News
- IViR/CIIR/CiTiP/CREATe/EUR consortium highlights the need for EU copyright data improvement
- New IViR / PIJIP research collaboration : right to research internationally
- BOOK LAUNCH – “The Copyright/Trademark Interface” by Prof. Senftleben
- New empirical research on scholarly piracy – radical open access is not a panacea
- IViR Study for European Commission on AI and IP, prepared by Prof. Hugenholtz, Dr. Quintais & Prof. Gervais
- Nieuw WODC-rapport: Verwijdering van onrechtmatige online content: verschillende oplossingsrichtingen voor een complex probleem
Publications
| Irion, K. 2021. @misc{Irion2021, title = {AI Regulation in the European Union and Trade Law: How can accountability of AI and a high level of consumer protection prevail over a trade law discipline on source code?, study commissioned by the Vzbv, Amsterdam: Institute for Information Law, 2021}, author = {Irion, K.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/irion_study_ai_and_trade_21-01-26-2/}, year = {2021}, date = {2021-01-26}, abstract = {The Federation of German Consumer Organisations (Verbraucherzentrale Bun-desverband \textendash vzbv) has commissioned this study from the Institute for Information Law (IViR) at the University of Amsterdam, in order to shed light on the cross-border supply of AI technology and its impact on EU consumer rights. In the current negotiations on electronic commerce at the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the EU supports the introduction \textendash in the legal text \textendash of a clause which prohibits the participating countries to introduce \textendash in their national laws \textendash measures that require access to, or transfer of, the source code of software, with some exceptions. This is a cause for concern for experts and rights advocates, as such a clause \textendash if not carefully conditioned \textendash can prevent future EU regulation of AI that may be harmful to consumers. This study concludes that the source code clause within trade law indeed restricts the EU’s right to regulate in the field of AI governance in several important ways.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {misc} } The Federation of German Consumer Organisations (Verbraucherzentrale Bun-desverband – vzbv) has commissioned this study from the Institute for Information Law (IViR) at the University of Amsterdam, in order to shed light on the cross-border supply of AI technology and its impact on EU consumer rights. In the current negotiations on electronic commerce at the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the EU supports the introduction – in the legal text – of a clause which prohibits the participating countries to introduce – in their national laws – measures that require access to, or transfer of, the source code of software, with some exceptions. This is a cause for concern for experts and rights advocates, as such a clause – if not carefully conditioned – can prevent future EU regulation of AI that may be harmful to consumers. This study concludes that the source code clause within trade law indeed restricts the EU’s right to regulate in the field of AI governance in several important ways. |
| Hugenholtz, P. Artikel 18-23 DSM-richtlijn: Exploitatiecontracten AMI, 2020 (6), pp. 187-192, 2020. @article{Hugenholtz2020h, title = {Artikel 18-23 DSM-richtlijn: Exploitatiecontracten}, author = {Hugenholtz, P.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2020_6.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-12-18}, journal = {AMI}, volume = {2020}, number = {6}, pages = {187-192}, abstract = {De DSM-richtlijn van 17 april 2019 bevat een zestal bepalingen op het gebied van het auteurscontractenrecht. Artikelen 18 tot en met 23 hebben niet alleen betrekking op de ‘billijke vergoeding van auteurs en uitvoerende kunstenaars in exploitatiecontracten’, zoals het opschrift van titel IV, hoofdstuk 3 van de richtlijn belooft, maar ook op transparantie, geschillenbeslechting en het recht op herroeping van verleende rechten. Hoewel de meeste van deze onderwerpen reeds een plaats hebben gevonden in hoofdstuk 1a van de huidige Auteurswet, noopt de richtlijn op een aantal punten tot wetswijziging. Dat geldt in het bijzonder voor de transparantieplicht, die in de huidige wet niet voorkomt. In deze bijdrage, onderdeel van een reeks van AMI-artikelen over de DSM-richtlijn, worden de auteurscontractenrechtelijke bepalingen van de richtlijn en de omzetting ervan besproken.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } De DSM-richtlijn van 17 april 2019 bevat een zestal bepalingen op het gebied van het auteurscontractenrecht. Artikelen 18 tot en met 23 hebben niet alleen betrekking op de ‘billijke vergoeding van auteurs en uitvoerende kunstenaars in exploitatiecontracten’, zoals het opschrift van titel IV, hoofdstuk 3 van de richtlijn belooft, maar ook op transparantie, geschillenbeslechting en het recht op herroeping van verleende rechten. Hoewel de meeste van deze onderwerpen reeds een plaats hebben gevonden in hoofdstuk 1a van de huidige Auteurswet, noopt de richtlijn op een aantal punten tot wetswijziging. Dat geldt in het bijzonder voor de transparantieplicht, die in de huidige wet niet voorkomt. In deze bijdrage, onderdeel van een reeks van AMI-artikelen over de DSM-richtlijn, worden de auteurscontractenrechtelijke bepalingen van de richtlijn en de omzetting ervan besproken. |
| Gervais, D.J., Hugenholtz, P., Quintais, J. Trends and Developments in Artificial Intelligence: Challenges to Copyright Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020. @article{Hugenholtz2020g, title = {Trends and Developments in Artificial Intelligence: Challenges to Copyright}, author = {Hugenholtz, P. and Quintais, J. and Gervais, D.J.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/12/16/trends-and-developments-in-artificial-intelligence-challenges-to-copyright/}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-12-17}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Antal, D., Bodó, B., Puha, Z. PLoS ONE, 15 (12), 2020. @article{Bod\'{o}2020c, title = {Can scholarly pirate libraries bridge the knowledge access gap? An empirical study on the structural conditions of book piracy in global and European academia}, author = {Bod\'{o}, B. and Antal, D. and Puha, Z.}, url = {https://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl=10.1371/journal.pone.0242509 }, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0242509}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-12-04}, journal = {PLoS ONE}, volume = {15}, number = {12}, abstract = {Library Genesis is one of the oldest and largest illegal scholarly book collections online. Without the authorization of copyright holders, this shadow library hosts and makes more than 2 million scholarly publications, monographs, and textbooks available. This paper analyzes a set of weblogs of one of the Library Genesis mirrors, provided to us by one of the service’s administrators. We reconstruct the social and economic factors that drive the global and European demand for illicit scholarly literature. In particular, we test if lower income regions can compensate for the shortcomings in legal access infrastructures by more intensive use of illicit open resources. We found that while richer regions are the most intensive users of shadow libraries, poorer regions face structural limitations that prevent them from fully capitalizing on freely accessible knowledge. We discuss these findings in the wider context of open access publishing, and point out that open access knowledge, if not met with proper knowledge absorption infrastructures, has limited usefulness in addressing knowledge access and production inequalities.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Library Genesis is one of the oldest and largest illegal scholarly book collections online. Without the authorization of copyright holders, this shadow library hosts and makes more than 2 million scholarly publications, monographs, and textbooks available. This paper analyzes a set of weblogs of one of the Library Genesis mirrors, provided to us by one of the service’s administrators. We reconstruct the social and economic factors that drive the global and European demand for illicit scholarly literature. In particular, we test if lower income regions can compensate for the shortcomings in legal access infrastructures by more intensive use of illicit open resources. We found that while richer regions are the most intensive users of shadow libraries, poorer regions face structural limitations that prevent them from fully capitalizing on freely accessible knowledge. We discuss these findings in the wider context of open access publishing, and point out that open access knowledge, if not met with proper knowledge absorption infrastructures, has limited usefulness in addressing knowledge access and production inequalities. |
| Irion, K. Amsterdam Law School Research Paper No. 2020, (38), 2020. @article{Irion2020d, title = {Panta rhei: A European Perspective on Ensuring a High-Level of Protection of Digital Human Rights in a World in Which Everything Flows}, author = {Irion, K.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3638864}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-11-30}, journal = {Amsterdam Law School Research Paper No. 2020}, number = {38}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Allan, J., Gervais, D.J., Hartmann, C., Hugenholtz, P., Quintais, J. 2020, (Report written for the European Commission by P.B. Hugenholtz, D. Gervais, J.P. Quintais, C. Hartmann & J. Allan, completed September 2020. ISBN: 97892762244488). @techreport{Hugenholtz2020f, title = {Trends and Developments in Artificial Intelligence: Challenges to the Intellectual Property Rights Framework: Final Report}, author = {Hugenholtz, P. and Quintais, J. and Gervais, D.J. and Hartmann, C. and Allan, J.}, url = {https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/394345a1-2ecf-11eb-b27b-01aa75ed71a1/language-en https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Trends_and_Developments_in_Artificial_Intelligence-1.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-11-27}, abstract = {This report examines copyright and patent protection in Europe for AI-assisted outputs in general and in three priority domains: science (in particular, meteorology), media (journalism), and pharmaceutical research. It comprises an assessment of the state of the art of uses of AI in the three focus areas, and a legal analysis of how IP laws currently apply to AI-assisted creative and innovative outputs. The report concludes that the current state of the art in AI does not require or justify immediate substantive changes in copyright and patent law in Europe. The existing concepts of copyright and patent law are sufficiently abstract and flexible to meet the current challenges from AI. In addition, related rights regimes potentially extend to ‘authorless’ AI productions in a variety of sectors, and the sui generis database right may offer protection to AI-produced databases resulting from substantial investment. However, taking into account the practical implications of AI technologies, the report identifies specific avenues for future legal reform (if justified by empirical evidence), offers recommendations for improvements in the application of existing rules (e.g. via guidelines), and highlights the need to study the role of alternative IP regimes to protect AI-assisted outputs, such as trade secret protection, unfair competition and contract law.}, note = {Report written for the European Commission by P.B. Hugenholtz, D. Gervais, J.P. Quintais, C. Hartmann & J. Allan, completed September 2020. ISBN: 97892762244488}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } This report examines copyright and patent protection in Europe for AI-assisted outputs in general and in three priority domains: science (in particular, meteorology), media (journalism), and pharmaceutical research. It comprises an assessment of the state of the art of uses of AI in the three focus areas, and a legal analysis of how IP laws currently apply to AI-assisted creative and innovative outputs. The report concludes that the current state of the art in AI does not require or justify immediate substantive changes in copyright and patent law in Europe. The existing concepts of copyright and patent law are sufficiently abstract and flexible to meet the current challenges from AI. In addition, related rights regimes potentially extend to ‘authorless’ AI productions in a variety of sectors, and the sui generis database right may offer protection to AI-produced databases resulting from substantial investment. However, taking into account the practical implications of AI technologies, the report identifies specific avenues for future legal reform (if justified by empirical evidence), offers recommendations for improvements in the application of existing rules (e.g. via guidelines), and highlights the need to study the role of alternative IP regimes to protect AI-assisted outputs, such as trade secret protection, unfair competition and contract law. |
