prof. C.H. de Vreese, Author at IVIR

Dommering, E.

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

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

(Links | BibTeX)

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

Copyright Content Moderation in the EU: Conclusions and Recommendations

2023.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Senftleben, M.

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

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

(Links | BibTeX)

van Eechoud, M.

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

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

(Links | BibTeX)

Hugenholtz, P.

Remuneration rights and national treatment

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

(Links | BibTeX)

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

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

2023, visited: 28.03.2023.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

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

Impact of content moderation practices and technologies on access and diversity

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

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Dommering, E.

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

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

(Links | BibTeX)

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

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

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

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@article{nokey,

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

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

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

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

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-02-24},

journal = {Computer Law \& Security Review},

volume = {48},

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



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



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

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Close

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

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

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

Close

Hins, A.

Ongehoord Nederland! Underdog en waakhond.

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

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Keller, P.

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

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

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Keller, P.

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

2023, visited: 20.02.2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

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

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

2023, ISBN: 9783757517960.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Diakopoulos, N., Helberger, N.

ChatGPT and the AI Act

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

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Dommering, E.

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

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

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Quintais, J., Trapova, A.

EU copyright law round up – fourth trimester of 2022

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

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

In: Journalism Studies, 2023.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

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

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

In: Digital Journalism, 2023.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Es, R. van, Irion, K.

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

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

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Fahy, R., Voorhoof, D.

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

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

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

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

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

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

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Hugenholtz, P.

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

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

(Links | BibTeX)

Hugenholtz, P.

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

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

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

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

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

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

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

Digital Sovereignty: from Narrative to Policy?

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

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Seipp, T.

Book review: Media Freedom, by Damian Tambini

In: Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Dommering, E.

Annotatie Hoge Raad 3 december 2021 (Hoist Finance AB)

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

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Dommering, E.

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 25 februari 2022 (Google)

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

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Senftleben, M.

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

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

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

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

Using Terms and Conditions to Apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation

In: German Law Journal, Forthcoming.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@article{nokey,

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

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

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

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

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-11-25},

journal = {German Law Journal},

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

keywords = {},

pubstate = {forthcoming},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Close

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

Close

Dommering, E.

De lange schaduw van de Koude Oorlog in de kunst: over kunst, kitsch, camp en dictatorkunst

In: De Nederlandse Boekengids, no. 6, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Janssen, H.

Opinie: Commerciële datakluizen lossen problemen met big tech niet op

In: De Volkskrant, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Dobber, T., Helberger, N., Trilling, D., Vreese, C.H. de

Effects of an issue-based microtargeting campaign: A small-scale field experiment in a multi-party setting

In: The Information Society, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Hins, A.

Goed bestuur en integriteit bij de publieke omroep

In: Mediaforum, iss. 5, pp. 158-163, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

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

The DSA has been published – now the difficult bit begins

In: Verfassungsblog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

van Daalen, O.

Testimony for PEGA hearing on spyware and fundamental rights

In: 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Irion, K.

Repairing the EU Passenger Name Record Directive: the ECJ’s judgment in Ligue des droits humains (Case C-817/19)

2022, visited: 24.10.2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Rucz, M.

SLAPPed by the GDPR: protecting public interest journalism in the face of GDPR-based strategic litigation against public participation

In: Journal of Media Law, vol. 14, iss. 2, pp. 378-405, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

van Daalen, O.

Opinie: Leg wettelijk vast dat experts onderzoek mogen doen naar gaten in cyberbeveiliging

In: De Volkskrant, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Drunen, M. van

NIT S.R.L. t. Moldavië (EHRM, 28470/12) – Het EHRM introduceert intern pluralisme

In: European Human Rights Cases Updates, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Quintais, J., Trapova, A.

EU copyright law round up – third trimester of 2022

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Bruning, T., Dommering, E., Kruikemeier, S., Maussen, M., Smeets, H.

Moet fake news verboden worden? De toekomst van samen beslissen

2022, visited: 18.09.2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Brogi, E., Fahy, R., Idiz, D., Irion, K., Meiring, A., Parcu, P.L., Poort, J., Seipp, T., Verza, S. et. al.

Study on media plurality and diversity online

2022, ISBN: 978-92-76-51323-0, (Report commissioned by European Commission, Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, written by Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF), European University Institute, CiTiP (Centre for Information Technology and Intellectual Property) of KU Leuven, Institute for Information Law of the University of Amsterdam (IViR/UvA), Vrije Universiteit Brussels (Studies in Media, Innovation and Technology, VUB- SMIT)).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@techreport{nokey,

title = {Study on media plurality and diversity online},

author = {Parcu, P.L. and Brogi, E. and Verza, S. et. al. and Irion, K. and Fahy, R. and Idiz, D. and Meiring, A. and Seipp, T. and Poort, J. 

},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/study-on-media-plurality-and-diversity-online/

https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/529019},

doi = {10.2759/529019},

isbn = {978-92-76-51323-0},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-09-16},

urldate = {2022-09-16},

publisher = {Publications Office of the European Union},

abstract = {The Study on Media Plurality and Diversity Online investigates the value of safeguarding media pluralism and diversity online, focusing on (i) the prominence and discoverability of general interest content and services, and on (ii) market plurality and the concentration of economic resources. With a focus on Europe, the project is funded by a tender from the European Commission to produce a study on Media Plurality and Diversity Online and involves four partner universities: CMPF (EUI); CiTiP (Centre for Information Technology and Intellectual Property) of KU Leuven; the Institute for Information Law of the University of Amsterdam (IViR/UvA); imec-SMIT-Vrije Universiteit Brussel. The purpose of the assignment was to describe, analyse and evaluate the existing regulatory and business practices in the two areas mentioned above, and finally to elaborate some policy recommendations. Data were collected from the database of the Media Pluralism Monitor (CMPF) and through desk research, online consultations and interviews with stakeholders. The contractor was able to call on a network of national experts across the Member States to support this work.},

note = {Report commissioned by European Commission, Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, written by Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF), European University Institute, CiTiP (Centre for Information Technology and Intellectual Property) of KU Leuven, Institute for Information Law of the University of Amsterdam (IViR/UvA), Vrije Universiteit Brussels (Studies in Media, Innovation and Technology, VUB- SMIT)},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {techreport}

}

Close

Sax, M.

Algorithmic News Diversity and Democratic Theory: Adding Agonism to the Mix

In: Digital Journalism, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Bénédict, G., De Rijke, M., Gutierrez Granada, M., Odijk, D., Vrijenhoek, S.

RADio – Rank-Aware Divergence Metrics to Measure Normative Diversity in News Recommendations

In: RecSys '22: Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pp. 208-219, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Dommering, E., Lamoree, J.

In het Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam heeft het eigen gelijk een ereplek gekregen

In: Vrij Nederland, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

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

Copyright Content Moderation in the EU: An Interdisciplinary Mapping Analysis

2022, (ReCreating Europe, August 2022).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

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

Copyright Content Moderation in the EU: An Interdisciplinary Mapping Analysis

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Buri, I., Chapman, M., Culloty, E., Drunen, M. van, Fahy, R., Giannopoulou, A., Gil González, E., Heuvelhof, C. ten, Meiring, A., Strycharz, J.

New actors and risks in online advertising

2022, ISSN: 2079-1062, (IRIS Special 2022-1, European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg).

(Links | BibTeX)

Burri, M., Irion, K.

§ 16 Digitaler Handel (Handels- und Kooperationsvertrag EU/GB Handbuch)

In: C.J. Tams G. Kübek, J. P. Terhechte (Ed.): Nomos, 2022, ISBN: 978-3-8487-7188-2 .

(Links | BibTeX)

McGonagle, T., Voorhoof, D.

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

2022, ISBN: 9789287184351, (IRIS Themes, vol. III, 7th edition, European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Hins, A.

Opinie: Staatspropaganda en uitingsvrijheid

In: Mediaforum, vol. 34, iss. 2, pp. 45, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Quintais, J., Trapova, A.

The UK government moves forward with a text and data mining exception for all purposes

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Benabou, V.L., Metzger, A., Rognstad, O-A.,, Sganga, C., van Eechoud, M.

Comment of the European Copyright Society on the impact and consequences of the CJEU decision in C-265/19 (RAAP)

2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Drunen, M. van, Fechner, D.

Safeguarding Editorial Independence in an Automated Media System: The Relationship Between Law and Journalistic Perspectives

In: Digital Journalism, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Hugenholtz, P.

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 2 oktober 2020 (Stichting Lira / Ziggo, Delta Fiber Nederland & Vereniging Rechtenoverleg voor distributie van audiovisuele producties)

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, iss. 30, no. 225, pp. 4168-4170, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Dommering, E.

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 8 februari 2022 (Demonstratie in de RAI bij vakbeurs)

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, iss. 29, no. 222, pp. 4062-4065, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Senftleben, M.

Study on EU copyright and related rights and access to and reuse of data

2022, ISBN: 9789276536321, (Independent expert report commissioned by European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

van Eechoud, M.

Study on the Open Data Directive, Data Governance and Data Act and their possible impact on research

2022, ISBN: 9789276536314, (Independent expert report commissioned by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

McGonagle, T.

Doubling down on safety of journalists – An analysis and positioning of OSCE Ministerial Council Decision No. 3/18 - Safety of Journalists (2018) in a wider context

2022, (Study commissioned by the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media).

(Links | BibTeX)

Martinelli, A., Mazzei, J., Nuvolari, A., Poort, J.

Report on effect of digitisation and regulatory changes on access to cultural/creative goods and services

2022, (Part of Rethinking digital copyright law for a culturally diverse, accessible, creative Europe, ReCreating Europe).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Giannopoulou, A.

Allocating Control in Decentralised Identity Management

In: European Review of Digital Administration & Law - Erdal, vol. 2021, iss. 2, pp. 75-87, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

McGonagle, T.

Another string to the bow of media freedom: An analysis of the Communiqués of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media (2014 – 2022)

2022, (Study commissioned by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, OSCE, Vienna).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

McGonagle, T., Volgenant, O.

Persvrijheidsmonitor 2021

In: Mediaforum, iss. 3, pp. 74-77, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

van Daalen, O.

In defense of offense: information security research under the right to science

In: Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 46, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

European Data Protection Scholars Network

The Right to Lodge a Data Protection Complaint: Ok, But Then What? An empirical study of current practices under the GDPR

2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Quintais, J., Trapova, A.

EU copyright law round up – second trimester of 2022

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Irion, K.

Algorithms Off-limits? If digital trade law restricts access to source code of software then accountability will suffer

In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’22), June 21–24, 2022, Seoul, Republic of Korea. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Keller, P., Reda, F.

Filtered Futures Conference: Exploring the Fundamental Rights Constraints of Automated Filtering After the CJEU Ruling on Article 17

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Mil, J. van, Quintais, J.

A Matter of (Joint) control? Virtual assistants and the general data protection regulation

In: Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 45, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Leerssen, P.

Annotatie bij Rb Noord-Holland 6 oktober 2021 (Kamerlid / LinkedIn Ierland & LinkedIn Nederland)

In: Computerrecht, iss. 3, no. 97, pp. 228-230, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Janssen, H., Singh, J.

Personal Information Management Systems

In: Internet Policy Review, vol. 11, iss. 2, 2022, (Glossary of decentralised technosocial systems).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Janssen, H., Singh, J.

Data intermediary

In: Internet Policy Review, vol. 11, iss. 1, 2022, (Glossary of decentralised technosocial systems).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Cobbe, J., Janssen, H., Seng Ah Lee, M., Singh, J.

Defining the scope of AI ADM system risk assessment

In: Research handbook on EU data protection law, E. Kosta, R. Leenes & I. Kamara (ed.), Chapter 16, pp. 405-434, Edgar Elgar Publishing, 2022.

