@online{Quintais2020c,
title = {Webinar on Public and Regulatory Framework of Online Intermediaries},
author = {Quintais, J. and Mezei, P. and Harkai, I. and Katzenbach, C. and Magalh\~{a}es, J.C. and Schwemer, S. and Riis, T. },
url = {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9RccSMBSjE&t=5s
https://www.recreating.eu/public-and-regulatory-framework-of-online-intermediaries-workshop/
https://zenodo.org/record/3833714#.XseaZGgzbIW},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-05-22},
abstract = {Recording of the reCreating Europe Online Workshop on Public and Private Regulatory Framework of Online Intermediaries organized on 5 May 2020.
Slides and report of the event also available at the links below.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}

@techreport{vanHoboken2020b,
title = {Het juridisch kader voor de verspreiding van desinformatie via internetdiensten en de regulering van politieke advertenties},
author = {van Hoboken, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R. and Leerssen, P. and McGonagle, T. and van Eijk, N. and Helberger, N.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Rapport_desinformatie_december2019.pdf
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Kamerbrief_desinformatie.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-05-14},
abstract = {Het onderzoek, uitgevoerd in opdracht van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, analyseert het juridisch kader van toepassing op de verspreiding van desinformatie via online diensten. Het rapport biedt een uitgebreid overzicht van de relevante Europese en Nederlandse normen en doet aanbevelingen voor de verbetering van dit juridisch kader. Het onderzoek bevat daarnaast ook een analyse van het relevant wettelijke kader in de V.S., het V.K, Frankrijk, Duitsland, Canada en Zweden.
Het rapport maakt duidelijk hoe de vrijheid van meningsuiting als rode draad door het wettelijke kader loopt. Dit fundamentele recht vormt zowel de buitenste grens voor regulering als een basis voor nieuwe maatregelen, bijvoorbeeld voor de bescherming van pluralisme. Het wettelijk kader van toepassing op desinformatie blijkt zeer breed, bevat verschillende reguleringsniveaus, verschuift afhankelijk van de specifieke context en omvat vele al bestaande normen voor de regulering van specifieke typen desinformatie. Verder blijkt het toezicht op dit wettelijk kader vrij gefragmenteerd te zijn. Op basis van deze analyse komt het rapport tot aan aantal aanbevelingen. De aanbevelingen hebben onder andere betrekking op het gebruik van de term desinformatie als beleidsterm, het omgaan met de spanningen op de verschillende beleidsniveaus, de regulering van internettussenpersonen door middel van transparantie verplichtingen en de samenwerking tussen de verschillende toezichthouders.
Voorafgaand aan deze eindrapportage is in eind 2019 het interim-rapport gepubliceerd. Dit rapport focuste op de relatie tussen desinformatie en online politieke advertenties. Beide studies zijn onderdeel van het onderzoeksproject ‘Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam’ dat zich buigt over vraagstukken gerelateerd aan kunstmatige intelligentie en publieke waarden, data governance, en online platforms. },
note = {Rapport voor het ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, Amsterdam, december 2019},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}

@techreport{vanHoboken2020c,
title = {The legal framework on the dissemination of disinformation through Internet services and the regulation of political advertising},
author = {van Hoboken, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R. and Leerssen, P. and McGonagle, T. and van Eijk, N. and Helberger, N.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Report_Disinformation_Dec2019-1.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-05-14},
abstract = {The study, commissioned by the Dutch government, focusses on the legal framework governing the dissemination of disinformation, in particular through Internet services. The study provides an extensive overview of relevant European and Dutch legal norms relating to the spread of online disinformation, and recommendations are given on how to improve this framework. Additionally, the study includes an analysis of the relevant legal framework in 6 different countries (U.K., U.S., France, Germany, Sweden and Canada).