| Senftleben, M. pp. 209-225, 2020, (Chapter in: Cambridge Handbook on International and Comparative Trademark Law, I. Calboli & J.C. Ginsburg (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2020.). @inbook{Senftleben2020f, title = {Signs Eligible for Trademark Protection - Dysfunctional Incentives and a Functionality Dilemma in the EU}, author = {Senftleben, M.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3717753 https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Signs_Eligible_for_Trademark_Protection.pdf https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399456.014}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-11-26}, pages = {209-225}, abstract = {In the European Union (EU), the criteria for determining a sign’s eligibility for trademark protection are harmonized to a large extent. On the one hand, the trademark legislation and office practices in EU Member States have to keep within the harmonized legal framework set forth in the EU Trade Mark Directive (TMD). On the other hand, the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR) provides for a set of eligibility criteria that apply to European Union Trade Marks (EUTM) with equal effect throughout the EU territory. As the rules in the Regulation are in line with those in the Directive, the two legislative instruments constitute a robust body of harmonized norms informing the decision on the registration of a sign as a trademark. The harmonizing effect is enhanced by the fact that national courts have to refer questions relating to the application and interpretation of eligibility criteria to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). As in other regions of the world, the criteria applied to determine eligibility for trademark protection are quite flexible in the EU. The open-ended definition of protectable subject matter leaves room for the extension of trademark protection to non-traditional types of marks, such as shape, sound and colour marks. Trademark offices applying EU trademark law have also accepted, for instance, abstract colours and colour combinations, motion and multimedia marks, melodies and sounds, taste marks, hologram marks and position marks. The analysis of the trend to register non-traditional marks in the EU outlines the legal framework which the CJEU developed to assess the eligibility of non-traditional types of source identifiers for trademark protection. On this basis, it discusses the objective to safeguard freedom of competition and the legal instruments which the CJEU employs for this purpose: the requirement of providing evidence of the acquisition of distinctive character through use in trade and the categorical exclusion of functional signs from trademark protection. Drawing conclusions, it will become apparent that the basic requirement of distinctive character plays an ambiguous role in the regulation of access to trademark protection for non-traditional marks. It is both an obstacle to trademark protection and an incentive for enhanced investment in non-traditional types of marks.}, note = {Chapter in: Cambridge Handbook on International and Comparative Trademark Law, I. Calboli & J.C. Ginsburg (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2020.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {inbook} } In the European Union (EU), the criteria for determining a sign’s eligibility for trademark protection are harmonized to a large extent. On the one hand, the trademark legislation and office practices in EU Member States have to keep within the harmonized legal framework set forth in the EU Trade Mark Directive (TMD). On the other hand, the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR) provides for a set of eligibility criteria that apply to European Union Trade Marks (EUTM) with equal effect throughout the EU territory. As the rules in the Regulation are in line with those in the Directive, the two legislative instruments constitute a robust body of harmonized norms informing the decision on the registration of a sign as a trademark. The harmonizing effect is enhanced by the fact that national courts have to refer questions relating to the application and interpretation of eligibility criteria to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). As in other regions of the world, the criteria applied to determine eligibility for trademark protection are quite flexible in the EU. The open-ended definition of protectable subject matter leaves room for the extension of trademark protection to non-traditional types of marks, such as shape, sound and colour marks. Trademark offices applying EU trademark law have also accepted, for instance, abstract colours and colour combinations, motion and multimedia marks, melodies and sounds, taste marks, hologram marks and position marks. The analysis of the trend to register non-traditional marks in the EU outlines the legal framework which the CJEU developed to assess the eligibility of non-traditional types of source identifiers for trademark protection. On this basis, it discusses the objective to safeguard freedom of competition and the legal instruments which the CJEU employs for this purpose: the requirement of providing evidence of the acquisition of distinctive character through use in trade and the categorical exclusion of functional signs from trademark protection. Drawing conclusions, it will become apparent that the basic requirement of distinctive character plays an ambiguous role in the regulation of access to trademark protection for non-traditional marks. It is both an obstacle to trademark protection and an incentive for enhanced investment in non-traditional types of marks. |
| Senftleben, M. pp. 381-403, 2020, (Chapter in: Oxford Handbook of Online Intermediary Liability, G.F. Frosio (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.). @inbook{Senftleben2020g, title = {Intermediary Liability and Trade Mark Infringement - Proliferation of Filter Obligations in Civil Law Jurisdictions?}, author = {Senftleben, M.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Intermediary_Liability_and_Trade_Mark_Infringement.pdf https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3736919 https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780198837138}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-11-26}, pages = {381-403}, abstract = {The erosion of the safe harbour for hosting in the EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive) leads to a remarkable climate change in the field of EU copyright law and the civil law jurisdictions of continental EU Member States. Inevitably, it raises the question of potential repercussions on the safe harbour for hosting and filtering standards in trademark cases. Even though online marketplaces are explicitly exempted from the new copyright rules and the CDSM Directive is not intended to neutralize the safe harbour for hosting in trademark cases, the adoption of a more restrictive approach in copyright law may quicken the appetite of trademark proprietors for similar measures in trademark law. The extension of the new copyright approach to trademark cases, however, is unlikely to yield satisfactory results.Due to the different conceptual contours of trademark rights, a system mimicking the filtering obligations following from the CDSM Directive would give trademark proprietors excessive control over the use of their trademarks in the digital environment. Such an overbroad system of automated, algorithmic filtering would encroach upon the fundamental guarantee of freedom of expression and freedom of competition. It is likely to have a chilling effect on legitimate descriptive use of trademarks, comparative advertising, advertising by resellers, information about alternative offers in the marketplace, and use criticizing or commenting upon trademarked products. As a result, consumers would receive less diverse information on goods and services and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market would be curtailed. The reliability of the internet as an independent source of trademark-related information would be put at risk. The analysis, thus, leads to the insight that a proliferation of the new filtering obligations in copyright law is undesirable and should be avoided.}, note = {Chapter in: Oxford Handbook of Online Intermediary Liability, G.F. Frosio (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {inbook} } The erosion of the safe harbour for hosting in the EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive) leads to a remarkable climate change in the field of EU copyright law and the civil law jurisdictions of continental EU Member States. Inevitably, it raises the question of potential repercussions on the safe harbour for hosting and filtering standards in trademark cases. Even though online marketplaces are explicitly exempted from the new copyright rules and the CDSM Directive is not intended to neutralize the safe harbour for hosting in trademark cases, the adoption of a more restrictive approach in copyright law may quicken the appetite of trademark proprietors for similar measures in trademark law. The extension of the new copyright approach to trademark cases, however, is unlikely to yield satisfactory results.Due to the different conceptual contours of trademark rights, a system mimicking the filtering obligations following from the CDSM Directive would give trademark proprietors excessive control over the use of their trademarks in the digital environment. Such an overbroad system of automated, algorithmic filtering would encroach upon the fundamental guarantee of freedom of expression and freedom of competition. It is likely to have a chilling effect on legitimate descriptive use of trademarks, comparative advertising, advertising by resellers, information about alternative offers in the marketplace, and use criticizing or commenting upon trademarked products. As a result, consumers would receive less diverse information on goods and services and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market would be curtailed. The reliability of the internet as an independent source of trademark-related information would be put at risk. The analysis, thus, leads to the insight that a proliferation of the new filtering obligations in copyright law is undesirable and should be avoided. |
| Quintais, J. CIPIL Evening Webinar: 'Article 17 and the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms' 2020. @online{Quintais2020d, title = {CIPIL Evening Webinar: 'Article 17 and the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms' }, author = {Quintais, J.}, url = {https://youtu.be/f1tGV_IdueQ }, year = {2020}, date = {2020-11-17}, abstract = {This presentation addresses the hottest topic in EU copyright law and policy: Article 17 of the new Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM) Directive (2019/790). The CDSM Directive is the culmination of a controversial political and legislative process at EU level. None of its provisions has caused greater debate than Article 17, which introduces a new liability regime for "online content-sharing service providers". These include most user-generated content platforms hosting copyright-protected content accessed daily by millions of individuals in the EU and across the globe. Even before the CDSM Directive is implemented into national law, the issues surrounding Article 17 have already spilled out to the policy and judicial arenas. At the policy level, the debates taking place in a number of Commission-led Stakeholder Dialogues have laid bare many of the unresolved challenges ahead for national legislators and courts. At the judicial level, the Polish government has filed an action for annulment with the CJEU under Article 263 TFEU, focusing on the most problematic aspects of Article 17. This presentation will first place Article 17 into its broader EU policy context of the discussion on the responsibilities of online platforms \textendash from the agenda on "Tackling Illegal Content Online" to the Digital Services Act \textendash and the narrow copyright context regarding the liability of intermediary platforms for third-party content they host. This will be followed by an explanation of the complex mechanics of Article 17 and an identification of some of its fundamental problems. Finally, some tentative proposals will be advanced for how to begin to address such problems, focusing on the core issues of licensing mechanisms and fundamental rights safeguards.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {online} } This presentation addresses the hottest topic in EU copyright law and policy: Article 17 of the new Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM) Directive (2019/790). The CDSM Directive is the culmination of a controversial political and legislative process at EU level. None of its provisions has caused greater debate than Article 17, which introduces a new liability regime for "online content-sharing service providers". These include most user-generated content platforms hosting copyright-protected content accessed daily by millions of individuals in the EU and across the globe. Even before the CDSM Directive is implemented into national law, the issues surrounding Article 17 have already spilled out to the policy and judicial arenas. At the policy level, the debates taking place in a number of Commission-led Stakeholder Dialogues have laid bare many of the unresolved challenges ahead for national legislators and courts. At the judicial level, the Polish government has filed an action for annulment with the CJEU under Article 263 TFEU, focusing on the most problematic aspects of Article 17. This presentation will first place Article 17 into its broader EU policy context of the discussion on the responsibilities of online platforms – from the agenda on "Tackling Illegal Content Online" to the Digital Services Act – and the narrow copyright context regarding the liability of intermediary platforms for third-party content they host. This will be followed by an explanation of the complex mechanics of Article 17 and an identification of some of its fundamental problems. Finally, some tentative proposals will be advanced for how to begin to address such problems, focusing on the core issues of licensing mechanisms and fundamental rights safeguards. |