(BibTeX)

Margoni, T., Quintais, J., Schwemer, S.

Algorithmic propagation: do property rights in data increase bias in content moderation? – Part II

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Poort, J.

Inbreng Rondetafelgesprek over de Wet kansspelen op afstand

2022, (Position paper voor Rondetafelgesprek van de Vaste commissie voor Justitie en Veiligheid, 9 juni 2022).

(Links | BibTeX)

Margoni, T., Quintais, J., Schwemer, S.

Algorithmic propagation: do property rights in data increase bias in content moderation? Part I

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Dommering, E.

Naar een algemeen transparantiebeginsel? : Bespreking van het preadvies van A.W.G.J. Buijze voor de VAR 2022

In: Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Bestuursrecht, iss. 5, no. 141, pp. 265-271, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Hugenholtz, P.

De playlists van Spotify: Hoe ver reikt het nabuurrechtelijke vergoedingsrecht met betrekking tot audiostreamingdiensten?

In: Auteursrecht, iss. 2, pp. 75-84, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Poort, J.

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 12 december 2021 (SENA/Organisatoren Dance Events)

In: Auteursrecht, iss. 2, no. 4, pp. 107-109, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Senftleben, M.

The Meaning of “Additional” in the Poland ruling of the Court of Justice: Double Safeguards – Ex Ante Flagging and Ex Post Complaint Systems – are Indispensable

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Helberger, N., Micklitz, H.-W., Sax, M., Strycharz, J.

Choice Architectures in the Digital Economy: Towards a New Understanding of Digital Vulnerability

In: Journal of Consumer Policy, vol. 45, iss. 2, pp. 175-200, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Ferrari, V.

The platformisation of digital payments: The fabrication of consumer interest in the EU FinTech agenda

In: Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 45, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@article{nokey,

title = {The platformisation of digital payments: The fabrication of consumer interest in the EU FinTech agenda},

author = {Ferrari, V.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/computerlawsecurityreview_2022/},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105687},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-05-19},

journal = { Computer Law \& Security Review},

volume = {45},

abstract = {This paper investigates, through a qualitative analysis of official documents, how certain imaginaries about technology filter into EU policymaking, allowing or accelerating the transformation of payment infrastructures into the platform economy.



One of the ways in which socio-technical imaginaries filter into policymaking is, it turns out, by informing an image of the consumer which serves to justify measures for the realization of a desired future. In particular, the documents offer a view of the consumer as an actor that is empowered by digitisation. The thesis of this paper is that this view of the consumer is partial: the rhetoric of consumer technological empowerment outweighs and conceals much needed considerations about the vulnerability of consumers vis-a-vis data-intensive payment technologies. Ultimately, the fault lies with the future imaginaries upon which such image is grounded. The vision of the digital payment infrastructure portrayed in the documents is in fact problematic for two reasons. First, the technologies that are portraited as desirable are chosen based on industry interests and trends rather than considerations of benefits and risks that these technologies entail. Secondly, the assumption that a liberalized market will offer more and better choices is flawed, as platformisation entails risks of monopolization and abuses of market power. We suggest that policymakers in this domain should be more critical of the risks entailed by platformisation, and open their imagination to alternative technological futures.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Close

Bodó, B., Janssen, H.

Maintaining trust in a technologized public sector

In: Policy and Society, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@article{nokey,

title = {Maintaining trust in a technologized public sector},

author = {Bod\'{o}, B. and Janssen, H.},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac019},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-05-19},

journal = {Policy and Society},

abstract = {Emerging technologies permeate and potentially disrupt a wide spectrum of our social, economic, and political relations. Various state institutions, including education, law enforcement, and healthcare, increasingly rely on technical components, such as automated decision-making systems, e-government systems, and other digital tools to provide cheap, efficient public services, and supposedly fair, transparent, disinterested, and accountable public administration. The increased interest in various blockchain-based solutions from central bank digital currencies, via tokenized educational credentials, and distributed ledger-based land registries to self-sovereign identities is the latest, still mostly unwritten chapter in a long history of standardized, objectified, automated, technocratic, and technologized public administration. The rapid, (often) unplanned, and uncontrolled technologization of public services (as happened in the hasty adoption of distance-learning and teleconferencing systems during Corona Virus Disease (COVID) lockdowns) raises complex questions about the use of novel technological components, which may or may not be ultimately adequate for the task for which they are used. The question whether we can trust the technical infrastructures the public sector uses when providing public services is a central concern in an age where trust in government is declining: If the government’s artificial intelligence system that detects welfare fraud fails, the public’s confidence in the government is ultimately hit. In this paper, we provide a critical assessment of how the use of potentially untrustworthy (private) technological systems including blockchain-based systems in the public sector may affect trust in government. We then propose several policy options to protect the trust in government even if some of their technological components prove fundamentally untrustworthy.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Close

Derclaye E., Husovec, M., Senftleben, M., van Eechoud, M.

Opinion of the European Copyright Society on selected aspects of the proposed Data Act

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Quintais, J.

Between Filters and Fundamental Rights: How the Court of Justice saved Article 17 in C-401/19 - Poland v. Parliament and Council

In: Verfassungsblog, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Hugenholtz, P.

Groundhog Day in Geneva: The WIPO Broadcasting Treaty is on the Agenda Once Again

2022, (Draft paper prepared for American University International Law Review Symposium on the Right to Research in International Copyright Law, April 22, 2022).

(Links | BibTeX)

Giorello, M., Keller, P., Quintais, J., Reda, F.

Video recording of the COMMUNIA Salon on the CJEU decision on Article 17 (Case C-401/19)

04.05.2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Chocarro, S., Harrison,J., McGonagle, T., Parmar, S., Torsner, S.

Closing the normative gap: What ten years of Human Rights Council Resolutions tell us about its approach to the safety of journalists

2022, (Working paper, the seventh Academic Conference on the Safety of Journalists, jointly organised by the University of the Republic and UNESCO, World Press Freedom Day in Punta del Este, Uruguay).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@techreport{nokey,

title = {Closing the normative gap: What ten years of Human Rights Council Resolutions tell us about its approach to the safety of journalists },

author = {Chocarro, S. and Harrison,J. and McGonagle, T. and Parmar, S. and Torsner, S. },

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/nl/closing-the-normative-gap/

https://www.article19.org/resources/world-press-freedom-day-journalism-under-siege/},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-05-03},

urldate = {2022-05-03},

abstract = {In the last ten years, there have been high levels of development of normative work within the United Nations (UN) system on the issue of the safety of journalists. Since the approval of the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity in 2012, the first ever UN strategy on this matter, and the subsequent first Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution on the safety of journalists that same year, fifteen resolutions have been adopted by the principal UN Charter-based bodies, namely the Security Council, the General Assembly and the HRC, and also UNESCO.

The HRC resolutions, which have been adopted on a biennial basis, have proven to be the most progressive in addressing the safety of journalists from a human rights-based perspective. However, the main challenge remains their effective implementation. How have these resolutions evolved and what do they reveal about how the issue of the safety of journalists is addressed by the HRC? What are the shortcomings and gaps in the protection of the safety of journalists offered by this set of resolutions?

To answer these questions, this paper first undertakes a qualitative document analysis of HRC resolutions. It then analyzes the development of these resolutions from a humanrights perspective. Finally, based on this analysis, it identifies the normative gaps that should be addressed in order to properly respond to the most pressing challenges to the safety of journalists in the years to come. 

},

note = {Working paper, the seventh Academic Conference on the Safety of Journalists, jointly organised by the University of the Republic and UNESCO, World Press Freedom Day in Punta del Este, Uruguay},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {techreport}

}

Close

Bulayenko, O., Gervais, D.J., Poort, J., Quintais, J.

AI Music Outputs: Challenges to the Copyright Legal Framework – Part II

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Quintais, J.

Article 17 survives, but freedom of expression safeguards are key: C-401/19 – Poland v Parliament and Council

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Keller, P., Reda, F.

CJEU upholds Article 17, but not in the form (most) Member States imagined

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Bulayenko, O., Gervais, D.J., Poort, J., Quintais, J.

AI Music Outputs: Challenges to the Copyright Legal Framework – Part I

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Hugenholtz, P.

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 8 september 2020 (Recorded Artists Actors Performers / Phonographic Performance (Ireland))

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, iss. 15, no. 126, pp. 2384-2386, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Antal, D., Bodó, B., Handke, C.W., Kretschmer, M., Margoni, T., Poort, J., Quintais, J., Schwemer, S., Senftleben, M., van Gompel, S.

Ensuring the Visibility and Accessibility of European Creative Content on the World Market: The Need for Copyright Data Improvement in the Light of New Technologies

In: JIPITEC, vol. 13, iss. 1, pp. 67-86, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Senftleben, M.

Robustness Check: Evaluating and Strengthening Artistic Use Defences in EU Trademark Law

In: IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 567-603, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@article{nokey,

title = {Robustness Check: Evaluating and Strengthening Artistic Use Defences in EU Trademark Law},

author = {Senftleben, M.},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-022-01182-x},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-04-12},

urldate = {2022-04-12},

journal = {IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law },

volume = {53},

number = {4},

pages = {567-603},

abstract = {The 2015 EU trademark law reform introduced a peculiar rule for reconciling trademark rights with freedom of artistic expression. According to Recital 21 EUTMR and Recital 27 TMD, artistic use can be deemed fair as long as the artist ensures compliance with “honest practices in industrial and commercial matters”. The honest practices proviso forges a link with the provisions on limitations of trademark rights. Article 14(1) EUTMR and Art. 14(1) TMD exempt from the control of trademark proprietors several types of use that can allow for artistic use. All these limitations, however, apply only when the use satisfies the test of honest practices. Confirming the obligation to comply with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters, the fairness rule of Recital 21 EUTMR and Recital 27 TMD turns out to be a double-edged sword. Instead of readily immunizing artistic use against trademark claims, it obliges artists to rely on limitations of trademark rights and furnish corresponding proof. Moreover, artists are expected to align their artistic activity with behavioural standards in the field of industry and commerce \textendash a realm that is alien to the artistic community. Evidently, this approach endangers artistic autonomy. To avoid detrimental effects on artistic expression, it is advisable to strengthen the position of artists and develop a legal solution that resembles the measures taken in Art. 9(3)(f) EUTMR and Art. 10(3)(f) TMD with regard to freedom of commercial expression. Drawing inspiration from cultural sciences and case law on both sides of the Atlantic, the analysis explores avenues for achieving this goal.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Close

Poort, J.

De CoronaMelder door een economische lens

In: TPEdigitaal, vol. 16, iss. 2, pp. 48-60, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Alberdingk Thijm, Chr. A.

Knock Knock Who's There? Tussenpersonen, persoonsgegevens en de kunst van het juiste evenwicht

In: Ars Aequi, iss. april, pp. 279-288, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Bulayenko, O., Gervais, D.J., Poort, J., Quintais, J.

AI Music Outputs: Challenges to the Copyright Legal Framework

2022, (reCreating Europe report).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Quintais, J., Trapova, A.

EU copyright law round up – first trimester of 2022

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Irion, K., Rucz, M., Senftleben, M.

Contribution to the public consultation on the European Media Freedom Act

In: 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Irion, K.

The General Data Protection Regulation though the lens of digital sovereignty

EU CYBER DIRECT RESEARCH SEMINAR, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Hins, A.

Grondrechten voor de vijand

In: De Hofvijver, vol. 12, iss. 129, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Poort, J., Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.

Online prijsdiscriminatie: heeft iedereen zijn prijs?

17.03.2022, (presentatie Amsterdamse Academische Club).

(Links | BibTeX)

Hins, A.