The report makes clear how the freedom of expression runs as a central theme through the legal framework, both forming the outer limit for possible regulation and a legal basis to create new regulation (e.g. protecting pluralism). The legal framework governing disinformation online is shown to be very broad, encompassing different levels of regulation, shifting depending on the context and already regulating many different types of disinformation. Further, oversight seems to be fragmented with many different supervisory authorities involved but limited cooperation. Based on this analysis, the report offers several recommendations, such as on the use of disinformation not as a legal term but a policy term, on negotiating the tensions on the different policy levels, on the regulation of internet intermediaries including transparency obligations and on increased cooperation between the relevant supervisory authorities.
Previously, the interim report focussing on political advertising was published in late 2019. Both these studies have been carried out in the context of the research initiative on the Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam, focussing on questions related to AI and public values, data governance and online platforms.},
note = {A report for the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, Amsterdam, December 2019},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}

@article{Senftleben2020c,
title = {Flexibility Grave \textendash Partial Reproduction Focus and Closed System Fetishism in CJEU, Pelham},
author = {Senftleben, M.},
url = {https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40319-020-00940-z.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-05-12},
journal = {IIC},
abstract = {In the ongoing discussion about the impact of fundamental rights on EU copyright law, the Pelham judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has received much attention. However, the decision also raises important legal-doctrinal issues. The CJEU employs the harmonized right of reproduction as a vehicle to regulate adaptations of pre-existing source material. Moreover, the Court insists on a balancing of interests within the EU matrix of exclusive rights and limitations. The closed list of limitations in EU copyright law, however, can hardly be expected to offer sufficient breathing space for adaptation scenarios. As the Information Society Directive did not harmonize the right of adaptation, there was no need to include indispensable free adaptation rules that have evolved at the national level, such as the German “free use” doctrine. Instead of embracing national rules of equity and fairness to fill the gap, the CJEU is reluctant to borrow from the legal traditions of EU Member States and misses an important opportunity to provide guidance for the regulation of adaptations outside the sound sampling arena. After an introduction to the German “Metall auf Metall” saga that led to the Pelham decision, the following analysis sheds light on these developments in EU copyright law and discusses problems arising from the approach taken by the CJEU.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@book{Voorhoof2020,
title = {Freedom of Expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights},
author = {Voorhoof, D. and McGonagle, T.},
url = {https://rm.coe.int/iris-themes-vol-iii-ed-2020-en-2/16809e45e7},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-05-08},
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 four editions of the e-book (2013, 2015, 2016 and 2017) have proved hugely successful. The new fifth edition summarises over 315 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). For an optimal navigational experience, one should download the e-book and read the technical tips on p. 3.},
note = {IRIS Themes - Volume III (5th edition), European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}

@techreport{Bod\'{o}2020,
title = {Money talks? The impact of corporate funding on information law research},
author = {Bod\'{o}, B. and Schwichow, H. von and Appelman, N.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/money-talks-summary-report-final.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-05-07},
abstract = {Corporate funding is a contentious issue in information law and policy research. In the fall of 2019, the Institute of Information Law at the University of Amsterdam, and the European Hub of the Network of Centers invited academic research institutions, as well as junior and senior scholars to reflect on the issues around corporate influence on research through money, data, infrastructure, access. The discussion arrived at a number of important conclusions:
- The discussion on funding must include data, infrastructure deals, and other forms of indirect funding
- Sometimes corporate funding is the only way to get access to critical resources
- Transparency is a must, but not a silver bullet to deal with funding
- It is difficult to set up universal a priori norms of which type of funding is acceptable in which situations,
- Academia may need new institutional solutions to review funding, and manage the potential risks of funders taking over the agenda, research bias, and reputational harms
- Public funding bodies are part of the problem as much of the solution.