| Appelman, N., Blom, T., van Duin, A., Fahy, R., Helberger, N., Steel, M., Stringhi, E., van Hoboken, J., Zarouali, B. WODC-onderzoek: Voorziening voor verzoeken tot snelle verwijdering van onrechtmatige online content 2020. @techreport{vanHoboken2020d, title = {WODC-onderzoek: Voorziening voor verzoeken tot snelle verwijdering van onrechtmatige online content}, author = {van Hoboken, J. and Appelman, N. and van Duin, A. and Blom, T. and Zarouali, B. and Fahy, R. and Steel, M. and Stringhi, E. and Helberger, N.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/WODC_voorziening_onrechtmatige_content.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-11-12}, abstract = {Dit onderzoek is uitgegeven als onderdeel van het speerpunt van de Minister voor Rechtsbescherming om de positie van slachtoffers van onrechtmatige uitingen op het internet te verbeteren. Aanleiding is dat het voor mensen als te moeilijk ervaren wordt om onrechtmatige online content snel verwijderd te krijgen. Dit rapport biedt inzicht in de juridische en praktische haalbaarheid van een voorziening voor de verwijdering van onrechtmatige online content die mensen persoonlijk raakt. Onrechtmatige content is informatie, door mensen op het internet geplaatst, die in strijd is met het recht, vanwege de schadelijke gevolgen ervan en/of omdat de belangen van anderen daardoor op ernstige wijze worden aangetast. Hierbij moet, bijvoorbeeld, gedacht worden aan bedreigingen, privacy-inbreuken of wraakporno. Het doel van de onderzochte voorziening is om mensen in staat te stellen deze onrechtmatige online content zo snel mogelijk te verwijderen. Het onderzoek focust op onrechtmatige online content die mensen in hun persoon raakt en daarmee onder het recht op priv\'{e}leven uit artikel 8 Europees Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens (“EVRM”) valt.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } Dit onderzoek is uitgegeven als onderdeel van het speerpunt van de Minister voor Rechtsbescherming om de positie van slachtoffers van onrechtmatige uitingen op het internet te verbeteren. Aanleiding is dat het voor mensen als te moeilijk ervaren wordt om onrechtmatige online content snel verwijderd te krijgen. Dit rapport biedt inzicht in de juridische en praktische haalbaarheid van een voorziening voor de verwijdering van onrechtmatige online content die mensen persoonlijk raakt. Onrechtmatige content is informatie, door mensen op het internet geplaatst, die in strijd is met het recht, vanwege de schadelijke gevolgen ervan en/of omdat de belangen van anderen daardoor op ernstige wijze worden aangetast. Hierbij moet, bijvoorbeeld, gedacht worden aan bedreigingen, privacy-inbreuken of wraakporno. Het doel van de onderzochte voorziening is om mensen in staat te stellen deze onrechtmatige online content zo snel mogelijk te verwijderen. Het onderzoek focust op onrechtmatige online content die mensen in hun persoon raakt en daarmee onder het recht op privéleven uit artikel 8 Europees Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens (“EVRM”) valt. |
| Keller, P. Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020. @article{Keller2020d, title = {CJEU hearing in the Polish challenge to Article 17: Not even the supporters of the provision agree on how it should work}, author = {Keller, P.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/11/11/cjeu-hearing-in-the-polish-challenge-to-article-17-not-even-the-supporters-of-the-provision-agree-on-how-it-should-work/}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-11-11}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Dommering, E. Annotatie bij Rb. Den Haag 5 februari 2020 (NJCM c.s. / Staat der Nederlanden - SyRI-wetgeving) Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (45), pp. 6792-6795, 2020. @article{Dommering2020i, title = {Annotatie bij Rb. Den Haag 5 februari 2020 (NJCM c.s. / Staat der Nederlanden - SyRI-wetgeving)}, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2020_386.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-11-10}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, number = {45}, pages = {6792-6795}, abstract = {De SyRI-wetgeving voldoet niet aan de in art. 8 lid 2 EVRM gestelde eis dat de inmenging in de uitoefening van het recht op respect voor het priv\'{e}leven noodzakelijk is in een democratische samenleving, dat wil zeggen noodzakelijk, evenredig (proportioneel) en subsidiair in relatie tot het beoogde doel.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } De SyRI-wetgeving voldoet niet aan de in art. 8 lid 2 EVRM gestelde eis dat de inmenging in de uitoefening van het recht op respect voor het privéleven noodzakelijk is in een democratische samenleving, dat wil zeggen noodzakelijk, evenredig (proportioneel) en subsidiair in relatie tot het beoogde doel. |
| Appelman, N., Ausloos, J., Drunen, M. van, Helberger, N. 2020. @techreport{Drunen2020b, title = {News Recommenders and Cooperative Explainability: Confronting the contextual complexity in AI explanations}, author = {Drunen, M. van and Ausloos, J. and Appelman, N. and Helberger, N.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Visiepaper-explainable-AI-final.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-11-03}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } |
| Angelopoulos, C., Senftleben, M. 2020, (Amsterdam: Institute for Information Law & Cambridge: Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law). @techreport{Senftleben2020e, title = {The Odyssey of the Prohibition on General Monitoring Obligations on the Way to the Digital Services Act: Between Article 15 of the E-Commerce Directive and Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market}, author = {Senftleben, M. and Angelopoulos, C.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3717022}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-10-29}, abstract = {EU law provides explicitly that intermediaries may not be obliged to monitor their service in a general manner in order to detect and prevent the illegal activity of their users. However, a misunderstanding of the difference between monitoring specific content and monitoring FOR specific content is a recurrent theme in the debate on intermediary liability and a central driver of the controversy surrounding it. Rightly understood, a prohibited general monitoring obligation arises whenever content \textendash no matter how specifically it is defined \textendash must be identified among the totality of the content on a platform. The moment platform content must be screened in its entirety, the monitoring obligation acquires an excessive, general nature. Against this background, a content moderation duty can only be deemed permissible if it is specific in respect of both the protected subject matter and potential infringers. This requirement of 'double specificity' is of particular importance because it prevents encroachments upon fundamental rights. The jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union has shed light on the anchorage of the general monitoring ban in primary EU law, in particular the right to the protection of personal data, the freedom of expression and information, the freedom to conduct a business, and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market. Due to their higher rank in the norm hierarchy, these legal guarantees constitute common ground for the application of the general monitoring prohibition in secondary EU legislation, namely Article 15(1) of the E-Commerce Directive ('ECD') and Article 17(8) of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market ('CDSMD'). With regard to the Digital Services Act (‘DSA’), this result of the analysis implies that any further manifestation of the general monitoring ban in the DSA would have to be construed and applied \textendash in the light of applicable CJEU case law \textendash as a safeguard against encroachments upon the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms. If the final text of the DSA does not contain a reiteration of the prohibition of general monitoring obligations known from Article 15(1) ECD and Article 17(8) CDSMD, the regulation of internet service provider liability, duties of care and injunctions would still have to avoid inroads into the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms and observe the principle of proportionality. The double specificity requirement plays a central role in this respect.}, note = {Amsterdam: Institute for Information Law & Cambridge: Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } EU law provides explicitly that intermediaries may not be obliged to monitor their service in a general manner in order to detect and prevent the illegal activity of their users. However, a misunderstanding of the difference between monitoring specific content and monitoring FOR specific content is a recurrent theme in the debate on intermediary liability and a central driver of the controversy surrounding it. Rightly understood, a prohibited general monitoring obligation arises whenever content – no matter how specifically it is defined – must be identified among the totality of the content on a platform. The moment platform content must be screened in its entirety, the monitoring obligation acquires an excessive, general nature. Against this background, a content moderation duty can only be deemed permissible if it is specific in respect of both the protected subject matter and potential infringers. This requirement of 'double specificity' is of particular importance because it prevents encroachments upon fundamental rights. The jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union has shed light on the anchorage of the general monitoring ban in primary EU law, in particular the right to the protection of personal data, the freedom of expression and information, the freedom to conduct a business, and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market. Due to their higher rank in the norm hierarchy, these legal guarantees constitute common ground for the application of the general monitoring prohibition in secondary EU legislation, namely Article 15(1) of the E-Commerce Directive ('ECD') and Article 17(8) of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market ('CDSMD'). With regard to the Digital Services Act (‘DSA’), this result of the analysis implies that any further manifestation of the general monitoring ban in the DSA would have to be construed and applied – in the light of applicable CJEU case law – as a safeguard against encroachments upon the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms. If the final text of the DSA does not contain a reiteration of the prohibition of general monitoring obligations known from Article 15(1) ECD and Article 17(8) CDSMD, the regulation of internet service provider liability, duties of care and injunctions would still have to avoid inroads into the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms and observe the principle of proportionality. The double specificity requirement plays a central role in this respect. |
| Appelman, N., Fahy, R. pp. 164-175, 2020, (Chapter in: Report Automating Society 2020, Chiusi, F., Fischer, S., Kayser-Bril, N. & Spielkamp, M. eds., Berlin: AlgorithmWatch, October 2020.). @inbook{Fahy2020b, title = {Netherlands/Research}, author = {Fahy, R. and Appelman, N.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Automating-Society-Report-2020.pdf https://automatingsociety.algorithmwatch.org/}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-10-29}, pages = {164-175}, abstract = {How are AI-based systems being used by private companies and public authorities in Europe? The new report by AlgorithmWatch and Bertelsmann Stiftung sheds light on what role automated decision-making (ADM) systems play in our lives. As a result of the most comprehensive research on the issue conducted in Europe so far, the report covers the current use of and policy debates around ADM systems in 16 European countries and at EU level.}, note = {Chapter in: Report Automating Society 2020, Chiusi, F., Fischer, S., Kayser-Bril, N. & Spielkamp, M. eds., Berlin: AlgorithmWatch, October 2020.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {inbook} } How are AI-based systems being used by private companies and public authorities in Europe? The new report by AlgorithmWatch and Bertelsmann Stiftung sheds light on what role automated decision-making (ADM) systems play in our lives. As a result of the most comprehensive research on the issue conducted in Europe so far, the report covers the current use of and policy debates around ADM systems in 16 European countries and at EU level. |