Annotatie bij EHRM 7 december 2021 (Standard Verlagsgesellschaft / Oostenrijk)

In: Jurisprudentie Bescherming Persoonsgegevens, iss. 1, no. 1, pp. 19-23, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Quintais, J., Schwemer, S.

The Interplay between the Digital Services Act and Sector Regulation: How Special is Copyright?

In: European Journal of Risk Regulation, vol. 13, iss. 2, pp. 191-217, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@article{Quintais2021e,

title = {The Interplay between the Digital Services Act and Sector Regulation: How Special is Copyright?},

author = {Quintais, J. and Schwemer, S. },

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/ejrr_2022/},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2022.1},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-03-14},

urldate = {2022-03-14},

journal = {European Journal of Risk Regulation},

volume = {13},

issue = {2},

pages = {191-217},

abstract = {On 15 December 2020, the European Commission published its proposal for a Regulation on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act). It carries out a regulatory overhaul of the 21-year- old horizontal rules on intermediary liability in the Directive and introduces new due diligence obligations for intermediary services.



Our analysis illuminates an important point that has so far received little attention: how would the Digital Services Act’s rules interact with existing sector-specific lex specialis rules? In this paper, we look specifically at the intersection of the Digital Services Act with the regime for online content sharing service providers (OCSSPs) set forth in art. 17 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive). At first glance, these regimes do not appear to overlap as the rules on copyright are lex specialis to the Digital Services Act. A closer look shows a more complex and nuanced picture. Our analysis concludes that the DSA will apply to OCSSPs insofar as it contains rules that regulate matters not covered by art. 17 CDSM Directive, as well as specific rules on matters where art. 17 leaves margin of discretion to Member States. This includes, to varying degrees, rules in the DSA relating to the liability of intermediary providers and to due diligence obligations for online platforms of different sizes. Importantly, we consider that such rules apply even where art. 17 CDSM Directive contains specific (but less precise) regulation on the matter.



From a normative perspective, this might be a desirable outcome, to the extent that the DSA aims to establish “uniform rules for a safe, predictable and trusted online environment, where fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter are effectively protected”. Based on our analysis, we suggest a number of clarifications that might be help achieve that goal. },

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Close

Husovec, M., Kretschmer, M., Mezei, P., Peukert, A., Quintais, J.

European Copyright Society – Comment on Copyright and the Digital Services Act Proposal

In: IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , vol. 53, iss. 3, pp. 358-376, 2022, (Opinion).

(Links | BibTeX)

Drechsler, L., Yakovleva, S.

Contribution to the public consultation on the Guidelines 05/2021 on the Interplay between the application of Article 3 and the provisions on international transfers as per Chapter V of the GDPR

In: 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Keller, P.

A vanishing right? The Sui Generis Database Right and the proposed Data Act

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Schumacher, L.D., Senftleben, M., van Gompel, S.

Web harvesting: auteursrechtelijke implicaties en oplossingsrichtingen

In: Auteursrecht, iss. 1, pp. 3-14, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@article{nokey,

title = {Web harvesting: auteursrechtelijke implicaties en oplossingsrichtingen},

author = {van Gompel, S. and Schumacher, L.D. and Senftleben, M.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/auteursrecht_2022_1/},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-03-03},

journal = {Auteursrecht},

issue = {1},

pages = {3-14},

abstract = {‘Web harvesting’ is het proces waarbij een web crawler \textendash een gespecialiseerd computerprogramma \textendash wordt ingezet om websites en internetpagina’s op geautomatiseerde wijze te verzamelen en toe te voegen aan een webarchief. Nederlandse erfgoedinstellingen gebruiken deze techniek bijvoorbeeld om websites aan hun collecties toe te voegen die op het Nederlandse publiek zijn gericht (‘nationale domeincrawl’). Web harvesting kan ook beperkt zijn tot specifiek geselecteerde websites die met een bepaald onderwerp of gebeurtenis samenhangen (‘beredeneerde selectie’). In Nederland gebeurt web harvesting thans enkel nog op kleine schaal. Web crawling gaat namelijk gepaard met talloze reproductiehandelingen, waarvoor vanuit auteursrechtelijk perspectief toestemming kan zijn vereist. Voor het herhaaldelijk en systematisch harvesten van grote hoeveelheden materiaal op het web is het verkrijgen van individuele toestemming een schier onmogelijke taak. Daarnaast willen erfgoedinstellingen het geharveste materiaal ook op een of andere manier ontsluiten om het gebruik voor algemene zin \textendash toegang tot het digitale culturele erfgoed te bieden. Dit artikel onderzoekt tegen deze achtergrond, mede aan de hand van een rechtsvergelijking met het buitenland, welke oplossingsrichtingen er binnen het huidige auteursrechtelijke kader bestaan om web harvesting-activiteiten door erfgoedinstellingen op grotere schaal mogelijk te maken. Dit is nodig om gaten in de archivering van het online Nederlands erfgoed te voorkomen en het digitale culturele erfgoed voor het nageslacht te bewaren en beschikbaar te stellen. },

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Close

Angelopoulos, C., Quintais, J.

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 22 juni 2021 Frank Peterson / Google & YouTube (C 682/18) & Elsevier / Cyando AG (C 683/18)

In: Auteursrecht, iss. 1, no. 1, pp. 46-51, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

van Eechoud, M.

Annotatie bij Rechtbank Midden-Nederland 22 december 2021 (VVZBI/KVK)

In: Auteursrecht, iss. 1, pp. 71-72, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Schumacher, L.D., van Eechoud, M.

Data na de dood: Zwevend tussen contract en gegevensbescherming

In: Nederlands Juristenblad (NJB), iss. 6, no. 355, pp. 396-405, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

van Hoboken, J., Yakovleva, S.

The Algorithmic Learning Deficit: Artificial Intelligence, Data Protection and Trade

In: Big Data and Global Trade Law, Mira Burri (ed.) Cambridge University Press, 2021, Chapter 10, pp. 212-230, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Hugenholtz, P.

DJs are Phonogram Producers, says Dutch Supreme Court

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Dobber, T., Fahy, R., Shires, J., Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.

Microtargeted propaganda by foreign actors: An interdisciplinary exploration

In: Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, pp. 856-877, 2022, (MJ, vol. 28, nr. 6, 2021).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Ebbers, J., Idiz, D. R, Irion, K., Vliegenthart, R.

European audiovisual media policy in the age of global video on demand services: A case study of Netflix in the Netherlands

In: Journal of Digital Media & Policy, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 425-449, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Keller, P.

Article 17, the year in review (2021 edition)

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Husovec, M., Kretschmer, M., Mezei, P., Peukert, A., Quintais, J.

European Copyright Society (ECS): Comment on Copyright and the Digital Services Act Proposal

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Baarsma, B., Berg, G. van den, Broek-Altenburg, E. van den, Dommering, E., Teulings, C.

Lockdowns zijn niet meer te rechtvaardigen

In: NRC, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Baarsma, B., Berg, G. van den, Broek-Altenburg, E. van den, Dommering, E., Teulings, C.

Naar een coronabeleid zonder lockdowns

In: ESB, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Senftleben, M.

No Trademark Protection for Artworks in the Public Domain – A Practical Guide to the Application of Public Order and Morality as Grounds for Refusal

In: GRUR International, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 3-17, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@article{nokey,

title = {No Trademark Protection for Artworks in the Public Domain \textendash A Practical Guide to the Application of Public Order and Morality as Grounds for Refusal},

author = {Senftleben, M.},

url = {https://academic.oup.com/grurint/article/71/1/3/6349172

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/grurint_2022_1.pdf},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikab107},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-01-11},

journal = {GRUR International},

volume = {71},

number = {1},

pages = {3-17},

abstract = {With its 2017 landmark decision in Vigeland, the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association States (EFTA Court) has paved the way for the invocation of public order and morality as grounds for refusal when trademark protection is sought for cultural expressions in the public domain. Dealing with an attempt to register artworks of the famous Norwegian sculptor Gustav Vigeland as trademarks, the EFTA Court took this step to safeguard the public domain status of literary and artistic works after the expiry of copyright, shield cultural creations against ‘commercial greed’ and ensure the freedom of the arts.1 Trademark examiners and judges seeking to follow in the footsteps of the EFTA Court, however, may find it difficult to operationalize the Vigeland criteria and put corresponding arguments for refusal into practice. Against this background, the following analysis provides guidelines for the practical application of public order and morality arguments in cultural heritage cases. It describes problems arising from the grant of trademark rights in cultural public domain material (Section I) and the traditional reluctance of trademark offices and courts to rely on public order and morality considerations in this context (Section II). After this statement of the problem, the criteria following from the Vigeland decision will be introduced (Section III) before we explore the practical implementation of the EFTA Court’s morality (Section IV) and public order (Section V) arguments in more detail. The final Section VI summarizes the results of the analysis.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Close

Bodó, B., Giannopoulou, A., Mezei, P., Quintais, J.

The rise of NFTs: These aren't the droids you're looking for

In: European Intellectual Property Review, 2022.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Quintais, J., Trapova, A.

EU copyright law round up – fourth trimester of 2021

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Appelman, N., Fahy, R., van Hoboken, J.

Social Welfare, Risk Profiling and Fundamental Rights: The Case of SyRI in the Netherlands

In: JIPITEC, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 257-271, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@article{nokey,

title = {Social Welfare, Risk Profiling and Fundamental Rights: The Case of SyRI in the Netherlands},

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

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/jipitec_2021_4.pdf

https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-12-4-2021/5407},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-12-16},

journal = {JIPITEC},

volume = {12},

number = {4},

pages = {257-271},

abstract = {This article discusses the use of automated decisioning-making (ADM) systems by public administrative bodies, particularly systems designed to combat social-welfare fraud, from a European fundamental rights law perspective. The article begins by outlining the emerging fundamental rights issues in relation to ADM systems used by public administrative bodies. Building upon this, the article critically analyses a recent landmark judgment from the Netherlands and uses this as a case study for discussion of the application of fundamental rights law to ADM systems by public authorities more generally. In the so-called SyRI judgment, the District Court of The Hague held that a controversial automated welfare-fraud detection system (SyRI), which allows the linking and analysing of data from an array of government agencies to generate fraud-risk reports on people, violated the right to private life, guaranteed under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Court held that SyRI was insufficiently transparent, and contained insufficient safeguards, to protect the right to privacy, in violation of Article 8 ECHR. This was one of the first times an ADM system being used by welfare authorities has been halted on the basis of Article 8 ECHR. The article critically analyses the SyRI judgment from a fundamental rights perspective, including by examining how the Court brought principles contained in the General Data Protection Regulation within the rubric of Article 8 ECHR as well as the importance the Court attaches to the principle of transparency under Article 8 ECHR. Finally, the article discusses how the Dutch government responded to the judgment. and discusses proposed new legislation, which is arguably more invasive, with the article concluding with some lessons that can be drawn for the broader policy and legal debate on ADM systems used by public authorities. implications.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Close

Keller, P.

YouTube Copyright Transparency Report: Overblocking is real

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Dommering, E.

Annotatie bij EHRM 25 mei 2021 (Big Brother Watch e.a. / Verenigd Koninkrijk) en Hof van Justitie EU 6 oktober 2020 (La Quadrature du Net e.a. / Premier ministre e.a.)

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, no. 49, pp. 6225-6237, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

van Eechoud, M.

Annotatie bij Hof Arnhem-Leeuwarden 25 mei 2021 (Atlantic/Marell Boats)

In: Auteursrecht, no. 4, pp. 228-229, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Hins, A.

Annotatie bij Rb. Noord-Holland 6 oktober 2021 (Van Haga / LinkedIn)

In: Mediaforum, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 206-208, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Helberger, N., Poort, J., Senftleben, M., van Eechoud, M., van Gompel, S.