The rapid, but consequential shifts in the digital landscape in terms of technological innovation, dominant economic actors, power relations, social, political structures, transform the environment of academic research which aims to address the legal and policy issues around those changes. More and more issues, such as content moderation, intermediary liability, digital advertising, algorithmic discrimination, the accountability of AI systems are framed as regulatory dilemmas. As a result, legal research is both in growing demand, and has gained visibility, and significance. As the future rules of the information society are shaping up in the discussions led, or at least prominently shaped by information law research, the temptation to influence it also increases. Research institutions must acknowledge the shifting landscape and the growing stakes. Challenges at that scale require more than individual integrity: there is a need for institutional solutions that on the one hand can actively assess, and mitigate the potential harms in each individual case, and on the other hand, is able to actively shape the funding landscape, and the norms around funding.},
note = {Amsterdam: IViR, Berlin: European Hub of the NoC},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}

@article{Helberger2020c,
title = {Statement Prof. Dr. Natali Helberger bij Rondetafelgesprek over de Corona-app in de Tweede Kamer op 22 April 2020},
author = {Helberger, N.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Statement_Covid_App_Expertsronde_TK.pdf
https://www.tweedekamer.nl/debat_en_vergadering/commissievergaderingen/details?id=2020A01700},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-04-22},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Flynn2020b,
title = {Implementing User Rights for Research in the Field of Artificial Intelligence: A Call for International Action},
author = {Flynn, S. and Geiger, C. and Quintais, J. and Margoni, T. and Sag, M. and Guibault, L. and Carroll, M.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3578819},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-04-21},
journal = {European Intellectual Property Review},
volume = {2020},
number = {7},
abstract = {Last year, before the onset of a global pandemic highlighted the critical and urgent need for technology-enabled scientific research, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) launched an inquiry into issues at the intersection of intellectual property (IP) and artificial intelligence (AI). We contributed comments to that inquiry, with a focus on the application of copyright to the use of text and data mining (TDM) technology. This article describes some of the most salient points of our submission and concludes by stressing the need for international leadership on this important topic. WIPO could help fill the current gap on international leadership, including by providing guidance on the diverse mechanisms that countries may use to authorize TDM research and serving as a forum for the adoption of rules permitting cross-border TDM projects.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {forthcoming},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Flynn2020c,
title = {Implementing User Rights for Research in the Field of Artificial Intelligence: A Call for Action at International Level},
author = {Flynn, S. and Geiger, C. and Quintais, J.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/04/21/implementing-user-rights-for-research-in-the-field-of-artificial-intelligence-a-call-for-action-at-international-level/
http://infojustice.org/archives/42260},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-04-21},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
abstract = {A version of this post was also published on the InfoJustice website: http://infojustice.org/archives/42260},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@inbook{Senftleben2020b,
title = {From Flexible Balancing Tool to Quasi-Constitutional Straitjacket - How the EU Cultivates the Constraining Function of the Three-Step Test},
author = {Senftleben, M.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3576019},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-04-16},
abstract = {In the international intellectual property (IP) arena, the so-called “three-step test” regulates the room for the adoption of limitations and exceptions (L&Es) to exclusive rights across different fields of IP. Given the openness of the individual test criteria, it is tempting for proponents of strong IP protection to strive for the fixation of the meaning of the three-step test at the constraining end of the spectrum of possible interpretations. As the three-step test lies at the core of legislative initiatives to balance exclusive rights and user freedoms, the cultivation of the test’s constraining function and the suppression of the test’s enabling function has the potential to transform the three-step test into a bulwark against limitations of IP protection.

The EU is at the forefront of a constraining use and interpretation of the three-step test in the field of copyright law. The configuration of the legal framework in the EU is worrisome because it obliges judges to apply the three-step test as an additional control instrument. It is not sufficient that an individual use falls within the scope of a statutory copyright limitation that explicitly permits this type of use without prior authorization. In addition, judges applying the three-step test also examine whether the specific form of use at issue complies with each individual criterion of the three-step test. Hence, the test serves as an instrument to further restrict L&Es that have already been defined precisely in statutory law. Not surprisingly, decisions from courts in the EU have a tendency of shedding light on the constraining aspect of the three-step test and, therefore, reinforcing the hegemony of copyright holders in the IP arena.