| Hugenholtz, P., Poort, J., Schumacher, L.D., van Gompel, S., Visser, D. Evaluatie Wet Auteurscontractenrecht: Eindrapport 2020. @techreport{vanGompel2020b, title = {Evaluatie Wet Auteurscontractenrecht: Eindrapport}, author = {van Gompel, S. and Hugenholtz, P. and Poort, J. and Schumacher, L.D. and Visser, D.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/evaluatie_wet_auteurscontractenrecht_2020.pdf https://www.wodc.nl/wodc-nieuws-2020/auteurscontractenrecht.aspx}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-10-29}, abstract = {Onderzoek in opdracht van het Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC), ministerie van Justitie & Veiligheid. Van de Wet Auteurscontractenrecht, die ten doel heeft om de contractuele positie van auteurs en uitvoerende kunstenaars te versterken, wordt in de praktijk nog weinig gebruik gemaakt. De Wet, die in 2015 als een nieuw onderdeel van de Auteurswet werd ingevoerd, belooft auteurs en artiesten die met exploitanten in zee gaan een ‘billijke vergoeding', geeft makers de kans om contracten open te breken en verbiedt oneerlijke contractsbepalingen. Auteurs en artiesten blijken maar zelden op de bepalingen van de Wet een beroep te doen. Daarbij lijkt de angst voor verlies aan opdrachten of om op een zwarte lijst te komen een belangrijke rol te spelen. Ook blijkt de door de Wet in het leven geroepen laagdrempelige geschillenprocedure nauwelijks te functioneren. Dit zijn enkele van de conclusies van een praktijkevaluatie van de Wet Auteurscontractenrecht die door onderzoekers van de Universiteit van Amsterdam en de Universiteit Leiden in opdracht van het WODC is uitgevoerd.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } Onderzoek in opdracht van het Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC), ministerie van Justitie & Veiligheid. Van de Wet Auteurscontractenrecht, die ten doel heeft om de contractuele positie van auteurs en uitvoerende kunstenaars te versterken, wordt in de praktijk nog weinig gebruik gemaakt. De Wet, die in 2015 als een nieuw onderdeel van de Auteurswet werd ingevoerd, belooft auteurs en artiesten die met exploitanten in zee gaan een ‘billijke vergoeding', geeft makers de kans om contracten open te breken en verbiedt oneerlijke contractsbepalingen. Auteurs en artiesten blijken maar zelden op de bepalingen van de Wet een beroep te doen. Daarbij lijkt de angst voor verlies aan opdrachten of om op een zwarte lijst te komen een belangrijke rol te spelen. Ook blijkt de door de Wet in het leven geroepen laagdrempelige geschillenprocedure nauwelijks te functioneren. Dit zijn enkele van de conclusies van een praktijkevaluatie van de Wet Auteurscontractenrecht die door onderzoekers van de Universiteit van Amsterdam en de Universiteit Leiden in opdracht van het WODC is uitgevoerd. |
| Hugenholtz, P. Annotatie bij HvJ EU 29 juli 2019, C-469/17 (Funke), C-516/17 (Spiegel) & C-4476/17 (Pelham) Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (43), pp. 6068-6073, 2020. @article{Hugenholtz2020e, title = {Annotatie bij HvJ EU 29 juli 2019, C-469/17 (Funke), C-516/17 (Spiegel) & C-4476/17 (Pelham)}, author = {Hugenholtz, P.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2020_354.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-10-23}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, number = {43}, pages = {6068-6073}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Senftleben, M. Florida International University Law Review, 14 (2), pp. 299-328, 2020. @article{Senftleben2020, title = {Institutionalized Algorithmic Enforcement - The Pros and Cons of the EU Approach to UGC Platform Liability}, author = {Senftleben, M.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3565175 https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/lawreview/vol14/iss2/11/}, doi = {10.25148/lawrev.14.2.11}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-10-20}, journal = {Florida International University Law Review}, volume = {14}, number = {2}, pages = {299-328}, abstract = {Algorithmic copyright enforcement \textendash the use of automated filtering tools to detect infringing content before it appears on the internet \textendash has a deep impact on the freedom of users to upload and share information. Instead of presuming that user-generated content ("UGC") does not amount to infringement unless copyright owners take action and provide proof, the default position of automated filtering systems is that every upload is suspicious and that copyright owners are entitled to ex ante control over the sharing of information online. If platform providers voluntarily introduce algorithmic enforcement measures, this may be seen as a private decision following from the freedom of companies to run their business as they wish. If, however, copyright legislation institutionalizes algorithmic enforcement and imposes a legal obligation on platform providers to employ automated filtering tools, the law itself transforms copyright into a censorship and filtering instrument. Nonetheless, the new EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (“DSM Directive”) follows this path and requires the employment of automated filtering tools to ensure that unauthorized protected content does not populate UGC platforms. The new EU rules on UGC licensing and screening will inevitably lead to the adoption of algorithmic enforcement measures in practice. Without automated content control, UGC platforms will be unable to escape liability for infringing user uploads. To provide a complete picture, however, it is important to also shed light on counterbalances which may distinguish this new, institutionalized form of algorithmic enforcement from known content filtering tools that have evolved as voluntary measures in the private sector. The DSM Directive underlines the necessity to safeguard user freedoms that support transformative, creative remixes and mash-ups of pre-existing content. This feature of the new legislation may offer important incentives to develop algorithmic tools that go beyond the mere identification of unauthorized takings from protected works. It has the potential to encourage content assessment mechanisms that factor the degree of transformative effort and user creativity into the equation. As a result, more balanced content filtering tools may emerge in the EU. Against this background, the analysis shows that the new EU legislation not only escalates the use of algorithmic enforcement measures that already commenced in the private sector years ago. If rightly implemented, it may also add an important nuance to existing content identification tools and alleviate the problems arising from reliance on automated filtering mechanisms.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Algorithmic copyright enforcement – the use of automated filtering tools to detect infringing content before it appears on the internet – has a deep impact on the freedom of users to upload and share information. Instead of presuming that user-generated content ("UGC") does not amount to infringement unless copyright owners take action and provide proof, the default position of automated filtering systems is that every upload is suspicious and that copyright owners are entitled to ex ante control over the sharing of information online. If platform providers voluntarily introduce algorithmic enforcement measures, this may be seen as a private decision following from the freedom of companies to run their business as they wish. If, however, copyright legislation institutionalizes algorithmic enforcement and imposes a legal obligation on platform providers to employ automated filtering tools, the law itself transforms copyright into a censorship and filtering instrument. Nonetheless, the new EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (“DSM Directive”) follows this path and requires the employment of automated filtering tools to ensure that unauthorized protected content does not populate UGC platforms. The new EU rules on UGC licensing and screening will inevitably lead to the adoption of algorithmic enforcement measures in practice. Without automated content control, UGC platforms will be unable to escape liability for infringing user uploads. To provide a complete picture, however, it is important to also shed light on counterbalances which may distinguish this new, institutionalized form of algorithmic enforcement from known content filtering tools that have evolved as voluntary measures in the private sector. The DSM Directive underlines the necessity to safeguard user freedoms that support transformative, creative remixes and mash-ups of pre-existing content. This feature of the new legislation may offer important incentives to develop algorithmic tools that go beyond the mere identification of unauthorized takings from protected works. It has the potential to encourage content assessment mechanisms that factor the degree of transformative effort and user creativity into the equation. As a result, more balanced content filtering tools may emerge in the EU. Against this background, the analysis shows that the new EU legislation not only escalates the use of algorithmic enforcement measures that already commenced in the private sector years ago. If rightly implemented, it may also add an important nuance to existing content identification tools and alleviate the problems arising from reliance on automated filtering mechanisms. |
| Buijtelaar, L.D., Senftleben, M. Robot Creativity: An Incentive-Based Neighbouring Rights Approach European Intellectual Property Review, 42 (12), Forthcoming. @article{Senftleben2020d, title = {Robot Creativity: An Incentive-Based Neighbouring Rights Approach}, author = {Senftleben, M. and Buijtelaar, L.D.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3707741}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-10-13}, journal = {European Intellectual Property Review}, volume = {42}, number = {12}, abstract = {Today texts, paintings and songs need no longer be the result of human creativity. Advanced artificial intelligence (AI) systems are capable of generating creations that can hardly be distinguished from those of authors of flesh and blood. This development raises the question whether AI-generated works could be eligible for copyright protection. In the following analysis, we explore this question. After a discussion of the traditional copyright requirement of human creativity, the rationales underlying copyright protection \textendash in particular the utilitarian incentive theory \textendash will serve as a compass to decide on the grant of protection and delineate the scope of exclusive rights. In addition, the analysis will address the question who the owner of protected AI creations should be. Finally, the discussion of pros and cons of protection will be placed in the broader context of competing policy goals and legal obligations, such as the prospect of enriching the public domain and the question of liability for AI creations that infringe the rights of third parties.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {forthcoming}, tppubtype = {article} } Today texts, paintings and songs need no longer be the result of human creativity. Advanced artificial intelligence (AI) systems are capable of generating creations that can hardly be distinguished from those of authors of flesh and blood. This development raises the question whether AI-generated works could be eligible for copyright protection. In the following analysis, we explore this question. After a discussion of the traditional copyright requirement of human creativity, the rationales underlying copyright protection – in particular the utilitarian incentive theory – will serve as a compass to decide on the grant of protection and delineate the scope of exclusive rights. In addition, the analysis will address the question who the owner of protected AI creations should be. Finally, the discussion of pros and cons of protection will be placed in the broader context of competing policy goals and legal obligations, such as the prospect of enriching the public domain and the question of liability for AI creations that infringe the rights of third parties. |