Introduction: An Information Law Approach to Intellectual Property and Sports

In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 3-11, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.

(BibTeX)

Dommering, E.

'The Portrait of a Gentleman'- The Cruijff Case

In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 75-84, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.

(BibTeX)

van Gompel, S.

Sports as Policy Levers in Intellectual Property Lawmaking

In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 119-130, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.

(BibTeX)

Quintais, J.

Do We Need More Copyright Protection for Sports Events?

In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 143-156, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.

(BibTeX)

Poort, J.

An Economic Note on Reselling Tickets

In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 211-216, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.

(BibTeX)

Senftleben, M.

Sacrificing the Gods on the Altar of Sports: The Redefinition of Cultural Symbols in the Sports Sector

In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 233-247, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.

(BibTeX)

van Eechoud, M.

Database Rights in the EU's Data Strategy: A Question of Sport?

In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 251-261, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.

(BibTeX)

Helberger, N., Zarouali, B.

'Voetbal Hoort niet bij Robots': Attitudes Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Refereeing

In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 395-409, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.

(BibTeX)

Gervais, D.J.

AI-JAX

In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 437-448, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.

(BibTeX)

Bulayenko, O., and Handke, C., Peeters, R., Poort, J., Quintais, J., Regeczi, D., van Gompel, S.

Study on emerging issues on collective licensing practices in the digital environment

2021, ISBN: 978-92-76-39981-0, (Study written by Ecorys, IViR and Erasmus University Rotterdam, commissioned by the European Commission.).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@techreport{nokey,

title = {Study on emerging issues on collective licensing practices in the digital environment},

author = {Bulayenko, O. and van Gompel, S. and and Handke, C. and Peeters, R. and Poort, J. and Quintais, J. and Regeczi, D.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Study_on_collective_practices_in_the_digital_environment.pdf

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/reports-collective-management-and-extended-licensing},

doi = {10.2759/611658},

isbn = {978-92-76-39981-0},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-11-25},

abstract = {Collective management of copyright and related rights is an important element of the copyright system. First and foremost, it can ensure that rightholders reap greater rewards. By exploiting economies of scale and network effects, collective management can also make markets for copyright licences more efficient, to benefit users and other stakeholders. This study examines two central aspects of collective management of copyright and related rights in Europe.

Part I documents the development of multi-territorial licensing of online rights in musical works in the European Economic Area (EEA) under Title III of Directive 2014/26/EU on Collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market (CRM Directive). It highlights the consequences of legal and regulatory reform, based on pervasive quantitative and qualitative data \textendash produced in surveys, interviews and a workshop with stakeholders \textendash and collected among collective management organisations (CMOs), rightholders, online music service providers, and national competent authorities.

Part II examines national mechanisms of collective licensing with an extended effect and comprehensive network of national experts, complemented by surveys of CMOs, as well as interviews with national competent authorities. 

The present study provides a legal and economic analysis that can serve as input for the European Commission to draft the reports required by Article 40 of the CRM Directive and Article 12(6) of the Directive 2019/790/EU on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (DSM Directive).



},

note = {Study written by Ecorys, IViR and Erasmus University Rotterdam, commissioned by the European Commission.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {techreport}

}

Close

Ausloos, J., Helmond, A., Quintais, J., Schumacher, L.D., Senftleben, M., van Gompel, S., van Hoboken, J.

Webharvesting

2021, (Onderzoek in opdracht van het Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC), 20 september 2021, WODC rapport 3142.).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Kowalewska Jahromi, H., Mezei, P., Priora, G., Quintais, J., Reda, J., Riis, T., Schwemer, S., Szkalej, K.

The Regulatory Landscape for Copyright Content Moderation: Evaluation and Future Trajectories

2021, (Webinar ReCreating Europe 16 November 2021).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Dommering, E.

Het coronabeleid is onconstitutioneel

In: Nederlands Juristenblad (NJB), no. 41, pp. 3396-3398, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

van Eechoud, M.

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 8 september 2020 (RAAP/PPI)

In: Auteursrecht, vol. 2021, no. 2, pp. 77-79, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Appelman, N., Fahy, R., Helberger, N.

The perils of legally defining disinformation

In: Internet Policy Review, vol. 10, no. 4, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Dijkman, D., Es, R. van, Irion, K., Meeren, K. van der

Evaluatie PNR Wet

2021, (WODC Rapport 3181, geschreven door K. Irion, R. van Es (IViR), K. van der Meeren & D. Dijkman (It's Public), november 2021).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Janssen, H.

Persoonlijke PIMS: privacyfort of luchtkasteel?

In: Privacy & Informatie, no. 5, pp. 214-225, 2021.

(Abstract | BibTeX)

McGonagle, T., Pentney, K.

From Risk to Reward? The DSA's risk-based approach to disinformation

In: Unravelling the Digital Services Act package', M. Cappello (ed.), IRIS Special, Strasbourg: European Audiovisual Observatory, pp. 40-57, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Hins, A.

Kamelen, tijgers en de Wet Open Overheid

In: De Hofvijver, vol. 11, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Giannopoulou, A.

Putting Data Protection by Design on the Blockchain

In: European Data Protection Law Review, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 388-399, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Buri, M., Irion, K., Kolk, A., Milan, S.

Governing “European values” inside data flows: : interdisciplinary perspectives

In: Internet Policy Review, vol. 10, no. 3, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Bodó, B., Giannopoulou, A., Irion, K., Janssen, H.

Personal data ordering in context: the interaction of meso-level data governance regimes with macro frameworks

In: Internet Policy Review, vol. 10, no. 3, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@article{Bod\'{o}2021b,

title = {Personal data ordering in context: the interaction of meso-level data governance regimes with macro frameworks},

author = {Bod\'{o}, B. and Irion, K. and Janssen, H. and Giannopoulou, A.},

url = {https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/personal-data-ordering-context-interaction-meso-level-data-governance-regimes},

doi = {10.14763/2021.3.1581},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-10-11},

urldate = {2021-10-11},

journal = {Internet Policy Review},

volume = {10},

number = {3},

abstract = {The technological infrastructures enabling the collection, processing, and trading of data have fuelled a rapid innovation of data governance models. We differentiate between macro, meso, and micro level models, which correspond to major political blocks; societal-, industry-, or community level systems, and individual approaches, respectively. We focus on meso-level models, which coalesce around: (1) organisations prioritising their own interests over interests of other stakeholders; (2) organisations offering technological and legal tools aiming to empower individuals; (3) community-based data intermediaries fostering collective rights and interests. In this article we assess these meso-level models, and discuss their interaction with the macro-level legal frameworks that have evolved in the US, the EU, and China. The legal landscape has largely remained inconsistent and fragmented, with enforcement struggling to keep up with the latest developments. We argue, first, that the success of meso-logics is largely defined by global economic competition, and, second, that these meso-logics may potentially put the EU’s macro-level framework with its mixed internal market and fundamental rights-oriented model under pressure. We conclude that, given the relative absence of a strong macro level-framework and an intensive competition of governance models at meso-level, it may be challenging to avoid compromises to the European macro framework. },

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Close

Hugenholtz, P., Quintais, J.

Copyright and Artificial Creation: Does EU Copyright Law Protect AI-Assisted Output?

In: IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 1190-1216, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Quintais, J., Trapova, A.

EU copyright law round up – third trimester of 2021

2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Horen, F. van, Senftleben, M.

The Siren Song of the Subtle Copycat - Revisiting Trademark Law with Insights from Consumer Research

In: The Trademark Reporter, vol. 111, no. 4, pp. 739-777, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@article{Senftleben2021b,

title = {The Siren Song of the Subtle Copycat - Revisiting Trademark Law with Insights from Consumer Research},

author = {Senftleben, M. and Horen, F. van},

url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3922568

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/TheTrademarkReporter_2021_4.pdf},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-10-01},

journal = {The Trademark Reporter},

volume = {111},

number = {4},

pages = {739-777},

abstract = {The architecture of trademark protection systems rests on the assumption that brand imitation strategies are particularly harmful when they seek to achieve a high level of similarity by copying specific trademarked features of the original brand. Marketing research, however, shows that this assumption is doubtful. Subtle, theme-based imitation strategies \textendash aiming at a modest degree of similarity \textendash may allow copycats to garner greater profits and manipulate consumers’ purchasing decisions. Like an enchanting siren song, they may lure customers away from the original products of brand owners. Against this background, the paper discusses the question whether trademark law should be recalibrated.

To lay groundwork for this discussion, the analysis outlines central functions of trademarks in today’s market economy before describing, on the basis of EU trademark law, the traditional approach to copycat strategies from a marketing and legal perspective. Introducing insights from recent marketing research, the paper explains why subtle, theme-based strategies may be more harmful than blatant, feature-based copying. The further examination places this insight in a legal context. Contrasting the empirical findings of marketing research with traditional assessment schemes in EU trademark law, it becomes apparent that there is a remarkable mismatch between legal theory and market reality. Current trademark provisions are not aligned with “real life” consumer perception. As a result, copycats with a subtle imitation strategy remain under the radar of applicable infringement tests. This dilemma is taken as a starting point to discuss the need for reforms in trademark law.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Close

Sax, M.

Between Empowerment and Manipulation: The Ethics and Regulation of For-Profit Health Apps

Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537917.

(Links | BibTeX)

Keller, P., Reda, J.

A Proposal to leverage Article 17 to build a public repository of Public Domain and openly licensed works

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Angelopoulos, C., Senftleben, M., Thije, P. ten

De reikwijdte van artikel 17 DSM-richtlijn in het licht van het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen: een Odyssee

In: Auteursrecht, no. 3, pp. 120-142, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@article{Angelopoulos2021,

title = {De reikwijdte van artikel 17 DSM-richtlijn in het licht van het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen: een Odyssee},

author = {Angelopoulos, C. and Senftleben, M. and Thije, P. ten},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Auteursrecht_2021_3.pdf},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-09-21},

journal = {Auteursrecht},

number = {3},

pages = {120-142},

abstract = {Met de Richtlijn auteursrechten en naburige rechten in de digitale eengemaakte markt (‘DSM-RL’) zijn nieuwe wettelijke verplichtingen op het terrein van het filteren van online content ontstaan. Aanbieders van onlinediensten voor het delen van content (‘OCSSPs’) dienen \textendash op basis van door rechthebbenden verstrekte informatie \textendash ervoor te zorgen dat beschermd materiaal niet beschikbaar is op hun platforms. Tegelijkertijd bevestigt artikel 17 lid 8 DSM-RL dat de nieuwe auteursrechtelijke regels niet tot een algemene toezichtverplichting moeten leiden. Ondanks de nieuwe filterverplichtingen heeft de Uniewetgever het traditionele verbod op een algemene toezichtverplichting \textendash dat al 20 jaar deel uitmaakt van de regeling van aansprakelijkheidsprivileges in de Richtlijn inzake elektronische handel (‘REH’) \textendash uitdrukkelijk overeind gehouden. Ook het voorstel van de Europese Commissie voor een Digital Services Act (‘DSA’) houdt het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen in stand. Tegen deze achtergrond rijst de vraag hoe de nieuwe auteursrechtelijke filterverplichtingen moeten worden uitgelegd om een verboden algemene toezichtverplichting te voorkomen. De volgende analyse geeft antwoord op deze vraag op basis van een nadere bespreking van het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen in de REH, de DSM-RL en het DSA-voorstel. Naast relevante rechtspraak van het HvJ EU komt het nauwe verband tussen het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen en fundamentele rechten aan de orde.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Close

Bouchè, G., Eskens, S., Helberger, N., Mil, J. van, Strycharz, J., Toh, J., van Hoboken, J.