The hypothesis underlying the following examination, therefore, is that the EU approach to the three-step test is one-sided in the sense that it only demonstrates the potential of the test to set additional limits to L&Es. The analysis focuses on this transformation of a flexible international balancing tool into a powerful confirmation and fortification of IP protection. For this purpose, the two facets of the international three-step test \textendash its enabling and constraining function \textendash are explored before embarking on a discussion of case law that evolved under the one-sided EU approach. Analyzing repercussions on international lawmaking, it will become apparent that the EU approach already impacted the further development of international L&Es. Certain features of the Marrakesh Treaty clearly reflect the restrictive EU approach.},
note = {Chapter in T. Mylly/J. Griffiths (eds.), The Transformation of Global Intellectual Property Protection, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020, forthcoming.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}

@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},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-04-09},
journal = {Florida International University Law Review},
volume = {14},
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 = {forthcoming},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Dommering2020f,
title = {Annotatie bij HvJ EU 1 oktober 2019 (Planet 49)},
author = {Dommering, E.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2020_98.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-04-07},
journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie},
number = {13/14},
pages = {1671-1673},
note = {nr. 98},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Dommering2020e,
title = {Annotatie bij HvJ EU 29 juli 2019 (Fashion ID)},
author = {Dommering, E.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2020_97.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-04-07},
journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie},
number = {13/14},
pages = {1659-1661},
note = {nr. 97},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Bernstein2020,
title = {Diversity, Fairness, and Data-Driven Personalization in (News) Recommender System},
author = {Bernstein, A. and Vreese, C.H. de and Helberger, N. and Schulz, W. and Zweig, K.A.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/dagrep_v009_i011_p117_19482.pdf},
doi = {10.4230/DagRep.9.11.117},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-04-02},
journal = {Dagstuhl Reports},
volume = {9},
number = {11},
pages = {117-124},
abstract = {As people increasingly rely on online media and recommender systems to consume information,
engage in debates and form their political opinions, the design goals of online media and news
recommenders have wide implications for the political and social processes that take place online
and offline. Current recommender systems have been observed to promote personalization and
more effective forms of informing, but also to narrow the user’s exposure to diverse content.
Concerns about echo-chambers and filter bubbles highlight the importance of design metrics that
can successfully strike a balance between accurate recommendations that respond to individual
information needs and preferences, while at the same time addressing concerns about missing out
important information, context and the broader cultural and political diversity in the news, as
well as fairness. A broader, more sophisticated vision of the future of personalized recommenders
needs to be formed\textendasha vision that can only be developed as the result of a collaborative effort by
different areas of academic research (media studies, computer science, law and legal philosophy,
communication science, political philosophy, and democratic theory). The proposed workshop
will set first steps to develop such a much needed vision on the role of recommender systems
on the democratic role of the media and define the guidelines as well as a manifesto for future
research and long-term goals for the emerging topic of fairness, diversity, and personalization in
recommender systems.},
note = {Report from Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop 19482},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Irion2020bb,
title = {Pitching trade against privacy: reconciling EU governance of personal data flows with external trade},
author = {Irion, K. and Yakovleva, S. },
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipaa003},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-04-01},
journal = {International Data Privacy Law},
abstract = {This article positions EU’s external governance of personal data flows against the backdrop of the international controversy on digital trade versus strict privacy laws. Now that the EU has defined its position on horizontal provisions on cross-border data flows and personal data protection, it is both timely and essential to reassess its strategy on the international transfers of personal data in the purview of its future trade agreements. For its own normative approach and regulatory autonomy, the EU has a pivotal role to play in shaping the interface between trade and privacy before the ‘free trade leviathan’ can restrict the policy choices not only of individual states but also of the EU itself. Our contribution aims to break through the present compartmentalization of privacy scholarship and trade lawyers because it situates personal data flows in both disciplines.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Borgesius2020b,
title = {Rien ne va plus: Reclame en onlinekansspelen},
author = {Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. and Zimin, A. and Power, L. and Poort, J.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/SEW_2020_3_auteursversie.pdf