| Ausloos, J., Leerssen, P., Menezes Cwajg, C. Transparency Rules in Online Political Advertising: Mapping Global Law and Policy 2020, (This report has been prepared by Carolina Menezes Cwajg. It was written under the academic guidance of Dr. Jef Ausloos and Paddy Leerssen, at IViR and the Information, Communication & the Data Society (ICDS) Initiative at the University of Amsterdam.). @techreport{Cwajg2020, title = {Transparency Rules in Online Political Advertising: Mapping Global Law and Policy}, author = {Menezes Cwajg, C. and Ausloos, J. and Leerssen, P.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/TransparencyRulesOnlinePoliticalAds2020.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-10-13}, abstract = {In response to the rise of online political microtargeting, governments across the globe are launching transparency initiatives. Most of these aim to shed light on who is buying targeted political ads, and how they are targeted. The present Report offers a comprehensive mapping exercise of this new field of regulation, analysing new laws, proposed or enacted, that impose transparency rules on online political microtargeting. The Report consists of two components: a global overview, and detailed case study of the United States. The first section begins with a geographical overview by showing where and what initiatives were proposed and enacted, looking in particular at Canada, France, Ireland, Singapore and the United States. It then unpacks these initiatives in greater detail by outlining what requirements they impose in terms of disclosure content, scope of application, and format. The second section of the Report then zooms into the United States, outlining the various initiatives that have been proposed and enacted at state-level.}, note = {This report has been prepared by Carolina Menezes Cwajg. It was written under the academic guidance of Dr. Jef Ausloos and Paddy Leerssen, at IViR and the Information, Communication & the Data Society (ICDS) Initiative at the University of Amsterdam.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } In response to the rise of online political microtargeting, governments across the globe are launching transparency initiatives. Most of these aim to shed light on who is buying targeted political ads, and how they are targeted. The present Report offers a comprehensive mapping exercise of this new field of regulation, analysing new laws, proposed or enacted, that impose transparency rules on online political microtargeting. The Report consists of two components: a global overview, and detailed case study of the United States. The first section begins with a geographical overview by showing where and what initiatives were proposed and enacted, looking in particular at Canada, France, Ireland, Singapore and the United States. It then unpacks these initiatives in greater detail by outlining what requirements they impose in terms of disclosure content, scope of application, and format. The second section of the Report then zooms into the United States, outlining the various initiatives that have been proposed and enacted at state-level. |
| Ausloos, J., Helberger, N., Strycharz, J. Data Protection or Data Frustration? Individual perceptions and attitudes towards the GDPR European Data Protection Law Review, 6 (3), pp. 407-421, 2020. @article{Strycharz2020, title = {Data Protection or Data Frustration? Individual perceptions and attitudes towards the GDPR}, author = {Strycharz, J. and Ausloos, J. and Helberger, N.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/EDPLR_2020_3.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.21552/edpl/2020/3/10}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-10-13}, journal = {European Data Protection Law Review}, volume = {6}, number = {3}, pages = {407-421}, abstract = {Strengthening individual rights, enhancing control over one’s data and raising awareness were among the main aims the European Commission set for the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In order to assess whether these aims have been met, research into individual perceptions, awareness, and understanding of the Regulation is necessary. This study thus examines individual reactions to the GDPR in order to provide insights into user agency in relation to the Regulation. More specifically, it discusses empirical data (survey with N = 1288) on individual knowledge of, reactions to, and rights exercised under the GDPR in the Netherlands. The results show high awareness of the GDPR and knowledge of individual rights. At the same time, the Dutch show substantial reactance to the Regulation and doubt the effectiveness of their individual rights. These findings point to several issues obstructing the GDPR’s effectiveness, and constitute useful signposts for policy-makers and enforcement agencies to prioritise their strategies in achieving the original aims of the Regulation.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Strengthening individual rights, enhancing control over one’s data and raising awareness were among the main aims the European Commission set for the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). In order to assess whether these aims have been met, research into individual perceptions, awareness, and understanding of the Regulation is necessary. This study thus examines individual reactions to the GDPR in order to provide insights into user agency in relation to the Regulation. More specifically, it discusses empirical data (survey with N = 1288) on individual knowledge of, reactions to, and rights exercised under the GDPR in the Netherlands. The results show high awareness of the GDPR and knowledge of individual rights. At the same time, the Dutch show substantial reactance to the Regulation and doubt the effectiveness of their individual rights. These findings point to several issues obstructing the GDPR’s effectiveness, and constitute useful signposts for policy-makers and enforcement agencies to prioritise their strategies in achieving the original aims of the Regulation. |
| Yakovleva, S. Privacy and Data Protection in the EU- and US-led Post- WTO Free Trade Agreements pp. 95-115, 2020, (Chapter in: Coherence and Divergence in Services Trade Law, ed. R.T. Hoffmann & M. Krajewski). @inbook{Yakovleva2020e, title = {Privacy and Data Protection in the EU- and US-led Post- WTO Free Trade Agreements}, author = {Yakovleva, S.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Yearbook_International_Economic_Law.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46955-9_5}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-10-08}, pages = {95-115}, series = {European Yearbook of International Economic Law}, abstract = {The chapter addresses privacy and data protection in FTAs. It takes stock of the evolution of provisions on privacy and data protection in the post-WTO FTAs and FTAs currently under negotiation relying on EU- and US-led FTAs as an empirical basis. The chapter evaluates the trends and patterns of the development of these provisions and provides an outlook for the upcoming negotiations on electronic commerce at the WTO. It highlights the evolution of provisions on privacy and personal data protection in general exceptions, financial and telecommunications chapters, chapters on electronic commerce and digital trade. After identifying trends in the design and wording of these provisions in the EU- and US-led FTAs the chapter concludes that both trading partners tend to prefer their own template for regional FTAs.}, note = {Chapter in: Coherence and Divergence in Services Trade Law, ed. R.T. Hoffmann & M. Krajewski}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {inbook} } The chapter addresses privacy and data protection in FTAs. It takes stock of the evolution of provisions on privacy and data protection in the post-WTO FTAs and FTAs currently under negotiation relying on EU- and US-led FTAs as an empirical basis. The chapter evaluates the trends and patterns of the development of these provisions and provides an outlook for the upcoming negotiations on electronic commerce at the WTO. It highlights the evolution of provisions on privacy and personal data protection in general exceptions, financial and telecommunications chapters, chapters on electronic commerce and digital trade. After identifying trends in the design and wording of these provisions in the EU- and US-led FTAs the chapter concludes that both trading partners tend to prefer their own template for regional FTAs. |
| Yakovleva, S. Personal Data Transfers in International Trade and EU Law: A Tale of Two ‘Necessities’ The Journal of World Investment & Trade, pp. 1-39, 2020. @article{Yakovleva2020d, title = {Personal Data Transfers in International Trade and EU Law: A Tale of Two ‘Necessities’}, author = {Yakovleva, S.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/JWIT_2020.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-10-02}, journal = {The Journal of World Investment & Trade}, pages = {1-39}, abstract = {Cross-border flows of personal data have become essential for international trade. EU law restricts transfers of personal data to a degree that is arguably beyond what is permitted under the EU’s WTO commitments. These restrictions may be justified under trade law’s ‘necessity test.’ The article suggests that they may not pass this test. Yet, from an EU law perspective, the right to the protection of personal data is a fundamental right. An international transfer of personal data constitutes a derogation from this right and, therefore, must be consistent with another necessity test, the ‘strict necessity’ test of the derogation clause of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This article shows how a simultaneous application of the trade law and EU Charter ‘necessities’ to EU restrictions on transfers of personal data creates a Catch-22 situation and sketches the ways out of this compliance deadlock.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Cross-border flows of personal data have become essential for international trade. EU law restricts transfers of personal data to a degree that is arguably beyond what is permitted under the EU’s WTO commitments. These restrictions may be justified under trade law’s ‘necessity test.’ The article suggests that they may not pass this test. Yet, from an EU law perspective, the right to the protection of personal data is a fundamental right. An international transfer of personal data constitutes a derogation from this right and, therefore, must be consistent with another necessity test, the ‘strict necessity’ test of the derogation clause of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This article shows how a simultaneous application of the trade law and EU Charter ‘necessities’ to EU restrictions on transfers of personal data creates a Catch-22 situation and sketches the ways out of this compliance deadlock. |
| Hugenholtz, P. Intellectuele Eigendom & Reclamerecht (IER), (5), pp. 276-280, 2020. @article{Hugenholtz2020d, title = {De kunstmatige maker: over de gevolgen van het Endstra-arrest voor de bescherming van artifici\"{e}le creaties}, author = {Hugenholtz, P.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IER_2020_5.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-10-01}, journal = {Intellectuele Eigendom & Reclamerecht (IER)}, number = {5}, pages = {276-280}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Arnbak, A., Geursen, W., Yakovleva, S. Kaleidoscopic data-related enforcement in the digital age Common Market Law Review, 57 (5), pp. 1461-1494, 2020. @article{Yakovleva2020c, title = {Kaleidoscopic data-related enforcement in the digital age}, author = {Yakovleva, S. and Geursen, W. and Arnbak, A.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/CMLR_2020.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-10-01}, journal = {Common Market Law Review}, volume = {57}, number = {5}, pages = {1461-1494}, abstract = {The interplay between competition, consumer and data protection law, when applied to data collection and processing practices, may lead to situations where several competent authorities can, independently, carry out enforcement actions against the same practice, or where an authority competent to carry out enforcement in one area of law can borrow the concepts of another area to advance its own goals. The authors call this “kaleidoscopic enforcement”. Kaleidoscopic enforcement may undermine existing coordination mechanisms within specif ic areas, and may lead to both the incoherent enforcement of EU rules applicable to data, and to sub-optimal enforcement. An EU level binding inter-disciplinary coordination mechanism between competition, consumer and data protection authorities is needed. Now the Commission has announced ambitious plans to enhance the coherent application of EU law in several areas, it is the perfect time to work towards creating such an enforcement mechanism.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } The interplay between competition, consumer and data protection law, when applied to data collection and processing practices, may lead to situations where several competent authorities can, independently, carry out enforcement actions against the same practice, or where an authority competent to carry out enforcement in one area of law can borrow the concepts of another area to advance its own goals. The authors call this “kaleidoscopic enforcement”. Kaleidoscopic enforcement may undermine existing coordination mechanisms within specif ic areas, and may lead to both the incoherent enforcement of EU rules applicable to data, and to sub-optimal enforcement. An EU level binding inter-disciplinary coordination mechanism between competition, consumer and data protection authorities is needed. Now the Commission has announced ambitious plans to enhance the coherent application of EU law in several areas, it is the perfect time to work towards creating such an enforcement mechanism. |