Conditions for technological solutions in a COVID-19 exit strategy, with particular focus on the legal and societal conditions

In: 2021, (Report for ZonMw, written by N. Helberger, S. Eskens, J. Strycharz, G. Bouchè, J. van Hoboken, J. van Mil, J. Toh, with N. Appelman, J. van Apeldoorn, M. van Eechoud, N. van Doorn, M. Sax & C. de Vreese, September 2021, Amsterdam).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@article{Helberger2021bb,

title = {Conditions for technological solutions in a COVID-19 exit strategy, with particular focus on the legal and societal conditions},

author = {Helberger, N. and Eskens, S. and Strycharz, J. and Bouch\`{e}, G. and van Hoboken, J. and Mil, J. van and Toh, J. },

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/covid-report-1.pdf},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-09-13},

abstract = {Which legal, ethical and societal conditions need to be fulfilled for the use of digital solutions in managing the COVID-19 exit-strategy? This was the central question of this research. Digital technologies can be part of solutions to societal challenges, for example to manage the pandemic and lead the Netherlands out of the COVID-19 crisis. One set of technologies that figured particularly prominently in that debate was the use of contact tracing apps like the CoronaMelder, as well as digital vaccination passports (CoronaCheck app).  

In the Netherlands, Europe and worldwide, the introduction of apps such as the CoronaMelder or the CoronaCheck app was met by criticism from experts, politicians, civil society and academics. Concerns range from the lack of evidence for the effectiveness of such apps, uncertainty about the conditions that need to be fulfilled to reach their goal, our growing dependency on technology companies up to worries about the fundamental rights and adverse effects for vulnerable groups, such as elderly or users without a smart phone. 

The overall goal of the research was to monitor the societal, ethical and legal implications of implementing apps like the CoronaMelder, and from that draw lessons for the future use of ‘technology-assisted governance solutions’. One important conclusion from the report is that ‘there are no easy technological fixes, and in order for a technological solution to work, it needs to be part of a broader vision on what such a solution needs to function in society, achieve its intended goals and respect the fundamental rights of users as well as non-users.’ The report also offers critical reflections on the need for democratic legitimisation and accountability, the role of big tech and insights on the societal impact of the CoronaMelder and other technological solutions.

},

note = {Report for ZonMw, written by N. Helberger, S. Eskens, J. Strycharz, G. Bouch\`{e}, J. van Hoboken, J. van Mil, J. Toh, with N. Appelman, J. van Apeldoorn, M. van Eechoud, N. van Doorn, M. Sax \& C. de Vreese, September 2021, Amsterdam},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Close

Drunen, M. van

Editorial independence in an automated media system

In: Internet Policy Review, vol. 10, no. 3, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Helberger, N., Poort, J., Senftleben, M., van Eechoud, M., van Gompel, S.

Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz

Kluwer Law International, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

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

Using Terms and Conditions to apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation: Is Article 12 DSA a Paper Tiger?

Verfassungsblog, (Ed.): Verfassungsblog 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Dobber, T., Helberger, N., Vreese, C.H. de

Towards Unfair Political Practices Law: Learning lessons from the regulation of unfair commercial practices for online political advertising

In: JIPITEC, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 273-296, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@article{Helberger2021bb,

title = {Towards Unfair Political Practices Law: Learning lessons from the regulation of unfair commercial practices for online political advertising},

author = {Helberger, N. and Dobber, T. and Vreese, C.H. de},

url = {https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-12-3-2021/5338},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-08-26},

journal = {JIPITEC},

volume = {12},

number = {3},

pages = {273-296},

abstract = {Online political advertising operates in a tense forcefield between political and commercial elements and thus presents regulators with a difficult conundrum: because online political advertising is political rather than commercial speech, it is destined to follow a different regulatory tradition than commercial advertising. And yet many of the tools used, players involved and concerns triggered by modern online political advertising strategies very much resemble the tools, players and concerns in online commercial targeting. Commercial advertising is subject to consumer law and unfair advertising regulation, including rules about unfair commercial practices. Unfair commercial practices law and other rules about commercial advertising, however, are explicitly not applicable to forms of non-commercial political or ideological advertising. An important reason why this is so is the different level of protection of political and commercial speech under fundamental rights law standards. And yet with the ongoing commercial turn in advertising, the traditional division between forms of commercial and political advertising is no longer that self-evident. Also, it cannot be denied that commercial advertising law has a long tradition of thinking of where and how to draw the line between lawful advertising and unlawful persuasion through withholding or misleading consumers about the information they need to take informed decisions, or abusing superior knowledge, exerting undue psychological pressure and engaging in other forms of unfair behaviour. The question this article explores is whether there are lessons to be learned from the regulation of commercial advertising for the pending initiatives at the national and the European level to regulate online political advertising, and online political targeting in specific.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Close

van Eechoud, M.

Please share nicely — From Database directive to Data (governance) acts

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Quintais, J., Trapova, A.

EU copyright law round up – second trimester of 2021

Blog, Kluwer Copyright (Ed.): Kluwer Copyright Blog 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Fokkens, A., Helberger, N., Mattis, N., Müller, J., Reuver, M., Sax, M., Tintarev, N., Van Atteveldt, W., Verberne, S., Vrijenhoek, S.

Are we human, or are we users? The role of natural language processing in human-centric news recommenders that nudge users to diverse content

In: The 1st Workshop on NLP for Positive Impact: NLP4PosImpact 2021 : proceedings of the workshop, pp. 47-59, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Bastian, M., Helberger, N., Makhortykh, M.

Safeguarding the Journalistic DNA: Attitudes towards the Role of Professional Values in Algorithmic News Recommender Designs

In: Digital Journalism, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Keller, P., Reda, J.

What Member States can learn from the AG opinion on Article 17

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Sax, M.

Opinie: Wie naar Dokter Quin gaat, betaalt de rekening voor technologie-kwakzalverij

2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Ausloos, J., Loos, M., Mak, C., Pol, L., Reinhartz, B., Schumacher, L.D., van Eechoud, M.

Data na de dood - juridische aspecten van digitale nalatenschappen

2021, (Onderzoek in opdracht van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, April 2021, Bijlage bij Kamerstuk 2020-2021, 30696 nr. 52. Auteurs: M.M.M. van Eechoud, J. Ausloos, M. Loos, C. Mak, B. Reinhartz, L. Schumacher & L. Pol.).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@techreport{vanEechoud2021bb,

title = {Data na de dood - juridische aspecten van digitale nalatenschappen},

author = {van Eechoud, M. and Ausloos, J. and Loos, M. and Mak, C. and Reinhartz, B. and Schumacher, L.D. and Pol, L. },

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Data-na-de-dood.pdf

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Datanadedood_summary.pdf

https://www.sectorplandls.nl/wordpress/news/data-after-death-legal-aspects-of-digital-inheritances/},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-07-08},

urldate = {2021-07-08},

abstract = {Jaarlijks overlijden ruim 150.000 mensen en worden er dus ook ongeveer evenveel nalatenschappen afgewikkeld. Vrijwel zonder uitzondering laten overledenen digitale ‘bezittingen’ achter, zoals sociale media-accounts, e-mails, documenten opgeslagen in de cloud en (gebruiksrechten op) allerlei media en entertainment. De vraag is of het huidige Nederlandse wettelijk kader voldoende handvatten biedt om de bij afwikkeling van digitale nalatenschappen gemoeide private en publieke belangen te behartigen. De centrale onderzoeksvraag van deze studie is: Welke eventuele aanpassingen van het Nederlandse wettelijke kader zijn wenselijk met het oog op de adequate bescherming van private en publieke belangen gemoeid met het regelen en afwikkelen van digitale nalatenschappen?

Voor de beantwoording van deze vraag is om te beginnen een analyse gedaan van het beleid van aanbieders van veelgebruikte informatiediensten rond overlijden, en van de relevante voorwaarden die zij hanteren. Bronnen voor de analyse zijn gebruikersovereenkomsten, algemene voorwaarden, privacy policies en andere (openbare) documenten zoals FAQ’s. Informatiediensten aanbieders zijn onderscheiden in digitale mediadiensten (commercieel aanbod zoals streaming video of -muziek), communicatiediensten (waaronder sociale media en berichtendiensten) en ICT-diensten (o.a. cloudopslag en digitale kluizen). Vervolgens is het relevante wettelijke kader beschreven en zijn onduidelijkheden daarin ge\"{i}dentificeerd. Naast het erfrecht, betreft dit het overeenkomstenrecht en dan in het bijzonder consumentenrecht, intellectuele eigendomsrechten (met name auteursrecht), persoonlijkheidsrechten en gegevensbeschermingsrecht (Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming). Ook het algemene vermogensrecht is van belang, voor zover betrekking hebbend op de vraag welk digitaal ‘bezit’ in de nalatenschap valt. Tot slot is met het oog op het formuleren van oplossingsrichtingen, naar een selectie van wetgeving in andere landen gekeken.},

note = {Onderzoek in opdracht van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, April 2021, Bijlage bij Kamerstuk 2020-2021, 30696 nr. 52.



Auteurs: M.M.M. van Eechoud, J. Ausloos, M. Loos, C. Mak, B. Reinhartz, L. Schumacher \& L. Pol.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {techreport}

}

Close

Jaarlijks overlijden ruim 150.000 mensen en worden er dus ook ongeveer evenveel nalatenschappen afgewikkeld. Vrijwel zonder uitzondering laten overledenen digitale ‘bezittingen’ achter, zoals sociale media-accounts, e-mails, documenten opgeslagen in de cloud en (gebruiksrechten op) allerlei media en entertainment. De vraag is of het huidige Nederlandse wettelijk kader voldoende handvatten biedt om de bij afwikkeling van digitale nalatenschappen gemoeide private en publieke belangen te behartigen. De centrale onderzoeksvraag van deze studie is: Welke eventuele aanpassingen van het Nederlandse wettelijke kader zijn wenselijk met het oog op de adequate bescherming van private en publieke belangen gemoeid met het regelen en afwikkelen van digitale nalatenschappen?
Voor de beantwoording van deze vraag is om te beginnen een analyse gedaan van het beleid van aanbieders van veelgebruikte informatiediensten rond overlijden, en van de relevante voorwaarden die zij hanteren. Bronnen voor de analyse zijn gebruikersovereenkomsten, algemene voorwaarden, privacy policies en andere (openbare) documenten zoals FAQ’s. Informatiediensten aanbieders zijn onderscheiden in digitale mediadiensten (commercieel aanbod zoals streaming video of -muziek), communicatiediensten (waaronder sociale media en berichtendiensten) en ICT-diensten (o.a. cloudopslag en digitale kluizen). Vervolgens is het relevante wettelijke kader beschreven en zijn onduidelijkheden daarin geïdentificeerd. Naast het erfrecht, betreft dit het overeenkomstenrecht en dan in het bijzonder consumentenrecht, intellectuele eigendomsrechten (met name auteursrecht), persoonlijkheidsrechten en gegevensbeschermingsrecht (Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming). Ook het algemene vermogensrecht is van belang, voor zover betrekking hebbend op de vraag welk digitaal ‘bezit’ in de nalatenschap valt. Tot slot is met het oog op het formuleren van oplossingsrichtingen, naar een selectie van wetgeving in andere landen gekeken.

Close

Irion, K.

Panta Rhei: A European Perspective on Ensuring a High Level of Protection of Human Rights in a World in Which Everything Flows

In: Burri, M. (Ed.): Big Data and Global Trade Law, Chapter 11, Cambridge University Press, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Sax, M.

Voorbij privacy: manipulatie is het échte probleem in gezondheidsapps

In: Privacy & Informatie, no. 3, pp. 117-120, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Hugenholtz, P., Quintais, J.