https://www-uitgeverijparis-nl.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/nl/reader/206589/1001465434},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-03-31},
journal = {SEW},
number = {3},
pages = {116-126},
abstract = {Binnenkort zijn onlinekansspelen toegestaan in Nederland. Na de opening van de markt is te verwachten dat aanbieders van onlinekansspelen intensief reclame gaan maken. Dit artikel bespreekt de juridische context van kansspelreclame, wat voor beperkingen aan reclame mogelijk zijn, en wat de verwachte effecten zijn op met name kansspelverslaving.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Helberger2020b,
title = {Four tales of sci-fi and information law},
author = {Helberger, N. and Poort, J. and Makhortykh, M.},
url = {https://policyreview.info/node/1457/pdf},
doi = {10.14763/2020.1.1457},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-03-30},
journal = {Internet Policy Review},
volume = {9},
number = {1},
abstract = {Feel like living in a dystopia? Take a deep breath, get a strong coffee, and let us challenge your ideas of where reality ends, and sci-fi begins…},
note = {Editorial},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Bouch\`{e}2020b,
title = {Belgian court asks CJEU whether seeding is communicating to the public},
author = {Bouch\`{e}, G.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/03/30/belgian-court-asks-cjeu-whether-seeding-is-communicating-to-the-public/},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-03-30},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Borgesius2020,
title = {Strengthening legal protection against discrimination by algorithms and artificial intelligence},
author = {Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.},
url = {https://doi-org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/10.1080/13642987.2020.1743976},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-03-29},
journal = {The International Journal of Human Rights},
abstract = {Algorithmic decision-making and other types of artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to predict who will commit crime, who will be a good employee, who will default on a loan, etc. However, algorithmic decision-making can also threaten human rights, such as the right to non-discrimination. The paper evaluates current legal protection in Europe against discriminatory algorithmic decisions. The paper shows that non-discrimination law, in particular through the concept of indirect discrimination, prohibits many types of algorithmic discrimination. Data protection law could also help to defend people against discrimination. Proper enforcement of non-discrimination law and data protection law could help to protect people. However, the paper shows that both legal instruments have severe weaknesses when applied to artificial intelligence. The paper suggests how enforcement of current rules can be improved. The paper also explores whether additional rules are needed. The paper argues for sector-specific \textendash rather than general \textendash rules, and outlines an approach to regulate algorithmic decision-making.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Stapel2020b,
title = {Stichting Brein versus Safe Harbour: The Ongoing Battle Between Intermediaries and Right Holders},
author = {Stapel, S.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/03/27/stichting-brein-versus-safe-harbour-the-ongoing-battle-between-intermediaries-and-right-holders/},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-03-27},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Giannopoulou2020,
title = {Algorithmic systems: the consent is in the detail?},
author = {Giannopoulou, A.},
url = {https://policyreview.info/node/1452/pdf},
doi = {10.14763/2020.1.1452},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-03-24},
journal = {Internet Policy Review},
volume = {9},
number = {1},
abstract = {Applications of algorithmically informed decisions are becoming entrenched in society, with data processing being their main process and ingredient. While these applications are progressively gaining momentum, established data protection and privacy rules have struggled to incorporate the particularities of data-intensive information societies. It is a truism to point out the resulting misalignment between algorithmic processing of personal data and the data protection regulatory frameworks that strive for meaningful control over personal data. However, the challenges to the (traditional) role and concept of consent are particularly manifest. This article examines the transformation of consent models in order to assess how the concept and the applied models of consent can be reconciled in order to correspond not only to the current regulatory landscapes but also to the exponential growth of algorithmic processing technologies. This particularly pressing area of safeguarding a basic aspect of individual control over personal data in the algorithmic era is interlinked with practical implementations of consent in the technology used and with adopted interpretations of the concept of consent, the scope of application of personal data, as well as the obligations enshrined in them. What makes consent effective as a data protection tool and how can we maintain its previous glory within the current technological challenges?},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Stapel2020,
title = {Preliminary ruling to the CJEU on geographical boundaries of UCD novelty assessment},
author = {Stapel, S.},
url = {https://doi-org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/10.1093/jiplp/jpaa032},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpaa032},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-03-24},
journal = {Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice},
volume = {15},
number = {4},
pages = {240-241},
abstract = {Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Company v PMS International Group Plc [2019] EWHC 2419 (IPEC), High Court of England and Wales, 17 September 2019.