| Husovec, M., Quintais, J. 2020. @article{Husovec2020c, title = {How to License Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms}, author = {Husovec, M. and Quintais, J.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3463011}, doi = {10.2139/ssrn.3463011}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-09-29}, abstract = {Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive is a major Internet policy experiment of our decade. The provision fundamentally changes copyright regulation of certain digital platforms. However, the precise nature of art. 17 is far from clear. How does it fit the existing structure of EU copyright law and doctrine? How can the Member States implement it? These are the questions at the heart of this article. To answer them, we start by examining the nature and structure of the right prescribed in art. 17. The exact qualification brings important legal consequences. Among others, it determines the conditions imposed by EU law and international law on national implementations. After reviewing different interpretation options, we conclude that art. 17 introduces either a special or a new sui generis right, both of which allow significant margin of discretion for Member States, especially as regards licensing mechanisms and exceptions. [This is a revised and updated version of a working paper first published in October 2019]}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive is a major Internet policy experiment of our decade. The provision fundamentally changes copyright regulation of certain digital platforms. However, the precise nature of art. 17 is far from clear. How does it fit the existing structure of EU copyright law and doctrine? How can the Member States implement it? These are the questions at the heart of this article. To answer them, we start by examining the nature and structure of the right prescribed in art. 17. The exact qualification brings important legal consequences. Among others, it determines the conditions imposed by EU law and international law on national implementations. After reviewing different interpretation options, we conclude that art. 17 introduces either a special or a new sui generis right, both of which allow significant margin of discretion for Member States, especially as regards licensing mechanisms and exceptions. [This is a revised and updated version of a working paper first published in October 2019] |
| Araujo, T., Helberger, N., Vreese, C.H. de Computer Law & Security Review, 39 , 2020. @article{Helberger2020f, title = {Who is the fairest of them all? Public attitudes and expectations regarding automated decision-making}, author = {Helberger, N. and Araujo, T. and Vreese, C.H. de}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364920300613?dgcid=author}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105456}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-09-15}, journal = {Computer Law & Security Review}, volume = {39}, abstract = {The ongoing substitution of human decision makers by automated decision-making (ADM) systems in a whole range of areas raises the question of whether and, if so, under which conditions ADM is acceptable and fair. So far, this debate has been primarily led by academics, civil society, technology developers and members of the expert groups tasked to develop ethical guidelines for ADM. Ultimately, however, ADM affects citizens, who will live with, act upon and ultimately have to accept the authority of ADM systems. The paper aims to contribute to this larger debate by providing deeper insights into the question of whether, and if so, why and under which conditions, citizens are inclined to accept ADM as fair. The results of a survey (N = 958) with a representative sample of the Dutch adult population, show that most respondents assume that AI-driven ADM systems are fairer than human decision-makers. A more nuanced view emerges from an analysis of the responses, with emotions, expectations about AI being data- and calculation-driven, as well as the role of the programmer \textendash among other dimensions \textendash being cited as reasons for (un)fairness by AI or humans. Individual characteristics such as age and education level influenced not only perceptions about AI fairness, but also the reasons provided for such perceptions. The paper concludes with a normative assessment of the findings and suggestions for the future debate and research.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } The ongoing substitution of human decision makers by automated decision-making (ADM) systems in a whole range of areas raises the question of whether and, if so, under which conditions ADM is acceptable and fair. So far, this debate has been primarily led by academics, civil society, technology developers and members of the expert groups tasked to develop ethical guidelines for ADM. Ultimately, however, ADM affects citizens, who will live with, act upon and ultimately have to accept the authority of ADM systems. The paper aims to contribute to this larger debate by providing deeper insights into the question of whether, and if so, why and under which conditions, citizens are inclined to accept ADM as fair. The results of a survey (N = 958) with a representative sample of the Dutch adult population, show that most respondents assume that AI-driven ADM systems are fairer than human decision-makers. A more nuanced view emerges from an analysis of the responses, with emotions, expectations about AI being data- and calculation-driven, as well as the role of the programmer – among other dimensions – being cited as reasons for (un)fairness by AI or humans. Individual characteristics such as age and education level influenced not only perceptions about AI fairness, but also the reasons provided for such perceptions. The paper concludes with a normative assessment of the findings and suggestions for the future debate and research. |
| Eskens, S., Mil, J. van Opinie: Doorsturen telecomdata naar RIVM vereist een beter verhaal Het Financieele Dagblad, 2020. @article{Eskens2020c, title = {Opinie: Doorsturen telecomdata naar RIVM vereist een beter verhaal}, author = {Eskens, S. and Mil, J. van}, url = {https://fd.nl/opinie/1356879/doorsturen-telecomdata-naar-rivm-vereist-een-beter-verhaal}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-09-12}, journal = {Het Financieele Dagblad}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Helberger, N., Huh, J., Milne, G., Strycharz, J. Macro and Exogenous Factors in Computational Advertising: Key Issues and New Research Directions Journal of Advertising, 49 (4), pp. 377-393, 2020. @article{Helberger2020h, title = {Macro and Exogenous Factors in Computational Advertising: Key Issues and New Research Directions}, author = {Helberger, N. and Huh, J. and Milne, G. and Strycharz, J.}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2020.1811179}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-09-11}, journal = {Journal of Advertising}, volume = {49}, number = {4}, pages = {377-393}, abstract = {To advance the emerging research field of computational advertising this article describes the new computational advertising ecosystem, identifies key actors within it and interactions among them, and discusses future research agendas. Specifically, we propose systematic conceptualization for the redefined advertising industry, consumers, government, and technology environmental factors, and discuss emerging and anticipated tensions that arise in the macro and exogenous factors surrounding the new computational advertising industry, leading to suggestions for future research directions. From multidisciplinary angles, areas of tension and related research questions are explored from advertising, business, computer science, and legal perspectives. The proposed research agendas include exploring transparency of computational advertising practice and consumer education; understanding the trade-off between explainability and performance of algorithms; exploring the issue of new consumers as free data laborers, data as commodity, and related consumer agency challenges; understanding the relationship between algorithmic transparency and consumers’ literacy; evaluating the trade-off between algorithmic fairness and privacy protection; examining legal and regulatory issues regarding power imbalance between actors in the computational advertising ecosystem; and studying the trade-off between technological innovation and consumer protection and empowerment.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } To advance the emerging research field of computational advertising this article describes the new computational advertising ecosystem, identifies key actors within it and interactions among them, and discusses future research agendas. Specifically, we propose systematic conceptualization for the redefined advertising industry, consumers, government, and technology environmental factors, and discuss emerging and anticipated tensions that arise in the macro and exogenous factors surrounding the new computational advertising industry, leading to suggestions for future research directions. From multidisciplinary angles, areas of tension and related research questions are explored from advertising, business, computer science, and legal perspectives. The proposed research agendas include exploring transparency of computational advertising practice and consumer education; understanding the trade-off between explainability and performance of algorithms; exploring the issue of new consumers as free data laborers, data as commodity, and related consumer agency challenges; understanding the relationship between algorithmic transparency and consumers’ literacy; evaluating the trade-off between algorithmic fairness and privacy protection; examining legal and regulatory issues regarding power imbalance between actors in the computational advertising ecosystem; and studying the trade-off between technological innovation and consumer protection and empowerment. |
| Eskens, S., Helberger, N. Opinie: corona-app vraagt om meer toezicht op grote techbedrijven De Volkskrant, 2020. @article{Helberger2020g, title = {Opinie: corona-app vraagt om meer toezicht op grote techbedrijven}, author = {Helberger, N. and Eskens, S.}, url = {https://www.volkskrant.nl/columns-opinie/opinie-corona-app-vraagt-om-meer-toezicht-op-grote-techbedrijven~b6898138/}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-09-10}, journal = {De Volkskrant}, abstract = {Er is te weinig aandacht voor de rol van Google en Apple bij de invoering van de CoronaMelder, betogen Natali Helberger en Sarah Eskens.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Er is te weinig aandacht voor de rol van Google en Apple bij de invoering van de CoronaMelder, betogen Natali Helberger en Sarah Eskens. |
| Appelman, N., Fahy, R. 2020, (Chapter in: F. Chiusi, S. Fischer, & M. Spielkamp (eds.), Automated Decision-Making Systems in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A European Perspective, AlgorithmWatch, 2020). @inbook{Appelman2020b, title = {Netherlands}, author = {Appelman, N. and Fahy, R.}, url = {https://algorithmwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/ADM-systems-in-the-Covid-19-pandemic-Report-by-AW-BSt-Sept-2020.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-09-01}, abstract = {Contact tracing apps for smartphones, thermal scanners, face recognition technology: high hopes have been placed by both local administrations and national governments in applications and devices like these, aimed at containing the outbreak of the virus. The new publication Automated Decision-Making Systems in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A European Perspective gathers detailed examples of ADM systems in use, compiled by a network of researchers covering 16 countries. It provides an initial mapping and exploration of ADM systems implemented throughout Europe as a consequence of the COVID-19 outbreak.}, note = {Chapter in: F. Chiusi, S. Fischer, & M. Spielkamp (eds.), Automated Decision-Making Systems in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A European Perspective, AlgorithmWatch, 2020}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {inbook} } Contact tracing apps for smartphones, thermal scanners, face recognition technology: high hopes have been placed by both local administrations and national governments in applications and devices like these, aimed at containing the outbreak of the virus. The new publication Automated Decision-Making Systems in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A European Perspective gathers detailed examples of ADM systems in use, compiled by a network of researchers covering 16 countries. It provides an initial mapping and exploration of ADM systems implemented throughout Europe as a consequence of the COVID-19 outbreak. |