Auteursrecht en artificiële creatie

In: Auteursrecht, no. 2, pp. 47-52, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

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

The new rules for export control of cyber-surveillance items in the EU

2021, (Commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs.).

(Links | BibTeX)

Hugenholtz, P.

Three Cheers for the DSM Directive’s Rules on Author’s Contracts – and a Cautionary Note from the Netherlands

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Fahy, R., van Hoboken, J.

Smartphone platforms as privacy regulators

In: Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 41, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Seipp, T.

News media’s dependency on big tech: should we be worried?

In: Internet Policy Review, 2021, (Opinion).

(Links | BibTeX)

Quintais, J.

Commission’s Guidance on Art. 17 CDSM Directive: the authorisation dimension

Kluwer Copyright Blog 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Quintais, J.

Commission’s Guidance on Art. 17 CDSM Directive: the authorisation dimension

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Hugenholtz, P.

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 11 juni 2020 (Brompton Bicycle / Chedech/Get2Get

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, no. 22, pp. 3136-3138, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Keller, P., Reda, J.

European Commission back-tracks on user rights in Article 17 Guidance

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Dommering, E.

Annotatie Hof van Justitie EU 19 december 2019 (Airbnb Ireland / Hotelière Turenne)

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, vol. 2021, no. 20/21, pp. 2799-2802, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Fahy, R., van Hoboken, J.

Regulating Disinformation in Europe: Implications for Speech and Privacy

In: UC Irvine Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 9-36, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Quintais, J.

Book review: European Libraries and the Internet: Copyright and Extended Collective Licences, by Ran Tryggvadottir.

In: Common Market Law Review, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 961 – 964, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

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

Article 12 DSA: Will platforms be required to apply EU fundamental rights in content moderation decisions?

DSA Observatory 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Dommering, E.

'Staan op de schouders van reuzen'. Waarheidsgetrouw citeren als maatschappelijke verantwoordelijkheid van de wetenschapper

In: pp. 59-69, 2021, (Hoofdstuk in 'Plagiaat in onderzoek en onderwijs', red. J. Soeharno & K. Algra, VSNU: Den Haag 2021. Ook beschikbaar in het Engels, zie link hieronder, ''Standing on the shoulders of giants'. Truthful citation is the social responsibility of academics.').

(Links | BibTeX)

Leerssen, P.

Platform ad archives in Article 30 DSA

In: DSA Observatory blog, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Bodó, B.

The commodification of trust

In: Blockchain & Society Policy Research Lab Research Nodes, no. 1, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@article{Bod\'{o}2021,

title = {The commodification of trust},

author = {Bod\'{o}, B.},

url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3843707},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-05-17},

journal = {Blockchain \& Society Policy Research Lab Research Nodes},

number = {1},

abstract = {Fundamental, wide-ranging, and highly consequential transformations take place in interpersonal, and systemic trust relations due to the rapid adoption of complex, planetary-scale digital technological innovations. Trust is remediated by planetary scale techno-social systems, which leads to the privatization of trust production in society, and the ultimate commodification of trust itself.

Modern societies rely on communal, public and private logics of trust production. Communal logics produce trust by the group for the group, and are based on familiar, ethnic, religious or tribal relations, professional associations epistemic or value communities, groups with shared location or shared past. Public trust logics developed in the context of the modern state, and produce trust as a free public service. Abstract, institutionalized frameworks, institutions, such as the press, or public education, science, various arms of the bureaucratic state create familiarity, control, and insurance in social, political, and economic relations. Finally, private trust producers sell confidence as a product: lawyers, accountants, credit rating agencies, insurers, but also commercial brands offer trust for a fee.

With the emergence of the internet and digitization, a new class of private trust producers emerged. Online reputation management services, distributed ledgers, and AI-based predictive systems are widely adopted technological infrastructures, which are designed to facilitate trust-necessitating social, economic interactions by controlling the past, the present and the future, respectively. These systems enjoy immense economic success, and they are adopted en masse by individuals and institutional actors alike.

The emergence of the private, technical means of trust production paves the way towards the widescale commodification of trust, where trust is produced as a commercial activity, conducted by private parties, for economic gain, often far removed from the loci where trust-necessitating social interactions take place. The remediation and consequent privatization and commodification of trust production has a number of potentially adverse social effects: it may decontextualize trust relationships; it removes trust from the local social, cultural relational contexts; it changes the calculus of interpersonal trust relations. Maybe more importantly as more and more social and economic relations are conditional upon having access to, and good standing in private trust infrastructures, commodification turns trust into the question of continuous labor, or devastating exclusion. By invoking Karl Polanyi’s work on fictious commodities, I argue that the privatization, and commodification of trust may have a catastrophic impact on the most fundamental layers of the social fabric.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Close

Fundamental, wide-ranging, and highly consequential transformations take place in interpersonal, and systemic trust relations due to the rapid adoption of complex, planetary-scale digital technological innovations. Trust is remediated by planetary scale techno-social systems, which leads to the privatization of trust production in society, and the ultimate commodification of trust itself.
Modern societies rely on communal, public and private logics of trust production. Communal logics produce trust by the group for the group, and are based on familiar, ethnic, religious or tribal relations, professional associations epistemic or value communities, groups with shared location or shared past. Public trust logics developed in the context of the modern state, and produce trust as a free public service. Abstract, institutionalized frameworks, institutions, such as the press, or public education, science, various arms of the bureaucratic state create familiarity, control, and insurance in social, political, and economic relations. Finally, private trust producers sell confidence as a product: lawyers, accountants, credit rating agencies, insurers, but also commercial brands offer trust for a fee.
With the emergence of the internet and digitization, a new class of private trust producers emerged. Online reputation management services, distributed ledgers, and AI-based predictive systems are widely adopted technological infrastructures, which are designed to facilitate trust-necessitating social, economic interactions by controlling the past, the present and the future, respectively. These systems enjoy immense economic success, and they are adopted en masse by individuals and institutional actors alike.
The emergence of the private, technical means of trust production paves the way towards the widescale commodification of trust, where trust is produced as a commercial activity, conducted by private parties, for economic gain, often far removed from the loci where trust-necessitating social interactions take place. The remediation and consequent privatization and commodification of trust production has a number of potentially adverse social effects: it may decontextualize trust relationships; it removes trust from the local social, cultural relational contexts; it changes the calculus of interpersonal trust relations. Maybe more importantly as more and more social and economic relations are conditional upon having access to, and good standing in private trust infrastructures, commodification turns trust into the question of continuous labor, or devastating exclusion. By invoking Karl Polanyi’s work on fictious commodities, I argue that the privatization, and commodification of trust may have a catastrophic impact on the most fundamental layers of the social fabric.

Close

Bostyn, S.

Why a COVID IP Waiver Is not a Good Strategy

In: 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@article{Bostyn2021,

title = {Why a COVID IP Waiver Is not a Good Strategy},

author = {Bostyn, S.},

url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3843327},

year = {2021},

date = {2021-05-17},

abstract = {The COVID-19 pandemic has a profound influence on all aspects of society. The development of successful vaccines in record speed is almost a miracle. But despite the successful development and approval of multiple vaccines, many people still die of this terrible disease, and there is an urgent need to see more vaccines manufactured and distributed across the globe.

The proposed COVID-19 IP waiver has been touted by some to be the perfect solution to a terrible problem. We all agree that there is a terrible problem of insufficient vaccines to inoculate the world population.

An IP waiver is not a good strategy however, to tackle this crisis. There are multiple more effective solution conceivable which do not require a very disruptive IP waiver.

The problem of insufficient supply is much more complicated than a simple IP waiver suggests. This is a complex ecosystem, and there are many moving parts. Moreover, IP rights are only part of the problem relating to more supply of vaccine or therapeutics. In view of the complexities, it will probably take many months to negotiate any kind of IP waiver system that would be acceptable to all WTO member states, if consensus could be reached at all. And the end result is likely to satisfy very few if any countries.

The legality of an IP waiver can be doubted, and it would require retro-active effect, a concept that should be extremely sparingly used.

A multitude of complex issues needs to be sorted out. There are hundreds of patents to navigate. A waiver to the equally patented vaccine platform technology (covering many patents), which may be used to develop any other vaccine, will make those companies who have invested heavily into developing it very nervous indeed, to say the least.

Crucial manufacturing know-how is often not protected by IP rights, but is kept secret, and it will be difficult to force companies to disclose that information, also because one does not know what to ask for.

The present IP waiver proposal also provides for a disclosure of commercially very sensitive information. Companies did not have a chance to adapt their regulatory disclosure strategies to this new reality, which means that information which will be disclosed under the waiver could very well have a major negative impact on future innovation strategies, and may also hamper competitive advantage or leverage.

Market exclusivity is arguably not covered by the IP waiver, which means that separate national statutory intervention will be required to ensure that this market exclusivity is set aside, absent of which the IP waiver cannot have any practical effect.

A quick and determined use of compulsory licensing could be a better way forward, as they have the potential to be a powerful tool. There are inefficiencies in using the instrument however, and invoking them when the need is high will require a relatively long lead time before they sort practical effect. They also require additional statutory intervention to ensure that regulatory exclusivities do not block their practical effect. And they might not necessarily work as well with low and middle-income countries, who would have less leverage in the negotiations.

More efficient solutions can be arrived at by introducing hard clauses into contracts in the context of push and pull mechanisms. Those obligations are much more likely to result in more supply in the shorter to medium term if they are agreed upon long before the vaccine enters the market. It is obviously too late for the contracts that have been concluded in the past, but it should be a template for the future.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Close

The COVID-19 pandemic has a profound influence on all aspects of society. The development of successful vaccines in record speed is almost a miracle. But despite the successful development and approval of multiple vaccines, many people still die of this terrible disease, and there is an urgent need to see more vaccines manufactured and distributed across the globe.
The proposed COVID-19 IP waiver has been touted by some to be the perfect solution to a terrible problem. We all agree that there is a terrible problem of insufficient vaccines to inoculate the world population.
An IP waiver is not a good strategy however, to tackle this crisis. There are multiple more effective solution conceivable which do not require a very disruptive IP waiver.
The problem of insufficient supply is much more complicated than a simple IP waiver suggests. This is a complex ecosystem, and there are many moving parts. Moreover, IP rights are only part of the problem relating to more supply of vaccine or therapeutics. In view of the complexities, it will probably take many months to negotiate any kind of IP waiver system that would be acceptable to all WTO member states, if consensus could be reached at all. And the end result is likely to satisfy very few if any countries.
The legality of an IP waiver can be doubted, and it would require retro-active effect, a concept that should be extremely sparingly used.
A multitude of complex issues needs to be sorted out. There are hundreds of patents to navigate. A waiver to the equally patented vaccine platform technology (covering many patents), which may be used to develop any other vaccine, will make those companies who have invested heavily into developing it very nervous indeed, to say the least.
Crucial manufacturing know-how is often not protected by IP rights, but is kept secret, and it will be difficult to force companies to disclose that information, also because one does not know what to ask for.
The present IP waiver proposal also provides for a disclosure of commercially very sensitive information. Companies did not have a chance to adapt their regulatory disclosure strategies to this new reality, which means that information which will be disclosed under the waiver could very well have a major negative impact on future innovation strategies, and may also hamper competitive advantage or leverage.
Market exclusivity is arguably not covered by the IP waiver, which means that separate national statutory intervention will be required to ensure that this market exclusivity is set aside, absent of which the IP waiver cannot have any practical effect.
A quick and determined use of compulsory licensing could be a better way forward, as they have the potential to be a powerful tool. There are inefficiencies in using the instrument however, and invoking them when the need is high will require a relatively long lead time before they sort practical effect. They also require additional statutory intervention to ensure that regulatory exclusivities do not block their practical effect. And they might not necessarily work as well with low and middle-income countries, who would have less leverage in the negotiations.
More efficient solutions can be arrived at by introducing hard clauses into contracts in the context of push and pull mechanisms. Those obligations are much more likely to result in more supply in the shorter to medium term if they are agreed upon long before the vaccine enters the market. It is obviously too late for the contracts that have been concluded in the past, but it should be a template for the future.

