Quintais, J., Rocha de Souza, A., Sag, M., Samberg, R., Schirru, L., Senftleben, M., Tur-Sinai, O.

Legal reform to enhance global text and data mining research: Outdated copyright laws around the world hinder research

In: Science, vol. 378, iss. 6623, pp. 951-953, 2022.

Book review: Media Freedom, by Damian Tambini

Seipp, T.

In: Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Broeders, D., Csernatoni, R., Irion, K., Kaminska, M., Monti, G., Robles-Carrillo, M., Soare, S., Timmers, P.

Digital Sovereignty: from Narrative to Policy?

EU Institute for Security Studies, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Leiden University, 2022.

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 25 februari 2022 (Google)

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, iss. 37/38/39, no. 259, pp. 4708-4709, 2022.

Annotatie Hoge Raad 3 december 2021 (Hoist Finance AB)

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, iss. 37/38/39, no. 258, pp. 4640-4642, 2022.

Using Terms and Conditions to Apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation

Appelman, N., Fahy, R., Quintais, J.

In: German Law Journal, Forthcoming.

@article{nokey,

title = {Using Terms and Conditions to Apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation},

author = {Quintais, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R.},

url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4286147

https://osf.io/f2n7m/},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-11-25},

journal = {German Law Journal},

abstract = {Large online platforms provide an unprecedented means for exercising freedom of expression online and wield enormous power over public participation in the online democratic space. However, it is increasingly clear that their systems, where (automated) content moderation decisions are taken based on a platform's terms and conditions (T\&Cs), are fundamentally broken. Content moderation systems have been said to undermine freedom of expression, especially where important public interest speech ends up suppressed, such as speech by minority and marginalized groups. Indeed, these content moderation systems have been criticized for their overly vague rules of operation, inconsistent enforcement, and an overdependence on automation. Therefore, in order to better protect freedom of expression online, international human rights bodies and civil society organizations have argued that platforms “should incorporate directly” principles of fundamental rights law into their T\&Cs. Under EU law, and apart from a rule in the Terrorist Content Regulation, platforms had until recently no explicit obligation to incorporate fundamental rights into their T\&Cs. However, an important provision in the Digital Services Act (DSA) will change this. Crucially, Article 14 DSA lays down new rules on how platforms can enforce their T\&Cs, including that platforms must have “due regard” to the “fundamental rights” of users under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In this article, we critically examine the topic of enforceability of fundamental rights via T\&Cs through the prism of Article 14 DSA. We ask whether this provision requires platforms to apply EU fundamental rights law and to what extent this may curb the power of Big Tech over online speech. We conclude that Article 14 will make it possible, in principle, to establish the indirect horizontal effect of fundamental rights in the relationship between online platforms and their users. But in order for the application and enforcement of T\&Cs to take due regard of fundamental rights, Article 14 must be operationalized within the framework of the international and European fundamental rights standards, and therefore allowing Article 14 to fulfil its revolutionary potential.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {forthcoming},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Large online platforms provide an unprecedented means for exercising freedom of expression online and wield enormous power over public participation in the online democratic space. However, it is increasingly clear that their systems, where (automated) content moderation decisions are taken based on a platform's terms and conditions (T&Cs), are fundamentally broken. Content moderation systems have been said to undermine freedom of expression, especially where important public interest speech ends up suppressed, such as speech by minority and marginalized groups. Indeed, these content moderation systems have been criticized for their overly vague rules of operation, inconsistent enforcement, and an overdependence on automation. Therefore, in order to better protect freedom of expression online, international human rights bodies and civil society organizations have argued that platforms “should incorporate directly” principles of fundamental rights law into their T&Cs. Under EU law, and apart from a rule in the Terrorist Content Regulation, platforms had until recently no explicit obligation to incorporate fundamental rights into their T&Cs. However, an important provision in the Digital Services Act (DSA) will change this. Crucially, Article 14 DSA lays down new rules on how platforms can enforce their T&Cs, including that platforms must have “due regard” to the “fundamental rights” of users under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In this article, we critically examine the topic of enforceability of fundamental rights via T&Cs through the prism of Article 14 DSA. We ask whether this provision requires platforms to apply EU fundamental rights law and to what extent this may curb the power of Big Tech over online speech. We conclude that Article 14 will make it possible, in principle, to establish the indirect horizontal effect of fundamental rights in the relationship between online platforms and their users. But in order for the application and enforcement of T&Cs to take due regard of fundamental rights, Article 14 must be operationalized within the framework of the international and European fundamental rights standards, and therefore allowing Article 14 to fulfil its revolutionary potential.

Compliance of National TDM Rules with International Copyright Law: An Overrated Nonissue?

Senftleben, M.

In: IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , vol. 53, pp. 1477-1505, 2022.