| Husovec, M., Quintais, J. Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020. @article{Husovec2020b, title = {Article 17 of the Copyright Directive: Why the German implementation proposal is compatible with EU law \textendash Part 2}, author = {Husovec, M. and Quintais, J.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/08/28/article-17-of-the-copyright-directive-why-the-german-implementation-proposal-is-compatible-with-eu-law-part-2/?doing_wp_cron=1598609159.3323481082916259765625}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-08-28}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Husovec, M., Quintais, J. Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020. @article{Husovec2020, title = {Article 17 of the Copyright Directive: Why the German implementation proposal is compatible with EU law \textendash Part 1}, author = {Husovec, M. and Quintais, J.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/08/26/article-17-of-the-copyright-directive-why-the-german-implementation-proposal-is-compatible-with-eu-law-part-1/}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-08-27}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Eskens, S. Opinie: De wettelijke mogelijkheden voor online proctoring door universiteiten zijn zeer beperkt Tijdschrift voor Internetrecht, (4), pp. 141-143, 2020. @article{Eskens2020b, title = {Opinie: De wettelijke mogelijkheden voor online proctoring door universiteiten zijn zeer beperkt}, author = {Eskens, S.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/TvI_2020_4.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-08-27}, journal = {Tijdschrift voor Internetrecht}, number = {4}, pages = {141-143}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Appelman, N., Fahy, R., Toh, J., van Hoboken, J. Techno-optimism and solutionism as a crisis response 2020, (Chapter in L. Taylor, G. Sharma, A. Martin, and S. Jameson (eds.), Data Justice and COVID-19: Global Perspectives, Meatspace Press, 2020)). @inbook{Appelman2020, title = {Techno-optimism and solutionism as a crisis response}, author = {Appelman, N. and Toh, J. and Fahy, R. and van Hoboken, J.}, url = {https://pure.uva.nl/admin/files/49662485/Data_Justice_and_COVID_19.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-08-27}, abstract = {The COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped how social, economic, and political power is created, exerted, and extended through technology. Through case studies from around the world, this book analyses the ways in which technologies of monitoring infections, information, and behaviour have been applied and justified during the emergency, what their side-effects have been, and what kinds of resistance they have met.}, note = {Chapter in L. Taylor, G. Sharma, A. Martin, and S. Jameson (eds.), Data Justice and COVID-19: Global Perspectives, Meatspace Press, 2020)}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {inbook} } The COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped how social, economic, and political power is created, exerted, and extended through technology. Through case studies from around the world, this book analyses the ways in which technologies of monitoring infections, information, and behaviour have been applied and justified during the emergency, what their side-effects have been, and what kinds of resistance they have met. |
| Poort, J., Rougoor, W., Tieben, B. Reserveprijs veiling DAB+-laag 7 2020, (Rapport in opdracht van het ministerie van Economische Zaken en Klimaat, SEO Economisch Onderzoek, mei 2020. ISBN 9789052200675.). @techreport{Rougoor2020, title = {Reserveprijs veiling DAB+-laag 7}, author = {Rougoor, W. and Tieben, B. and Poort, J.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Reserveprijs_veiling_DAB_laag_7.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-08-27}, abstract = {Voor de veiling van DAB+-laag 7 is een reserveprijs wenselijk die laag maar niet triviaal is om niet-serieuze aanvragers te weren zonder serieuze bieders af te schrikken. Op basis van een tentatieve kasstroomanalyse adviseren SEO Economisch Onderzoek en IViR een reserveprijs te hanteren van ten hoogste € 50 duizend per vergunning. }, note = {Rapport in opdracht van het ministerie van Economische Zaken en Klimaat, SEO Economisch Onderzoek, mei 2020. ISBN 9789052200675.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } Voor de veiling van DAB+-laag 7 is een reserveprijs wenselijk die laag maar niet triviaal is om niet-serieuze aanvragers te weren zonder serieuze bieders af te schrikken. Op basis van een tentatieve kasstroomanalyse adviseren SEO Economisch Onderzoek en IViR een reserveprijs te hanteren van ten hoogste € 50 duizend per vergunning. |
| Cooper Dreyfuss, R., van Eechoud, M. Choice of Law in EU Trade Secrecy Cases Chapter 10, pp. 171-191, 2020. @inbook{Dreyfuss2020, title = {Choice of Law in EU Trade Secrecy Cases}, author = {Cooper Dreyfuss, R. and van Eechoud, M.}, url = {https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781788973335/9781788973335.xml}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788973342}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-08-27}, pages = {171-191}, chapter = {10}, abstract = {Chapter in: The Harmonization and Protection of Trade Secrets in the EU: An Appraisal of the EU Directive, J. Schovsbo, T. Minssen & T. Riis eds., Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020. ISBN: 9781788973335.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {inbook} } Chapter in: The Harmonization and Protection of Trade Secrets in the EU: An Appraisal of the EU Directive, J. Schovsbo, T. Minssen & T. Riis eds., Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020. ISBN: 9781788973335. |
| Bouchè, G., Fahy, R., McGonagle, T., Rucz, M., Sangen, A, van der, Seel, M., Stapel, S. Safety of journalists and the fighting of corruption in the EU 2020, (Prof. dr. T. McGonagle - Project Leader - European Parliament - Policy Department for Citizen's Rights and Constitutional Affairs - Directorate-General for Internal Policies - July 2020). @techreport{McGonagle2020f, title = {Safety of journalists and the fighting of corruption in the EU}, author = {McGonagle, T. and Fahy, R. and Bouch\`{e}, G. and Rucz, M. and Stapel, S. and Seel, M. and Sangen, A, van der}, url = {https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/655187/IPOL_STU(2020)655187_EN.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-30}, abstract = {Journalism and journalists face a growing range of threats, including violence and harassment; the misuse of defamation and other laws against them, and restrictive measures on freedom of information and expression adopted in response to the Covid-19 crisis. States must ensure a safe and favourable environment for journalists to perform their public watchdog function. This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee, examines the overall chilling effect of crimes and threats against journalists and explores various regulatory and other measures to counter them. This report was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.}, note = {Prof. dr. T. McGonagle - Project Leader - European Parliament - Policy Department for Citizen's Rights and Constitutional Affairs - Directorate-General for Internal Policies - July 2020}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } Journalism and journalists face a growing range of threats, including violence and harassment; the misuse of defamation and other laws against them, and restrictive measures on freedom of information and expression adopted in response to the Covid-19 crisis. States must ensure a safe and favourable environment for journalists to perform their public watchdog function. This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee, examines the overall chilling effect of crimes and threats against journalists and explores various regulatory and other measures to counter them. This report was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. |
| Drunen, M. van Journal of Media Law, 2020. @article{Drunen2020, title = {The post-editorial control era: how EU media law matches platforms’ organisational control with cooperative responsibility}, author = {Drunen, M. van}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17577632.2020.1796067}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2020.1796067}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-28}, journal = {Journal of Media Law}, abstract = {This paper argues the AVMSD attaches cooperative responsibility to platforms’ organisational control. Firstly, it explores how the new concept of organisational control differs from the editorial control that has traditionally been central to media law, in particular concerning the greater involvement of other stakeholders active on platforms. Secondly, it analyses the measures the AVMSD requires platforms to take with regard to content on their service in light of their organisational control. Finally, it shows how the AVMSD not only requires platforms to assume responsibility for actions under their direct control, but also to enable users and uploaders to exercise their inherent influence differently. The AVMSD consequently moves away from centralised, and towards cooperative responsibility for platforms. The paper concludes by evaluating the choices the AVMSD makes (and fails to make) in the operationalisation of this new responsibility model.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } This paper argues the AVMSD attaches cooperative responsibility to platforms’ organisational control. Firstly, it explores how the new concept of organisational control differs from the editorial control that has traditionally been central to media law, in particular concerning the greater involvement of other stakeholders active on platforms. Secondly, it analyses the measures the AVMSD requires platforms to take with regard to content on their service in light of their organisational control. Finally, it shows how the AVMSD not only requires platforms to assume responsibility for actions under their direct control, but also to enable users and uploaders to exercise their inherent influence differently. The AVMSD consequently moves away from centralised, and towards cooperative responsibility for platforms. The paper concludes by evaluating the choices the AVMSD makes (and fails to make) in the operationalisation of this new responsibility model. |
| Buijtelaar, L.D., Senftleben, M. Auteursrecht op robotcreaties? Een analyse op basis van de incentivetheorie AMI, (3-4), pp. 77-93, 2020. @article{Buijtelaar2020, title = {Auteursrecht op robotcreaties? Een analyse op basis van de incentivetheorie}, author = {Buijtelaar, L.D. and Senftleben, M.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2020_3_4_77.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-24}, journal = {AMI}, number = {3-4}, pages = {77-93}, abstract = {Vandaag de dag zijn teksten, schilderijen en liedjes niet noodzakelijkerwijs het resultaat van menselijke creativiteit. Geavanceerde robotsystemen zijn in staat om output te genereren die nauwelijks te onderscheiden is van de werken van makers van vlees en bloed. Dit doet de vraag rijzen of door robots gegenereerde creaties in aanmerking kunnen komen voor auteursrechtelijke bescherming. In de volgende analyse staat deze vraag centraal. Na een inleidende bespreking van het traditionele vereiste van menselijke creativiteit in het auteursrecht dienen de ratio’s van auteursrechtelijke bescherming \textendash met name de economische incentivetheorie \textendash als maatstaf om over nut en noodzaak van de toekenning van bescherming te beslissen. Voorts wordt aandacht besteed aan de vraag wie de houder van rechten op robotcreaties zou kunnen zijn. Ten slotte vindt een afweging plaats van de voor- en nadelen van bescherming, mede in het licht van de mogelijkheid om robotcreaties vrij te laten en het publieke domein te verrijken.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Vandaag de dag zijn teksten, schilderijen en liedjes niet noodzakelijkerwijs het resultaat van menselijke creativiteit. Geavanceerde robotsystemen zijn in staat om output te genereren die nauwelijks te onderscheiden is van de werken van makers van vlees en bloed. Dit doet de vraag rijzen of door robots gegenereerde creaties in aanmerking kunnen komen voor auteursrechtelijke bescherming. In de volgende analyse staat deze vraag centraal. Na een inleidende bespreking van het traditionele vereiste van menselijke creativiteit in het auteursrecht dienen de ratio’s van auteursrechtelijke bescherming – met name de economische incentivetheorie – als maatstaf om over nut en noodzaak van de toekenning van bescherming te beslissen. Voorts wordt aandacht besteed aan de vraag wie de houder van rechten op robotcreaties zou kunnen zijn. Ten slotte vindt een afweging plaats van de voor- en nadelen van bescherming, mede in het licht van de mogelijkheid om robotcreaties vrij te laten en het publieke domein te verrijken. |
| Hugenholtz, P. Annotatie bij Rb Amsterdam 1 november 2019 (Van Uem / De Persgroep) AMI, (3-4), pp. 101-105, 2020. @article{Hugenholtz2020c, title = {Annotatie bij Rb Amsterdam 1 november 2019 (Van Uem / De Persgroep)}, author = {Hugenholtz, P.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_AMI_2020_3_4.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-24}, journal = {AMI}, number = {3-4}, pages = {101-105}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Irion, K. 2020. @online{Irion2020c, title = {Schrems II and Surveillance: Third Countries’ National Security Powers in the Purview of EU Law, European Law Blog}, author = {Irion, K.}, url = {https://europeanlawblog.eu/2020/07/24/schrems-ii-and-surveillance-third-countries-national-security-powers-in-the-purview-of-eu-law/}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-24}, abstract = {On 16 July 2020 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) composed as Grand Chamber delivered its landmark ruling Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Ltd and Maximillian Schrems (case C-311/18, “Schrems II”). The focus of my commentary will be on the aspect that EU law on cross-border transfers of personal data to a third country is not deferential to national security powers of that third country. This judgment is remarkable provided that electronic surveillance conducted by Member States’ intelligence authorities for the purpose of national security is off limits for EU law and that exceptions in international agreement are fairly regularly made for national security. This contribution will deal with the embedded assessment of a third country’s national security powers under the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, GDPR) and will address the criticism that a third country is held to stricter standards than a Member State of the Union.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {online} } On 16 July 2020 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) composed as Grand Chamber delivered its landmark ruling Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Ltd and Maximillian Schrems (case C-311/18, “Schrems II”). The focus of my commentary will be on the aspect that EU law on cross-border transfers of personal data to a third country is not deferential to national security powers of that third country. This judgment is remarkable provided that electronic surveillance conducted by Member States’ intelligence authorities for the purpose of national security is off limits for EU law and that exceptions in international agreement are fairly regularly made for national security. This contribution will deal with the embedded assessment of a third country’s national security powers under the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, GDPR) and will address the criticism that a third country is held to stricter standards than a Member State of the Union. |