Close

Ancel, M-E., Binctin, N., Drexl, J., Ginsburg, J.C., Kono, T., Lee, G., Matulionyte, R., Moura Vicente, D., Treppoz, E., van Eechoud, M.

International Law Association’s Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Private International Law (“Kyoto Guidelines”): Applicable Law

In: JIPITEC, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 44-73, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

as part of ILA Committee:, van Eechoud, M.

Annex Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Private International Law (“Kyoto Guidelines”)

In: JIPITEC, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 86-93, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

McGonagle, T., Voorhoof, D.

Freedom of expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the Euopean Court of Human Rights

In: 2021, ISBN: 9789287184351, (IRIS Themes, vol. III, 6th edition, April 2021).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

McGonagle, T., Volgenant, O.

Persvrijheidsmonitor 2020

In: 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Husovec, M., Quintais, J.

Too Small to Matter? On the Copyright Directive’s bias in favour of big right-holders

In: Mylly, Tuomas; Griffiths, Jonathan (Ed.): Oxford University Press, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@inbook{HusovecQuintais2021-2,

title = {Too Small to Matter? On the Copyright Directive’s bias in favour of big right-holders},

author = {Husovec, M. and Quintais, J.},

editor = {Tuomas Mylly and Jonathan Griffiths},

url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3835930},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-04-29},

publisher = {Oxford University Press},

abstract = {Copyright law is about recognising the author’s material and non-material interests and setting the incentives for creativity right. The legislative changes in this area increasingly look as if simple linearity governs the world: what we take away from some, we automatically give away in equal part to others. The idea of redistribution is noticeable in recent legislative developments. Art. 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (DSM Directive) is the latest policy intervention to prove this point. According to its logic, imposing stricter liability on some online gatekeepers will automatically improve the position and revenues for all right-holders. This chapter explores the flaws in such an approach by highlighting how the excessive focus of Art. 17 on big right-holders neglects and harms smaller creators.



EU copyright law often uses a technical term of ‘right-holders’ to refer to a wide range of players with legal entitlements in the copyright ecosystem: authors, performers, phonogram producers, film producers, broadcasting organisations and (most recently) press publishers. Obviously, not all right-holders are created equal nor do their legal entitlements flow from identical normative justifications. We argue in this chapter that even the use of this seemingly neutral term can, due to the design of underlying legal solutions, lead to stark inequality between right-holders. Our broader goal is to demonstrate that maximising enforcement by means of Art. 17 of the DSM Directive does not simply maximise the position of every right-holder at the expense of platforms but does so disproportionality for big right-holders. Besides, we show that blind use of ‘right-holder’ and ‘user’ distinction harms the very creators that provision is supposed to protect. },

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

Close

van Gompel, S.

‘Non, non, rien n’a changé’: Over vergoedingsaanspraken voor makers uit hoofde van exploitatiecontracten

In: Auteursrecht, vol. 2021, no. 1, pp. 3-9, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

van Gompel, S.

Annotatie bij Rb Amsterdam 10 september 2020 (Left Lane c.s. / Sony Music)

In: Auteursrecht, no. 1, pp. 40-42, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Keller, P.

It’s 23 April 2021, so where is the Advocate General opinion in Case C-401/19 Poland v Parliament and Council?

(Links | BibTeX)

Helberger, N., Sax, M., Strycharz, J.

Opinie: Beleid voor CoronaCheck-app ontbreekt jammerlijk

2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Bodó, B., Giannopoulou, A., Mezei, P., Quintais, J.

The Rise of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and the Role of Copyright Law – Part II

(Links | BibTeX)

Bodó, B., Giannopoulou, A., Mezei, P., Quintais, J.

The Rise of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and the Role of Copyright Law – Part I

(Links | BibTeX)

van Eechoud, M.

A Serpent Eating Its Tail: The Database Directive Meets the Open Data Directive

In: IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 375-378, 2021, (Editorial).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Quintais, J., Trapova, A.

(Links | BibTeX)

Bellanova, R., Irion, K., Lindskov Jacobsen, K., Ragazzi, F., Saugmann, R., Suchman, L.

Toward a Critique of Algorithmic Violence

In: International Political Sociology, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 121–150, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

van Eechoud, M.

Nieuws in de platformeconomie

In: De Hofvijver, vol. 11, no. 118, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Sax, M.

Between Empowerment and Manipulation: The Ethics and Regulation of For-Profit Health Apps

2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Helberger, N., Kaya, M., Metoui, N., Möller, J., Odijk, D., Vrijenhoek, S.

Recommenders with a Mission: Assessing Diversity in News Recommendations

In: CHIIR '21: Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, pp. 173-183, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Irion, K.

Formal meeting (oral evidence session): Digital trade and data

2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Dommering, E.

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 16 juli 2020 (Data Protection Commissioner / Facebook Ireland & Schrems)(Schrems II)

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, vol. 2021, no. 5/6, pp. 455-458, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Dommering, E.

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 1 oktober 2019 (nr. 17/01305)

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, vol. 2021, no. 5/6, pp. 550-551, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Dommering, E.

Annotatie bij EHRM 8 oktober 2019 (Szurovecz / Hongarije)

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, vol. 2021, no. 4, pp. 230-231, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Bot, Th. P.L., Dommering, E., van den Herik, L.J., Jacobs, B.P.F., Jones-Bos, R.V.M., Nagtegaal, W., Zijlstra, S.E. (Evaluatiecommissie Wiv 2017)

Evaluatie 2020: Wet op de Inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten 2017

2021, (Den Haag: Ministeries BDZK en Defensie, 2021, 180 pp.).

(Links | BibTeX)

Dommering, E.

Annotatie bij EHRM 30 januari 2020 (Breyer/ Duitsland)

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, no. 51/52, pp. 7926-7929, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Helberger, N., Lynskey, O., Micklitz, H.-W., Rott, P., Sax, M., Strycharz, J.

EU Consumer Protection 2.0: Structural Asymmetries in Digital Consumer Markets

2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Irion, K.

Front-running legislatures can foster AI that empowers users of digital technologies

In: (ed.), Nadia El-Imam (Ed.): pp. 114-15, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Poort, J., Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.

Personalised pricing: The demise of the fixed price?

In: 2021, (Forthcoming as chapter 10 in: Kohl, U., & Eisler, J. (eds.), Data-Driven Personalisation in Markets, Politics and Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Ausloos, J., Sax, M.

Getting under your skin(s): A legal-ethical exploration of Fortnite’s transformation into a content delivery platform and its manipulative potential

In: Interactive Entertainment Law Review, vol. 4, no. 1, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@article{SaxAusloos2021,

title = {Getting under your skin(s): A legal-ethical exploration of Fortnite’s transformation into a content delivery platform and its manipulative potential},

author = {Sax, M. and Ausloos, J.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/saxausloos_getting-under-your-skins_fortnite-2/},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-03-01},

urldate = {2021-03-01},

journal = {Interactive Entertainment Law Review},

volume = {4},

number = {1},

abstract = {This paper investigates the ethical and legal implications of increasingly manipulative practices in the gaming industry by looking at one of the currently most popular and profitable video games in the world. Fortnite has morphed from an online game into a quasi-social network and an important cultural reference point in the lifeworld of many (young) people. The game is also emblematic of the freemium business model, with strong incentives to design the game in a manner which maximises microtransactions. This article suggests that to properly understand Fortnite’s practices \textendash which we predict will become more widely adopted in the video game industry in the near future \textendash we need an additional perspective. Fortnite is not only designed for hyper-engagement; its search for continued growth and sustained relevance is driving its transformation from being a mere video game into a content delivery platform. This means that third parties can offer non game-related services to players within Fortnite’s immersive game experience. In this paper, we draw on an ethical theory of manipulation (which defines manipulation as an ethically problematic influence on a person’s behaviour) to explore whether the gaming experience offered by Fortnite harbours manipulative potential. To legally address the manipulative potential of commercial video game practices such as the ones found in Fortnite, we turn to European data protection and consumer protection law. More specifically, we explore how the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation and Unfair Commercial Practices Directive can provide regulators with tools to address Fortnite’s manipulative potential and to make Fortnite (more) forthright.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Close

Hins, A.

Opinie: Het geheim van de ministerraad

In: Mediaforum, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 97, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

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

Regulation of news recommenders in the Digital Services Act: empowering David against the Very Large Online Goliath

In: Internet Policy Review, 2021, (Opinion).

(Links | BibTeX)

Husovec, M., Quintais, J.

How to License Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms under the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive

In: GRUR International - Journal of European and International IP Law, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 325-348, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Jütte, B.J., Quintais, J.

The Pelham Chronicles: Sampling, Copyright and Fundamental Rights

In: Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 213-225, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@article{QuintaisJutte2021,

title = {The Pelham Chronicles: Sampling, Copyright and Fundamental Rights},

author = {Quintais, J. and Jutte, B.J.},

url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3775599},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpab040},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-02-18},

journal = {Journal of Intellectual Property Law \& Practice},

volume = {16},

number = {3},

pages = {213-225},

abstract = {On 29 July 2019 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) rendered its long-awaited judgment in Pelham. This judgement was published together, but not jointly, with those on Spiegel Online and Funke Medien. A bit less than a year later, on 30 April 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof or BGH), which had referred the cases to Luxembourg, rendered its judgments in all three cases. There are obvious parallels between these judgments, and their combined relevance for the interpretation of European copyright law in the light of EU fundamental rights cannot be understated.



This article focuses on Pelham, or the “Metall auf Metall” saga, as it is known in Germany. It analyses the relevant aspects and impact of Pelham in EU copyright law and examines how the BGH implemented the guidance provided by the CJEU. Where relevant, we draw the parallels to Funke Medien and Spiegel Online. Pelham gave the Court the opportunity to define the scope of the related right of reproduction of phonogram producers in art. 2(c) of Directive 2001/29/EC (InfoSoc Directive). The question whether such right enjoys the same scope of protection as the reproduction right for authorial works had made its way through the German courts for a remarkable two decades. This saga included a constitutional complaint, which in 2016 answered the question in the affirmative. The BGH’s preliminary reference to the CJEU was particularly important because on the back of the reproduction question it sought to clarify issues with fundamental rights implications, in particular the scope of the quotation right or defence and its application to musical creativity in the form of sampling.



This article proceeds as follows. After this introduction, we briefly revisit the Pelham saga in its journey through the German and European courts, providing he context to the underlying legal issues (2). We then turn to the interpretation of the scope of the reproduction and distribution rights for phonograms (3) before examining the CJEU’s assessment of the systematic nature of exceptions and limitations (E\&Ls) (4). We then discuss the wider implications of Pelham on the role of fundamental right in copyright law (5). We conclude with some doctrinal and practical observations on the wider implications of the “Metall auf Metall”-saga (6). },

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Close

On 29 July 2019 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) rendered its long-awaited judgment in Pelham. This judgement was published together, but not jointly, with those on Spiegel Online and Funke Medien. A bit less than a year later, on 30 April 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof or BGH), which had referred the cases to Luxembourg, rendered its judgments in all three cases. There are obvious parallels between these judgments, and their combined relevance for the interpretation of European copyright law in the light of EU fundamental rights cannot be understated.