The High Court of Justice of England and Wales has sought guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as regards whether the disclosure of a design outside the Community can still qualify for protection within the Community.},
note = {Current Intelligence},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Eskens2020,
title = {The personal information sphere: An integral approach to privacy and related information and communication rights},
author = {Eskens, S.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/jasist_2020.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24354},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-03-20},
journal = {JASIST},
abstract = {Data protection laws, including the European Union General Data Protection Regulation, regulate aspects of online personalization. However, the data protection lens is too narrow to analyze personalization. To define conditions for personalization, we should understand data protection in its larger fundamental rights context, starting with the closely connected right to privacy. If the right to privacy is considered along with other European fundamental rights that protect information and communication flows, namely, communications confidentiality; the right to receive information; and freedom of expression, opinion, and thought, these rights are observed to enable what I call a “personal information sphere” for each person. This notion highlights how privacy interferences affect other fundamental rights. The personal information sphere is grounded in European case law and is thus not just an academic affair. The essence of the personal information sphere is control, yet with a different meaning than mere control as guaranteed by data protection law. The personal information sphere is about people controlling how they situate themselves in information and communication networks. It follows that, to respect privacy and related rights, online personalization providers should actively involve users in the personalization process and enable them to use personalization for personal goals.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{McGonagle2020d,
title = {Much ado about judges: perspectieven van het EHRM},
author = {McGonagle, T.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Mediaforum_2020_1.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-03-13},
journal = {Mediaforum},
number = {1},
pages = {2-6},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Altes2020,
title = {Rechter en uitingsvrijheid \textendash een actueel thema},
author = {Korthals Altes, W.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Opinie_Mediaforum_2020_1-1.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-03-13},
journal = {Mediaforum},
number = {1},
pages = {1},
note = {Opinie},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@techreport{Helberger2020,
title = {Implications of AI-driven tools in the media for freedom of expression},
author = {Helberger, N. and Eskens, S. and Drunen, M. van and Bastian, M. and M\"{o}ller, J.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AI-and-Freedom-of-Expression.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-03-05},
publisher = {Council of Europe, September 2019},
abstract = {Background Paper to the Ministerial Conference "Artificial Intelligence - Intelligent Politics: Challenges and opportunities for media and democracy, Cyprus, 28-29 May 2020."},
note = {Council of Europe, September 2019},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}

@article{Dommering2020d,
title = {Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 5 november 2019 en Hoge Raad 3 december 2019},
author = {Dommering, E.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_20120_72.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-03-03},
journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie},
number = {10},
pages = {1368-1369},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Yakovleva2020,
title = {Privacy Protection(ism): The Latest Wave of Trade Constraints on Regulatory Autonomy},
author = {Yakovleva, S.},
url = {https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol74/iss2/5/},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-02-27},
journal = {University of Miami Law Review},
volume = {74},
number = {2},
pages = {416-519},
abstract = {Countries spend billions of dollars each year to strengthen their discursive power to shape international policy debates. They do so because in public policy conversations labels and narratives matter enormously. The “digital protectionism” label has been used in the last decade as a tool to gain the policy upper hand in digital trade policy debates about cross-border flows of personal and other data. Using the Foucauldian framework of discourse analysis, this Article brings a unique perspective on this topic. The Article makes two central arguments. First, the Article argues that the term “protectionism” is not endowed with an inherent meaning but is socially constructed by the power of discourse used in international negotiations, and in the interpretation and application of international trade policy and rules. In other words, there are as many definitions of “(digital) protectionism” as there are discourses. The U.S. and E.U. “digital trade” discourses illustrate this point. Using the same term, those trading partners advance utterly different discourses and agendas: an economic discourse with economic efficiency as the main benchmark (United States), and a more multidisciplinary discourse where both economic efficiency and protection of fundamental rights are equally important (European Union). Second, based on a detailed evaluation of the economic “digital trade” discourse, the Article contends that the coining of the term “digital protectionism” to refer to domestic information governance policies not yet fully covered by trade law disciplines is not a logical step to respond to objectively changing circumstances, but rather a product of that discourse, which is coming to dominate U.S.