| Dommering, E. Annotatie HvJ EU 2 oktober 2018 (Ministerio Fiscal) Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (28), pp. 3753-3754, 2020. @article{Dommering2020h, title = {Annotatie HvJ EU 2 oktober 2018 (Ministerio Fiscal)}, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_232.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-21}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, number = {28}, pages = {3753-3754}, abstract = {Toegang tot door elektronische communicatiedienstaanbieder verwerkte persoonsgegevens alleen gerechtvaardigd als het om ernstig delict gaat. Identificatiegegevens op SIMkaart van gestolen mobiele telefoon ook bij lichtere vormen van criminaliteit toegestaan toegestaan omdat deze op zich zelf geen inzicht geven in de priv\'{e} communicatie.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Toegang tot door elektronische communicatiedienstaanbieder verwerkte persoonsgegevens alleen gerechtvaardigd als het om ernstig delict gaat. Identificatiegegevens op SIMkaart van gestolen mobiele telefoon ook bij lichtere vormen van criminaliteit toegestaan toegestaan omdat deze op zich zelf geen inzicht geven in de privé communicatie. |
| Bodó, B. New Media & Society, 2020. @article{Bod\'{o}2020b, title = {Mediated trust: A theoretical framework to address the trustworthiness of technological trust mediators}, author = {Bod\'{o}, B.}, url = {https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461444820939922}, doi = {10.1177/1461444820939922}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-17}, journal = {New Media & Society}, abstract = {This article considers the impact of digital technologies on the interpersonal and institutional logics of trust production. It introduces the new theoretical concept of technology-mediated trust to analyze the role of complex techno-social assemblages in trust production and distrust management. The first part of the article argues that globalization and digitalization have unleashed a crisis of trust, as traditional institutional and interpersonal logics are not attuned to deal with the risks introduced by the prevalence of digital technologies. In the second part, the article describes how digital intermediation has transformed the traditional logics of interpersonal and institutional trust formation and created new trust-mediating services. Finally, the article asks as follows: why should we trust these technological trust mediators? The conclusion is that at best, it is impossible to establish the trustworthiness of trust mediators, and that at worst, we have no reason to trust them.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } This article considers the impact of digital technologies on the interpersonal and institutional logics of trust production. It introduces the new theoretical concept of technology-mediated trust to analyze the role of complex techno-social assemblages in trust production and distrust management. The first part of the article argues that globalization and digitalization have unleashed a crisis of trust, as traditional institutional and interpersonal logics are not attuned to deal with the risks introduced by the prevalence of digital technologies. In the second part, the article describes how digital intermediation has transformed the traditional logics of interpersonal and institutional trust formation and created new trust-mediating services. Finally, the article asks as follows: why should we trust these technological trust mediators? The conclusion is that at best, it is impossible to establish the trustworthiness of trust mediators, and that at worst, we have no reason to trust them. |
| Ausloos, J., Mahieu, R. Harnessing the collective potential of GDPR access rights: towards an ecology of transparency Internet Policy Review, 2020, (Opinion). @article{Mahieu2020, title = {Harnessing the collective potential of GDPR access rights: towards an ecology of transparency}, author = {Mahieu, R. and Ausloos, J.}, url = {https://policyreview.info/articles/news/harnessing-collective-potential-gdpr-access-rights-towards-ecology-transparency/1487}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-17}, journal = {Internet Policy Review}, abstract = {The GDPR’s goal of empowering citizens can only be fully realised when the collective dimensions of data subject rights are acknowledged and supported through proper enforcement. The power of the collective use of data subjects’ rights, however, is currently neither acknowledged nor properly enforced. This is the message we sent to the European Commission in response to its call for feedback for its two-year review of the GDPR. In our submission entitled Recognising and Enabling the Collective Dimension of the GDPR and the Right of Access \textendash A call to support the governance structure of checks and balances for informational power asymmetries, we demonstrate the collective potential of GDPR access rights with a long list of real-life examples.}, note = {Opinion}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } The GDPR’s goal of empowering citizens can only be fully realised when the collective dimensions of data subject rights are acknowledged and supported through proper enforcement. The power of the collective use of data subjects’ rights, however, is currently neither acknowledged nor properly enforced. This is the message we sent to the European Commission in response to its call for feedback for its two-year review of the GDPR. In our submission entitled Recognising and Enabling the Collective Dimension of the GDPR and the Right of Access – A call to support the governance structure of checks and balances for informational power asymmetries, we demonstrate the collective potential of GDPR access rights with a long list of real-life examples. |
| Bernstein, A., Helberger, N., Schulz, W., Vreese, C.H. de Challenging rabbit holes: towards more diversity in news recommendation systems LSE Media Blog, 2020. @article{Helberger2020e, title = {Challenging rabbit holes: towards more diversity in news recommendation systems}, author = {Helberger, N. and Bernstein, A. and Schulz, W. and Vreese, C.H. de}, url = {https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/medialse/2020/07/02/challenging-rabbit-holes-towards-more-diversity-in-news-recommendation-systems/}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-16}, journal = {LSE Media Blog}, abstract = {Access to diverse sources of news and information is more important than ever in this time of global crisis, yet far too often, people can find themselves diving into ‘rabbit holes’ of information and opinion that are hard to escape. Here, the following authors provide an in depth assessment of how algorithmic recommendation systems for news can play a more constructive role in a diverse media landscape.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Access to diverse sources of news and information is more important than ever in this time of global crisis, yet far too often, people can find themselves diving into ‘rabbit holes’ of information and opinion that are hard to escape. Here, the following authors provide an in depth assessment of how algorithmic recommendation systems for news can play a more constructive role in a diverse media landscape. |
| Helberger, N. Digital Journalism, 8 (6), pp. 842-854, 2020. @article{Helberger2020d, title = {The Political Power of Platforms: How Current Attempts to Regulate Misinformation Amplify Opinion Power}, author = {Helberger, N.}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1773888}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-14}, journal = {Digital Journalism}, volume = {8}, number = {6}, pages = {842-854}, abstract = {This contribution critically reviews the ongoing policy initiatives in Europe to impose greater societal responsibility on social media platforms. I discuss the current regulatory approach of treating social platforms as mere 'intermediaries' of the speech of others and propose a different perspective. Instead of perceiving platforms as intermediaries and facilitators of the speech of others, I view social media platforms as active political actors in their own right, and wielders of considerable opinion power. I will explain how taking the perspective of opinion power throws a very different, and rather alarming light on the recent regulatory initiatives.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } This contribution critically reviews the ongoing policy initiatives in Europe to impose greater societal responsibility on social media platforms. I discuss the current regulatory approach of treating social platforms as mere 'intermediaries' of the speech of others and propose a different perspective. Instead of perceiving platforms as intermediaries and facilitators of the speech of others, I view social media platforms as active political actors in their own right, and wielders of considerable opinion power. I will explain how taking the perspective of opinion power throws a very different, and rather alarming light on the recent regulatory initiatives. |
| Keller, P. Hungary’s fast tracked implementation of Article 5 CDSM directive in response to the pandemic Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020. @article{Keller2020c, title = {Hungary’s fast tracked implementation of Article 5 CDSM directive in response to the pandemic}, author = {Keller, P.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/06/23/hungarys-fast-tracked-implementation-of-article-5-cdsm-directive-in-response-to-the-pandemic/?doing_wp_cron=1593173611.1108019351959228515625}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-06-26}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Ausloos, J., Leerssen, P., Thije, P. ten Operationalizing Research Access in Platform Governance: What to learn from other industries? 2020. @techreport{Ausloos2020b, title = {Operationalizing Research Access in Platform Governance: What to learn from other industries?}, author = {Ausloos, J. and Leerssen, P. and Thije, P. ten}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/GoverningPlatforms_IViR_study_June2020-AlgorithmWatch-2020-06-24.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-06-25}, abstract = {A new study published by AlgorithmWatch, in cooperation with the European Policy Centre and the University of Amsterdam’s Institute for Information Law, shows that the GDPR needn’t stand in the way of meaningful research access to platform data; looks to health and environmental sectors for best practices in privacy-respecting data sharing frameworks.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } A new study published by AlgorithmWatch, in cooperation with the European Policy Centre and the University of Amsterdam’s Institute for Information Law, shows that the GDPR needn’t stand in the way of meaningful research access to platform data; looks to health and environmental sectors for best practices in privacy-respecting data sharing frameworks. |
| Ausloos, J. Technologiereuzen moeten zeggen hoe ze ons gedrag bepalen en zo dwingen we dat af 2020, (Opinie). @article{Ausloos2020c, title = {Technologiereuzen moeten zeggen hoe ze ons gedrag bepalen en zo dwingen we dat af}, author = {Ausloos, J.}, url = {https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2020/06/25/de-macht-van-technologiereuzen-en-hoe-ze-aan-banden-te-leggen/}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-06-25}, abstract = {Vandaag verschijnt een rapport met aanbevelingen voor de Europese Commissie. Dat zet uiteen hoe onlineplatformen verplicht kunnen worden om aan bepaalde transparantie-eisen te voldoen. Jef Ausloos is hoofdauteur van het rapport en bepleit waarom zo'n kader nodig is. "Transparantie is van cruciaal belang om donkere kantjes in kaart te brengen, zodat we collectief kunnen bepalen waar en hoe we de groeiende macht van onlineplatformen moeten inperken."}, note = {Opinie}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Vandaag verschijnt een rapport met aanbevelingen voor de Europese Commissie. Dat zet uiteen hoe onlineplatformen verplicht kunnen worden om aan bepaalde transparantie-eisen te voldoen. Jef Ausloos is hoofdauteur van het rapport en bepleit waarom zo'n kader nodig is. "Transparantie is van cruciaal belang om donkere kantjes in kaart te brengen, zodat we collectief kunnen bepalen waar en hoe we de groeiende macht van onlineplatformen moeten inperken." |