This article focuses on Pelham, or the “Metall auf Metall” saga, as it is known in Germany. It analyses the relevant aspects and impact of Pelham in EU copyright law and examines how the BGH implemented the guidance provided by the CJEU. Where relevant, we draw the parallels to Funke Medien and Spiegel Online. Pelham gave the Court the opportunity to define the scope of the related right of reproduction of phonogram producers in art. 2(c) of Directive 2001/29/EC (InfoSoc Directive). The question whether such right enjoys the same scope of protection as the reproduction right for authorial works had made its way through the German courts for a remarkable two decades. This saga included a constitutional complaint, which in 2016 answered the question in the affirmative. The BGH’s preliminary reference to the CJEU was particularly important because on the back of the reproduction question it sought to clarify issues with fundamental rights implications, in particular the scope of the quotation right or defence and its application to musical creativity in the form of sampling.

This article proceeds as follows. After this introduction, we briefly revisit the Pelham saga in its journey through the German and European courts, providing he context to the underlying legal issues (2). We then turn to the interpretation of the scope of the reproduction and distribution rights for phonograms (3) before examining the CJEU’s assessment of the systematic nature of exceptions and limitations (E&Ls) (4). We then discuss the wider implications of Pelham on the role of fundamental right in copyright law (5). We conclude with some doctrinal and practical observations on the wider implications of the “Metall auf Metall”-saga (6).

Close

Correa, C., Dusollier, S., Geiger, C., Griffiths, J., Grosse Ruse-Khan, H., Hilty, R.M., Köklü, K., Kur, A., Lin, X., Markiewics, R., Moscon, V., Nérisson, s., Peukert, A., Senftleben, M., Xalabarder, R.

Opinion: International Instrument on Permitted Uses in Copyright Law

In: IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , vol. 52, pp. 62-67, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Hins, A.

In Memoriam Jan de Meij 1938-2020

In: Tijdschrift voor Constitutioneel Recht, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 94-96, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Keller, P.

Article 17: (Mis)understanding the intent of the legislator

(Links | BibTeX)

Gervais, D.J., P.B. Hugenholtz, Quintais, J.

Trends And Developments In Artificial Intelligence: Challenges To Patent Law

Kluwer Patent Blog 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Irion, K.

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

2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Keller, P.

Divergence instead of guidance: the Article 17 implementation discussion in 2020 – Part 2

(Links | BibTeX)

Keller, P.

Divergence instead of guidance: the Article 17 implementation discussion in 2020 – Part 1

(Links | BibTeX)

Cobbe, J., Janssen, H., Norval, C., Singh, J.

Decentralised Data Processing: Personal Data Stores and the GDPR

In: International Data Privacy Law, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 356-384, 2021.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@article{Janssen2021,

title = {Decentralised Data Processing: Personal Data Stores and the GDPR},

author = {Janssen, H. and Cobbe, J. and Norval, C. and Singh, J.},

url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3570895

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IDPL-2021-4.pdf},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipaa016},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-01-04},

journal = {International Data Privacy Law},

volume = {10},

number = {4},

pages = {356-384},

abstract = {When it comes to online services, users have limited control over how their personal data is processed. This is partly due to the nature of the business models of those services, where data is typically stored and aggregated in data centres. This has recently led to the development of technologies aiming at leveraging user control over the processing of their personal data.

Personal Data Stores (“PDSs”) represent a class of these technologies; PDSs provide users with a device, enabling them to capture, aggregate and manage their personal data. The device provides tools for users to control and monitor access, sharing and computation over data on their device. The motivation for PDSs are described as (i) to assist users with their confidentiality and privacy concerns, and/or (ii) to provide opportunities for users to transact with or otherwise monetise their data.

While PDSs potentially might enable some degree of user empowerment, they raise interesting considerations and uncertainties in relation to the responsibilities under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). More specifically, the designations of responsibilities among key parties involved in PDS ecosystems are unclear. Further, the technical architecture of PDSs appears to restrict certain lawful grounds for processing, while technical means to identify certain category data, as proposed by some, may remain theoretical.

We explore the considerations, uncertainties, and limitations of PDSs with respect to some key obligations under the GDPR. As PDS technologies continue to develop and proliferate, potentially providing an alternative to centralised approaches to data processing, we identify issues which require consideration by regulators, PDS platform providers and technologists.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Close

Cobbe, J., Janssen, H., Singh, J.

Personal Data Stores: a user-centric privacy utopia?

In: Internet Policy Review, Forthcoming.

(BibTeX)

Sax, M.

Optimization of what? For-profit health apps as manipulative digital environments

In: Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 345-361, 2021, (Preprint available here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3752597).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@article{Sax2021,

title = {Optimization of what? For-profit health apps as manipulative digital environments},

author = {Sax, M.},

url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-020-09576-6},

doi = {10.1007/s10676-020-09576-6},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-01-03},

urldate = {2021-01-03},

journal = {Ethics and Information Technology},

volume = {23},

number = {3},

pages = {345-361},

abstract = {Mobile health applications (‘health apps’) that promise the user to help her with some aspect of her health are very popular: for-profit apps such as MyFitnessPal, Fitbit, or Headspace have tens of millions of users each. For-profit health apps are designed and run as optimization systems. One would expect that these health apps aim to optimize the health of the user, but in reality they aim to optimize user engagement and, in effect, conversion. This is problematic, I argue, because digital health environments that aim to optimize user engagement risk being manipulative. To develop this argument, I first provide a brief analysis of the underlying business models and the resulting designs of the digital environments provided by popular for-profit health apps. In a second step, I present a concept of manipulation that can help analyze digital environments such as health apps. In the last part of the article, I use my concept of manipulation to analyze the manipulative potential of for-profit health apps. Although for-profit health can certainly empower their users, the conditions for empowerment also largely overlap with the conditions for manipulation. As a result, we should be cautious when embracing the empowerment discourse surrounding health apps. An additional aim of this article is to contribute to the rapidly growing literature on digital choice architectures and the ethics of influencing behavior through such choice architectures. I take health apps to be a paradigmatic example of digital choice architectures that give rise to ethical questions, so my analysis of the manipulative potential of health apps can also inform the larger literature on digital choice architectures.},

note = {Preprint available here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3752597},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Close

Keller, P.

Finnish Article 17 implementation proposal prohibits the use of automated upload filters

(Links | BibTeX)

Ferrari, V.

Crosshatching Privacy: Financial Intermediaries’ Data Practices Between Law Enforcement and Data Economy

In: European Data Protection Law Review, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 522-535, 2020.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Hugenholtz, P.

Artikel 18-23 DSM-richtlijn: Exploitatiecontracten

In: AMI, vol. 2020, no. 6, pp. 187-192, 2020.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Gervais, D.J., Hugenholtz, P., Quintais, J.

Trends and Developments in Artificial Intelligence: Challenges to Copyright

(Links | BibTeX)

Betzel, M., Fahy, R., Helberger, N., Marrazzo, F., Matějka, S., Nyakas, L., Papp, J.

Notions of Disinformation and Related Concepts

2020, (ERGA report).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@techreport{Betzel2020,

title = {Notions of Disinformation and Related Concepts },

author = {Betzel, M. and Fahy, R. and Helberger, N. and Marrazzo, F. and Matv{e}jka, S. and Nyakas, L. and Papp, J.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/ERGA-SG2-Report-2020-Notions-of-disinformation-and-related-concepts.pdf},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-12-11},

abstract = {Previous work of the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) has shown that the definitions used by the European Commission, Member States and online platforms for the different phenomena of disinformation deviate and should be further clarified in order to ensure a consistent approach. The aim of this Report is to provide for clearer and more uniform definitions of disinformation to ensure optimal guidance to all actors involved and contribute to more consistency within the national approaches. The Report also aims to assist in coming to clearer definitions and ensure more consistency and uniformity regarding the notions of political advertising and issue-based advertising. The information for this report was collected through various means including an examination of existing academic research, interviews with relevant stakeholders, particularly from the civil society and media. The scope of the survey was not limited to the single notion of disinformation but also covered concepts that are usually associated with disinformation such as misinformation, malinformation, fake news, false news, false information, and foreign influence operations. Information was collected on definitions, interpretations, and understandings of disinformation and related concepts available in the legislation and other regulation including (self-regulatory) codes and guidelines of ERGA members and observers. The Report concludes with identifying key relevant elements and characteristics of the notions of disinformation, political advertising, and related concepts, and includes recommendations to assist in coming to clearer definitions regarding disinformation, political advertising and issue-based advertising.},

note = {ERGA report},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {techreport}

}

Close

Antal, D., Bodó, B., Puha, Z.

Can scholarly pirate libraries bridge the knowledge access gap? An empirical study on the structural conditions of book piracy in global and European academia

In: PLoS ONE, vol. 15, no. 12, 2020.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Irion, K.

Panta rhei: A European Perspective on Ensuring a High-Level of Protection of Digital Human Rights in a World in Which Everything Flows

In: Amsterdam Law School Research Paper No. 2020, no. 38, 2020.

(Links | BibTeX)

Allan, J., Gervais, D.J., Hartmann, C., Hugenholtz, P., Quintais, J.

Trends and Developments in Artificial Intelligence: Challenges to the Intellectual Property Rights Framework: Final Report

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).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@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}

}

Close

Senftleben, M.

Signs Eligible for Trademark Protection - Dysfunctional Incentives and a Functionality Dilemma in the EU

In: 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.).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@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}

}

Close

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.

Close

Senftleben, M.

Intermediary Liability and Trade Mark Infringement - Proliferation of Filter Obligations in Civil Law Jurisdictions?

In: pp. 381-403, 2020, (Chapter in: Oxford Handbook of Online Intermediary Liability, G.F. Frosio (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@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}

}

Close

Quintais, J.

CIPIL Evening Webinar: 'Article 17 and the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms'

2020.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@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}

}

Close

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.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Senftleben, M.

The Copyright/Trademark Interface: How the Expansion of Trademark Protection Is Stifling Cultural Creativity

Kluwer Law International, 2020, ISBN: 9789403523705.

(Abstract | BibTeX)

Keller, P.

CJEU hearing in the Polish challenge to Article 17: Not even the supporters of the provision agree on how it should work

(Links | BibTeX)

Dommering, E.

Annotatie bij Rb. Den Haag 5 februari 2020 (NJCM c.s. / Staat der Nederlanden - SyRI-wetgeving)

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, no. 45, pp. 6792-6795, 2020.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Appelman, N., Ausloos, J., Drunen, M. van, Helberger, N.

News Recommenders and Cooperative Explainability: Confronting the contextual complexity in AI explanations

2020.

(Links | BibTeX)

Angelopoulos, C., Senftleben, M.

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

2020, (Amsterdam: Institute for Information Law & Cambridge: Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@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}

}

Close

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.

Close

Appelman, N., Fahy, R.

Netherlands/Research

In: pp. 164-175, 2020, (Chapter in: Report Automating Society 2020, Chiusi, F., Fischer, S., Kayser-Bril, N. & Spielkamp, M. eds., Berlin: AlgorithmWatch, October 2020.).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Hugenholtz, P., Poort, J., Schumacher, L.D., van Gompel, S., Visser, D.

Evaluatie Wet Auteurscontractenrecht: Eindrapport

2020.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

Hugenholtz, P.

Annotatie bij HvJ EU 29 juli 2019, C-469/17 (Funke), C-516/17 (Spiegel) & C-4476/17 (Pelham)

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, no. 43, pp. 6068-6073, 2020.

(Links | BibTeX)

Senftleben, M.

Institutionalized Algorithmic Enforcement - The Pros and Cons of the EU Approach to UGC Platform Liability

In: Florida International University Law Review, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 299-328, 2020.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

@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}

}

Close

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.

Close

Buijtelaar, L.D., Senftleben, M.

Robot Creativity: An Incentive-Based Neighbouring Rights Approach

In: European Intellectual Property Review, vol. 42, no. 12, Forthcoming.

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)

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.).

(Abstract | Links | BibTeX)