Annotatie bij HvJEU 24 oktober 2024 (Kwantum Nederland en Kwantum België) download

Auteurs & Media, 2026

Abstract

Dit is een belangrijk arrest over de verhouding tussen het unierecht en het internationale auteursrecht. Volgens het Europese Hof van Justitie geldt de door Richtlijn 2001/29/EG (de ‘InfoSoc-richtlijn’) geharmoniseerde auteursrechtelijke bescherming voor alle werken ongeacht hun land van oorsprong en mogen de lidstaten van de Unie de reciprociteitsregel van art. 2 lid 7 van de Berner Conventie (‘BC’) daarom niet toepassen om werken van toegepaste kunst afkomstig uit de Verenigde Staten auteursrechtelijke bescherming te ontzeggen.

Copyright

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Music Recommender Systems And the Copyright Blind Spot: Conceptualising the Right to Be Heard external link

pp: 15, 2025

Abstract

Digital music platforms project an image of unprecedented abundance, linguistic diversity, and borderless circulation, yet the infrastructures that organise musical discovery increasingly shape who is heard and who remains silent. This paper argues that while EU copyright law effectively secures lawful availability, rights management, and remuneration, it remains structurally indifferent to the allocation of cultural attention. As musical discovery is now mediated primarily through algorithmic recommender systems, visibility has ceased to be a by-product of access and has become a function of metadata, optimisation, and design. The resulting condition of being represented but not heard exposes a doctrinal blind spot in the European copyright acquis and raises broader constitutional concerns relating to artistic freedom, freedom of expression, and cultural participation. Against this backdrop the paper conceptualises a right to be heard as a relational and infrastructural dimension of cultural participation and explores whether prominence-based regulatory approach, inspired by the AVMS Directive, could offer a proportionate response to algorithmically mediated cultural exclusion in the internal market that is compatible with the freedom to conduct a business.

Copyright, music industry, recommender systems

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

The interface of rights to access public sector information and copyright: Opinion of the European Copyright Society external link

van Eechoud, M., Griffiths, J., Husovec, M. & Sganga, C.
Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2026

access, Copyright, public sector information

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

LAION Round 2: Machine-Readable but Still Not Actionable — The Lack of Progress on TDM Opt-Outs – Part 2 external link

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2025

Artificial intelligence, Copyright, Text and Data Mining (TDM)

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

LAION Round 2: Machine-Readable but Still Not Actionable — The Lack of Progress on TDM Opt-Outs – Part 1 external link

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2025

Artificial intelligence, Copyright, Text and Data Mining (TDM)

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Author remuneration in the streaming age – exploitation rights and fair remuneration rules in the EU external link

Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, vol. 20, iss. : 12, pp: 807–824, 2025

Abstract

The shift from linear to on-demand consumption of copyright content on platforms like Spotify, Netflix and YouTube raises the question of whether authors and performers receive a fair share of streaming revenues. While industry rights holders have the opportunity to control access to protected content, it is often not the creators themselves who benefit from growing streaming revenue. The issue is global. In the EU, debates over the 2019 Copyright Directive led to harmonized rules on fair author remuneration. In 2023, the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries urged the World Intellectual Property Organization to analyse creators’ earnings from digital content. South Africa followed suit with its Copyright Amendment Bill in 2024. Together, these regional, international and national initiatives underscore the central role of remuneration in today’s copyright and streaming debates. This analysis focuses on the EU legal framework, which provides mechanisms to secure fair remuneration for authors and performers. These include rules for licensing agreements – such as contract adjustments, transparency obligations, revocation rights and jurisdiction norms – as well as a liability regime for user-generated content encouraging rights clearance. Mandatory collective licensing and remunerated copyright exceptions also help generate revenue for creators. Section I lays the groundwork for the discussion of these legal instruments. Section II reviews exclusive rights applicable to streaming. Section III describes the different legal mechanisms to ensure creators’ fair remuneration – from individual and mandatory collective licensing to remunerated copyright exceptions. Section IV explores producers’ bargaining power in streaming platform contexts, and Section V summarizes the results.

Copyright, EU, exploitation, remuneration, streaming services

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Music streaming debates 2025 roundup: wrap-up for the streaming services as we know them? – Part 1 external link

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2025

Copyright, music, streaming services

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Reconciling EU Copyright Protection With the Right to Research: Why We Need a General Research Exemption (Now!) external link

Verfassungsblog, 2025

Copyright, right to research

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

The Obligations of Providers of General-Purpose AI Models external link

Veale, M. & Quintais, J.
Fortcoming in: Zanfir Fortuna, Malgieri, González Fuster and Mantelero (eds.) The Artificial Intelligence Act — A Thematic Commentary, Hart Publishing, 2026. This version: November , 2025

Abstract

During the legislative process, the EU Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act was amended to include provisions related to general-purpose AI (GPAI) models. These broadly relate to transparency towards downstream users and relevant regulators, in addition to obligations connected to intellectual property. In this paper, we provide detailed analysis of these new provisions in the context of current technological applications and emerging trajectories, connecting them to computing literature and practice, and the broader context of connected and adjacent legal regimes, in particular copyright and relevant emerging case law. We find that there are a significant number of inclarities, tensions and contradictions both within the text, between the text and other legal regimes, and between the text and guideline documents, such as the Code of Practice on General-Purpose AI and recent guidelines by the European Commission. We identify a range of issues with the scoping of the provisions which may undermine its policy goals and create loopholes for regulatory avoidance, such as those relating to non-commercial models, open-source models, and model finetuning along the value chain. We find that the Code of Practice contains significant omissions and misstatements, some of which may present a compliance risk for an entity choosing to rely on the Code. We do not consider the provisions on GPAI models which present a systemic risk, which are dealt with elsewhere in the volume which this work will form a part of.

AI Act, code of practice, Copyright, Transparency

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Thuiskopieheffing is nog niet op haar retour external link

IE-forum, 2025

Copyright, thuiskopie

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib