Tussen vrijheid en begrenzing: een juridische blik op kunst en cultuur – Verslag van de VMC studiemiddag

Tussen vrijheid en begrenzing: een juridische blik op kunst en cultuur – Verslag van de VMC studiemiddag download

Mediaforum, iss. : 4, pp: 144-149, 2025

Abstract

Op 20 juni 2025 vond de studiemiddag van de Vereniging voor Media- en Communicatierecht (VMC) plaats in de Openbare Bibliotheek in Amsterdam. De editie stond in het teken van het spanningsveld tussen artistieke vrijheid en juridische begrenzing. In een tijd waarin kunst en cultuur wereldwijd onder druk staan, werd onderzocht hoe nationale en internationale rechtskaders omgaan met culturele expressie en de bescherming daarvan. De middag bestond uit twee delen. Het eerste deel richtte zich op kunst en cultuur in een krimpende maatschappelijke ruimte, het tweede op de verhouding tussen recht en literatuur.

Links

Mediaforum_2025_4

Media law

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Trogrlić, G.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-08-28
T1  - Tussen vrijheid en begrenzing: een juridische blik op kunst en cultuur – Verslag van de VMC studiemiddag
JO  - Mediaforum
IS  - 4
SP  - 144-149
UR  - https://www.ivir.nl/publications/tussen-vrijheid-en-begrenzing-een-juridische-blik-op-kunst-en-cultuur-verslag-van-de-vmc-studiemiddag/mediaforum_2025_4/
AB  - Op 20 juni 2025 vond de studiemiddag van de Vereniging voor Media- en Communicatierecht (VMC) plaats in de Openbare Bibliotheek in Amsterdam. De editie stond in het teken van het spanningsveld tussen artistieke vrijheid en juridische begrenzing. In een tijd waarin kunst en cultuur wereldwijd onder druk staan, werd onderzocht hoe nationale en internationale rechtskaders omgaan met culturele expressie en de bescherming daarvan. De middag bestond uit twee delen. Het eerste deel richtte zich op kunst en cultuur in een krimpende maatschappelijke ruimte, het tweede op de verhouding tussen recht en literatuur.
K1  - Media law
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Media concentration 2.0: Regulating platform opinion power in a concentrated digital media ecosystem external link

Seipp, T.

2024

Abstract

This dissertation examines how regulation addresses the evolving challenges of opinion power and media concentration, with platforms becoming increasingly dominant actors in the media. Through an interdisciplinary approach, it explores regulatory strategies aimed at tackling media concentration, focusing on the central research question: How should and could platform opinion power and digital media concentration be regulated in Europe? The research identifies a shift in opinion power from legacy media to platforms across three levels—individual citizens, institutional newsrooms, and the broader media ecosystem—each impacted by platforms' economic, technological, and political power. Based on a thorough normative assessment of the constitutional foundations of media concentration laws, the dissertation analyses the legal challenges related to such power shifts in the media. At the individual level, platforms' algorithmic control over content raises concerns about autonomy, privacy, and freedom of expression. At the institutional level, platforms’ influence within news organisations—particularly through the provision of technologies and digital infrastructure—affects editorial independence and the economic sustainability of journalism. Finally, at the ecosystem level, platforms exert systemic opinion power, enabling the creation of dependencies and influence over other democratic actors. This poses significant risks to media pluralism and the democratic distribution power. The dissertation finds that traditional media concentration laws inadequately address these shifts. While the new EU regulatory framework offers valuable provisions in filling these gaps, it falls short of addressing the root causes of digital media concentration. The dissertation calls for a rethinking of regulatory strategies to better align with public interest values, media pluralism, and the evolving role of platforms in the digital landscape, providing insights for future policy development.

Links

https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/205784222/Thesis.pdf

media concentration, Media law, platform regulation

RIS

TY  - THES
AU  - Seipp, T.
PY  - 2024
DA  - 2024-12-20
T1  - Media concentration 2.0: Regulating platform opinion power in a concentrated digital media ecosystem
UR  - https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/205784222/Thesis.pdf
AB  - This dissertation examines how regulation addresses the evolving challenges of opinion power and media concentration, with platforms becoming increasingly dominant actors in the media. Through an interdisciplinary approach, it explores regulatory strategies aimed at tackling media concentration, focusing on the central research question: How should and could platform opinion power and digital media concentration be regulated in Europe? The research identifies a shift in opinion power from legacy media to platforms across three levels—individual citizens, institutional newsrooms, and the broader media ecosystem—each impacted by platforms\' economic, technological, and political power. Based on a thorough normative assessment of the constitutional foundations of media concentration laws, the dissertation analyses the legal challenges related to such power shifts in the media. At the individual level, platforms\' algorithmic control over content raises concerns about autonomy, privacy, and freedom of expression. At the institutional level, platforms’ influence within news organisations—particularly through the provision of technologies and digital infrastructure—affects editorial independence and the economic sustainability of journalism. Finally, at the ecosystem level, platforms exert systemic opinion power, enabling the creation of dependencies and influence over other democratic actors. This poses significant risks to media pluralism and the democratic distribution power. The dissertation finds that traditional media concentration laws inadequately address these shifts. While the new EU regulatory framework offers valuable provisions in filling these gaps, it falls short of addressing the root causes of digital media concentration. The dissertation calls for a rethinking of regulatory strategies to better align with public interest values, media pluralism, and the evolving role of platforms in the digital landscape, providing insights for future policy development.
K1  - media concentration
K1  - Media law
K1  - platform regulation
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

PhD Thesis{nokey,
	title = {Media concentration 2.0: Regulating platform opinion power in a concentrated digital media ecosystem},
	author = {Seipp, T.},
	year = {2024},
	date = {2024-12-20},
	abstract = {This dissertation examines how regulation addresses the evolving challenges of opinion power and media concentration, with platforms becoming increasingly dominant actors in the media. Through an interdisciplinary approach, it explores regulatory strategies aimed at tackling media concentration, focusing on the central research question: How should and could platform opinion power and digital media concentration be regulated in Europe? The research identifies a shift in opinion power from legacy media to platforms across three levels—individual citizens, institutional newsrooms, and the broader media ecosystem—each impacted by platforms\' economic, technological, and political power. Based on a thorough normative assessment of the constitutional foundations of media concentration laws, the dissertation analyses the legal challenges related to such power shifts in the media. At the individual level, platforms\' algorithmic control over content raises concerns about autonomy, privacy, and freedom of expression. At the institutional level, platforms’ influence within news organisations—particularly through the provision of technologies and digital infrastructure—affects editorial independence and the economic sustainability of journalism. Finally, at the ecosystem level, platforms exert systemic opinion power, enabling the creation of dependencies and influence over other democratic actors. This poses significant risks to media pluralism and the democratic distribution power. The dissertation finds that traditional media concentration laws inadequately address these shifts. While the new EU regulatory framework offers valuable provisions in filling these gaps, it falls short of addressing the root causes of digital media concentration. The dissertation calls for a rethinking of regulatory strategies to better align with public interest values, media pluralism, and the evolving role of platforms in the digital landscape, providing insights for future policy development.},
	keywords = {media concentration, Media law, platform regulation},
}

Save .bib

Between the cracks: Blind spots in regulating media concentration and platform dependence in the EU external link

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

Internet Policy Review, vol. 13, iss. : 4, 2024

Abstract

Alongside the recent regulations addressing platforms and digital markets – the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA) – the European Union’s (EU) European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) aims to safeguard media freedom and pluralism, two essential pillars of democracy. The EMFA introduces several provisions, including rules specifically focused on assessing media concentration in "the online environment". While these initiatives are commendable, there are noticeable blind spots in how EU regulations tackle the issues of dependence on, and the power of, platforms amidst the rising trend of media concentration. An essential aspect that needs attention is the technological power of these platforms, underpinned by their economic and political power. We find that neither the infrastructural power of platforms – transforming them from “gatekeepers” to “digital infrastructure and AI providers” – nor their relational power – creating imbalances and dependencies while posing sustainability challenges for (local) journalism – are effectively addressed in the current EU regulatory frameworks, despite both forms of power driving digital media concentration. The article then concludes with recommendations for a way forward capable of preserving values such as media pluralism and editorial independence.

Links

EU, media concentration, Media law, Platforms, Regulation

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Seipp, T.
AU  - Helberger, N.
AU  - Vreese, C.H. de
AU  - Ausloos, J.
PY  - 2024
DA  - 2024-11-14
T1  - Between the cracks: Blind spots in regulating media concentration and platform dependence in the EU
JO  - Internet Policy Review
VL  - 13
IS  - 4
UR  - https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/regulating-media-concentration-and-platform-dependence
DO  - https://doi.org/10.14763/2024.4.1813 
AB  - Alongside the recent regulations addressing platforms and digital markets – the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA) – the European Union’s (EU) European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) aims to safeguard media freedom and pluralism, two essential pillars of democracy. The EMFA introduces several provisions, including rules specifically focused on assessing media concentration in \"the online environment\". While these initiatives are commendable, there are noticeable blind spots in how EU regulations tackle the issues of dependence on, and the power of, platforms amidst the rising trend of media concentration. An essential aspect that needs attention is the technological power of these platforms, underpinned by their economic and political power. We find that neither the infrastructural power of platforms – transforming them from “gatekeepers” to “digital infrastructure and AI providers” – nor their relational power – creating imbalances and dependencies while posing sustainability challenges for (local) journalism – are effectively addressed in the current EU regulatory frameworks, despite both forms of power driving digital media concentration. The article then concludes with recommendations for a way forward capable of preserving values such as media pluralism and editorial independence.
K1  - EU
K1  - media concentration
K1  - Media law
K1  - Platforms
K1  - Regulation
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Between the cracks: Blind spots in regulating media concentration and platform dependence in the EU},
	author = {Seipp, T. and Helberger, N. and Vreese, C.H. de and Ausloos, J.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.14763/2024.4.1813 },
	year = {2024},
	date = {2024-11-14},
	journal = {Internet Policy Review},
	volume = {13},
	issue = {4},
	abstract = {Alongside the recent regulations addressing platforms and digital markets – the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA) – the European Union’s (EU) European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) aims to safeguard media freedom and pluralism, two essential pillars of democracy. The EMFA introduces several provisions, including rules specifically focused on assessing media concentration in \"the online environment\". While these initiatives are commendable, there are noticeable blind spots in how EU regulations tackle the issues of dependence on, and the power of, platforms amidst the rising trend of media concentration. An essential aspect that needs attention is the technological power of these platforms, underpinned by their economic and political power. We find that neither the infrastructural power of platforms – transforming them from “gatekeepers” to “digital infrastructure and AI providers” – nor their relational power – creating imbalances and dependencies while posing sustainability challenges for (local) journalism – are effectively addressed in the current EU regulatory frameworks, despite both forms of power driving digital media concentration. The article then concludes with recommendations for a way forward capable of preserving values such as media pluralism and editorial independence.},
	keywords = {EU, media concentration, Media law, Platforms, Regulation},
}

Save .bib

What can a media privilege look like? Unpacking three versions in the EMFA download

Drunen, M. van, Papaevangelou, C., Buijs, D. & Fahy, R.

Journal of Media Law, 2024

Abstract

The media privilege has been one of the most controversial aspects of the proposed European Media Freedom Act (EMFA). However, it is important not to assess the drawbacks of the media privilege in isolation, but in relation to the other available alternatives. In this comment, we lay out and critique how the European Parliament and Council build on the Commission’s proposal for a media privilege in the EMFA. We focus on three key questions: how is media content treated differently, who qualifies as media, and who decides who qualifies as media?

Links

Content moderation, Media law, Platforms

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Drunen, M. van
AU  - Papaevangelou, C.
AU  - Buijs, D.
AU  - Fahy, R.
PY  - 2024
DA  - 2024-01-31
T1  - What can a media privilege look like? Unpacking three versions in the EMFA
JO  - Journal of Media Law
UR  - https://www.ivir.nl/publications/what-can-a-media-privilege-look-like-unpacking-three-versions-in-the-emfa/journalofmedialaw_2024/
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2023.2299097
AB  - The media privilege has been one of the most controversial aspects of the proposed European Media Freedom Act (EMFA). However, it is important not to assess the drawbacks of the media privilege in isolation, but in relation to the other available alternatives. In this comment, we lay out and critique how the European Parliament and Council build on the Commission’s proposal for a media privilege in the EMFA. We focus on three key questions: how is media content treated differently, who qualifies as media, and who decides who qualifies as media?
K1  - Content moderation
K1  - Media law
K1  - Platforms
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Public interest content on audiovisual platforms: access and findability download

McGonagle, T., Bosch, L. van den, Buijs, D., Huang, M., Nazarski, M., Fahy, R., Poort, J. & Ulasiuk, I.

2023

Links

IRIS Special 2023-01

audiovisual content, Media law, public interests

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Media Concentration Law: Gaps and Promises in the Digital Age

Seipp, T.

Media and Communication, vol. 11, iss. : 2, pp: 392-405, 2023

Abstract

Power concentrations are increasing in today’s media landscape. Reasons for this include increasing structural and technological dependences on digital platform companies, as well as shifts in opinion power and control over news production, distribution, and consumption. Digital opinion power and platformised media markets have prompted the need for a re-evaluation of the current approach. This article critically revisits and analyses media concentration rules. To this end, I employ a normative conceptual framework that examines ”opinion power in the platform world” at three distinct levels (individual citizen, institutional newsroom, and media ecosystem). At each level, I identify the existing legal tools and gaps in controlling power and concentration in the digital age. Based on that, I offer a unifying theoretical framework for a “digital media concentration law,” along with core concepts and guiding principles. I highlight policy goals and fields that are outside the traditional scope yet are relevant for addressing issues relating to the digital age. Additionally, the emerging European Union regulatory framework—specifically the Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act, and the European Media Freedom Act—reflects an evolving approach regarding platforms and media concentration. On a final note, the analysis draws from the mapping and evaluation results of a Europe-wide study on media pluralism and diversity online, which examined (national) media concentration rules.

Links

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v11i2.6393

digital platforms, editorial independence, European regulation, media concentration, Media law, media pluralism, opinion power, structural dependency

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Seipp, T.
PY  - 2023
DA  - 2023-06-30
T1  - Media Concentration Law: Gaps and Promises in the Digital Age
JO  - Media and Communication
VL  - 11
IS  - 2
SP  - 392-405
DO  - https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v11i2.6393
AB  - Power concentrations are increasing in today’s media landscape. Reasons for this include increasing structural and technological dependences on digital platform companies, as well as shifts in opinion power and control over news production, distribution, and consumption. Digital opinion power and platformised media markets have prompted the need for a re-evaluation of the current approach. This article critically revisits and analyses media concentration rules. To this end, I employ a normative conceptual framework that examines ”opinion power in the platform world” at three distinct levels (individual citizen, institutional newsroom, and media ecosystem). At each level, I identify the existing legal tools and gaps in controlling power and concentration in the digital age. Based on that, I offer a unifying theoretical framework for a “digital media concentration law,” along with core concepts and guiding principles. I highlight policy goals and fields that are outside the traditional scope yet are relevant for addressing issues relating to the digital age. Additionally, the emerging European Union regulatory framework—specifically the Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act, and the European Media Freedom Act—reflects an evolving approach regarding platforms and media concentration. On a final note, the analysis draws from the mapping and evaluation results of a Europe-wide study on media pluralism and diversity online, which examined (national) media concentration rules.
K1  - digital platforms
K1  - editorial independence
K1  - European regulation
K1  - media concentration
K1  - Media law
K1  - media pluralism
K1  - opinion power
K1  - structural dependency
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Media Concentration Law: Gaps and Promises in the Digital Age},
	author = {Seipp, T.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v11i2.6393},
	year = {2023},
	date = {2023-06-30},
	journal = {Media and Communication},
	volume = {11},
	issue = {2},
	pages = {392-405},
	abstract = {Power concentrations are increasing in today’s media landscape. Reasons for this include increasing structural and technological dependences on digital platform companies, as well as shifts in opinion power and control over news production, distribution, and consumption. Digital opinion power and platformised media markets have prompted the need for a re-evaluation of the current approach. This article critically revisits and analyses media concentration rules. To this end, I employ a normative conceptual framework that examines ”opinion power in the platform world” at three distinct levels (individual citizen, institutional newsroom, and media ecosystem). At each level, I identify the existing legal tools and gaps in controlling power and concentration in the digital age. Based on that, I offer a unifying theoretical framework for a “digital media concentration law,” along with core concepts and guiding principles. I highlight policy goals and fields that are outside the traditional scope yet are relevant for addressing issues relating to the digital age. Additionally, the emerging European Union regulatory framework—specifically the Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act, and the European Media Freedom Act—reflects an evolving approach regarding platforms and media concentration. On a final note, the analysis draws from the mapping and evaluation results of a Europe-wide study on media pluralism and diversity online, which examined (national) media concentration rules.},
	keywords = {digital platforms, editorial independence, European regulation, media concentration, Media law, media pluralism, opinion power, structural dependency},
}

Save .bib

Dealing with opinion power and media concentration in the platform era external link

Seipp, T.

LSE Blog, 2023

Links

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/medialse/2023/05/15/dealing-with-opinion-power-and-media-concentration-in-the-platform-era/

media concentration, Media law, Platforms

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

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

McGonagle, T. & Voorhoof, D.

European Audiovisual Observatory, 2023, Strasbourg, Edition: 8th , ISBN: 9789287184351

Abstract

This e-book provides valuable insights into the European Court of Human Rights’ extensive case-law on freedom of expression and media and journalistic freedoms. The first seven editions of the e-book (2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2020, 2021 and 2022) have proved hugely successful. The new seventh edition summarises over 378 judgments or decisions by the Court and provides hyperlinks to the full text of each of the summarised judgments or decisions (via HUDOC, the Court's online case-law database).

Links

https://rm.coe.int/iris-themes-vol-iii-8th-edition-april-2023-/1680ab1d11

Freedom of expression, Journalism, Media law

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

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

Quintais, J. & Diakopoulos, N.

2023

Links

https://generative-ai-newsroom.com/a-primer-and-faq-on-copyright-law-and-generative-ai-for-news-media-f1349f514883

Artificial intelligence, Copyright, Media law, news

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

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

Sax, M.

Digital Journalism, vol. 10, iss. : 10, pp: 1650-1670, 2022

Abstract

The role news recommenders can play in stimulating news diversity is receiving increasing amounts of attention. Democratic theory plays an important role in this debate because it helps explain why news diversity is important and which kinds of news diversity should be pursued. In this article, I observe that the current literature on news recommenders and news diversity largely draws on a narrow set of theories of liberal and deliberative democracy. Another strand of democratic theory often referred to as ‘agonism’ is often ignored. This, I argue, is a mistake. Liberal and deliberative theories of democracy focus on the question of how political disagreements and conflicts can be resolved in a rational and legitimate manner. Agonism, to the contrary, stresses the ineradicability of conflict and the need to make conflict productive. This difference in thinking about the purpose of democratic politics can also lead to new ways of thinking about the value of news diversity and role algorithmic news recommenders should play in promoting it. The overall aim of the article is (re)introduce agonistic theory to the news recommender context and to argue that agonism deserves more serious attention.

Links

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2114919

agonism, algorithmic news recommenders, Democracy, diversity, Media law, news recommenders

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Sax, M.
PY  - 2022
DA  - 2022-09-14
T1  - Algorithmic News Diversity and Democratic Theory: Adding Agonism to the Mix
JO  - Digital Journalism
VL  - 10
IS  - 10
SP  - 1650-1670
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2114919
AB  - The role news recommenders can play in stimulating news diversity is receiving increasing amounts of attention. Democratic theory plays an important role in this debate because it helps explain why news diversity is important and which kinds of news diversity should be pursued. In this article, I observe that the current literature on news recommenders and news diversity largely draws on a narrow set of theories of liberal and deliberative democracy. Another strand of democratic theory often referred to as ‘agonism’ is often ignored. This, I argue, is a mistake. Liberal and deliberative theories of democracy focus on the question of how political disagreements and conflicts can be resolved in a rational and legitimate manner. Agonism, to the contrary, stresses the ineradicability of conflict and the need to make conflict productive. This difference in thinking about the purpose of democratic politics can also lead to new ways of thinking about the value of news diversity and role algorithmic news recommenders should play in promoting it. The overall aim of the article is (re)introduce agonistic theory to the news recommender context and to argue that agonism deserves more serious attention.
K1  - agonism
K1  - algorithmic news recommenders
K1  - Democracy
K1  - diversity
K1  - Media law
K1  - news recommenders
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Algorithmic News Diversity and Democratic Theory: Adding Agonism to the Mix},
	author = {Sax, M.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2114919},
	year = {2022},
	date = {2022-09-14},
	journal = {Digital Journalism},
	volume = {10},
	issue = {10},
	pages = {1650-1670},
	abstract = {The role news recommenders can play in stimulating news diversity is receiving increasing amounts of attention. Democratic theory plays an important role in this debate because it helps explain why news diversity is important and which kinds of news diversity should be pursued. In this article, I observe that the current literature on news recommenders and news diversity largely draws on a narrow set of theories of liberal and deliberative democracy. Another strand of democratic theory often referred to as ‘agonism’ is often ignored. This, I argue, is a mistake. Liberal and deliberative theories of democracy focus on the question of how political disagreements and conflicts can be resolved in a rational and legitimate manner. Agonism, to the contrary, stresses the ineradicability of conflict and the need to make conflict productive. This difference in thinking about the purpose of democratic politics can also lead to new ways of thinking about the value of news diversity and role algorithmic news recommenders should play in promoting it. The overall aim of the article is (re)introduce agonistic theory to the news recommender context and to argue that agonism deserves more serious attention.},
	keywords = {agonism, algorithmic news recommenders, Democracy, diversity, Media law, news recommenders},
}

Save .bib