-led international trade negotiations. The Article demonstrates how this redefinition of “protectionism” has already resulted in the adoption of international trade rules in recent trade agreements further restricting domestic autonomy to protect the rights to privacy and the protection of personal data. The Article suggests that the distinction between privacy and personal data protection and protectionism is a moral question, not a question of economic efficiency. Therefore, when a policy conversation, such as the one on cross-border data flows, involves noneconomic spill-over effects to individual rights, such conversation should not be confined within the straightjacket of trade economics, but rather placed in a broader normative perspective. Finally, the Article argues that, in conducting recently restarted multilateral negotiations on electronic commerce at the World Trade Organization, countries should rethink the goals of international trade for the twenty-first century. Such goals should determine and define the discourse, not the other way around. The discussion should not be about what “protectionism” means but about how far domestic regimes are willing to let trade rules interfere in their autonomy to protect their societal, cultural, and political values.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Flynn2020,
title = {Joint Comment to WIPO on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence},
author = {Flynn, S. and Carroll, M. and Sag, M. and Guibault, L. and Margoni, T. and Butler, B. and Rocha de Souza, A. and Bogataj Jancic, M. and Jaszi, P. and Quintais, J. and Geiger, C. and Ncube, C. and White, B. and Scaria, A.G. and Botero, C. and Craig, C.},
url = {http://infojustice.org/archives/42009},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-02-25},
abstract = {On December 13, 2019, WIPO invited member states and all other interested parties to provide comments and suggestions to help define the issues related to intellectual property (IP) and artificial intelligence (AI) based on a Draft Issues Paper on IP Policy and AI. These comments will be used to prepare a revised issues paper for discussion at the second session of the WIPO Conversation on IP and AI. This Joint Comment is made in response to WIPO’s Public Consultation on AI and IP Policy and is endorsed by 16 members of the Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights. },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Hugenholtz2020b,
title = {In Memoriam Jan Kabel},
author = {Hugenholtz, P.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2020_1.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-02-20},
journal = {AMI},
number = {1},
pages = {1-2},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{vanGompel2020,
title = {Artikelen 8 tot en met 11 DSM-richtlijn: Niet of niet meer in de handel zijnde werken en andere materialen},
author = {van Gompel, S.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2020_1_VanGompel.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-02-20},
journal = {AMI},
number = {1},
pages = {3-10},
abstract = {In Hoofdstuk 1 van Titel III van de DSM-richtlijn, die maatregelen voorschrijft om de licentieverlening te verbeteren en een ruimere toegang tot content te verzekeren, wordt een regeling ge\"{i}ntroduceerd voor het gebruik door cultureel erfgoedinstellingen van werken en andere materialen die niet of niet meer in de handel zijn, kortgezegd: van out-of-commerce werken (hierna: OOC-werken). In dit artikel wordt
eerst de achtergrond van deze regeling geschetst. Daarna wordt ingegaan op de definitie van OOC-werken, de juridische instrumenten die worden ingezet om het gebruik van OOC-werken toe te staan (een licentiemechanisme plus terugvalbeperking), de grensoverschrijdende werking ervan, en de publiciteitsmaatregelen die de richtlijn voorschrijft. Het artikel sluit af met een conclusie.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@misc{Quintais2020,
title = {Panel discussion at CPDP 2020: We need to talk about filters: algorithmic copyright enforcement vs data protection. },
author = {Quintais, J. and Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. and Mazgal, A. and Ducato, R. and Heglad\'{o}ttir, A. },
url = {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SstHA1ALZoI},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-02-06},
abstract = {The new Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSM) Directive was published in May 2019. Its most controversial provision is Article 17 (ex 13), which creates a new liability regime for user-generated content platforms, like YouTube and Facebook. The new regime makes these platforms directly liable for their users’ uploads, without the possibility of benefiting from the hosting safe-harbour. This forces platforms to either license all or most of the content uploaded by users (which is near impossible) or to adopt preventive measures like filters. The likely outcome is that covered platforms will engage in general monitoring of the content uploaded by their users. This panel will discuss the issues raised by Article 17 DSM Directive and the model of algorithmic enforcement it incentivizes, with a focus on the freedom of expression and data protection risks it entails.

• Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive creates a new liability regime for user-generated content platforms.
• Does this provision introduce de facto the controversial upload filtering systems and, as a result, general monitoring of information in content-sharing platforms?
• Is Article 17 essentially in conflict with the GDPR and, in particular, the principle of minimisation and the right not to be subject to automated decision-making processes? What are the potential consequences of this provision on users’ freedom of expression?
• If Article 17 can negatively affect data protection and freedom of expression what are the possible legal and extra-legal responses to neutralise the risk?
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {presentation}
}

@article{McGonagle2020,
title = {Szurovecz t. Hongarije (EHRM, nr. 15428/16) - Court underscores importance of direct news-gathering by journalists},
author = {McGonagle, T.},
url = {https://www.ehrc-updates.nl/commentaar/207250
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_EHRC_2020_15428_16.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-31},
journal = {European Human Rights Cases},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Hugenholtz2020,
title = {Film Financing in the Digital Single Market: Challenges to Territoriality},
author = {Hugenholtz, P. and Poort, J.},
url = {https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs40319-019-00900-2.pdf},
doi = {10.1007/s40319-019-00900-2},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-30},
journal = {IIC},
volume = {51},
number = {2},
pages = {167-186},
abstract = {This article discusses the role of territorial licences for feature films against the background of judicial and market developments in the EU. Currently, territorial licences are deemed a cornerstone of the exploitation and financing of films in Europe. However, current models of film financing are under increasing pressure both from market developments such as the turbulent growth of global online video platforms, and from developments in EU law aimed at removing national territorial barriers to the Single Market. Examples are the rule of Union-wide exhaustion of the distribution right, the EU Portability Regulation and the country of origin rules for satellite broadcasting and online simulcasting. EU competition law sets additional limits to grants of territorial exclusivity, and prohibits clauses in broadcasting and pay television licences that prevent or restrict “passive” sales to consumers/viewers in non-licensed territories. The freedom of right holders to preserve territorial exclusivity by way of contract is likely to become increasingly vulnerable to EU competition law, as underlying territorial rights no longer support territorial grants. For the film sector where territorial exclusivity remains indispensable, the European Commission could create specific competition law rules in the form of “block exemptions”. Language exclusivity \textendash i.e. exclusive grants of rights for distinct language versions of a film \textendash could provide a practical and legally more robust alternative to territorial licensing.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@online{Fahy2020,
title = {Journalist and editor’s conviction for incitement to religious hatred violated Article 10},
author = {Fahy, R. and Voorhoof, D.},
url = {http://www.mediareport.nl/persrecht/21012020/journalist-and-editors-conviction-for-incitement-to-religious-hatred-violated-article-10/},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-23},
journal = {Media Report},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}

@article{Dobber2020,
title = {The regulation of online political micro-targeting in Europe},
author = {Dobber, T. and Fahy, R. and Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.},
url = {https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/regulation-online-political-micro-targeting-europe},
doi = {10.14763/2019.4.1440},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-16},
journal = {Internet Policy Review},
volume = {8},
number = {4},
abstract = {In this paper, we examine how online political micro-targeting is regulated in Europe. While there are no specific rules on such micro-targeting, there are general rules that apply. We focus on three fields of law: data protection law, freedom of expression, and sector-specific rules for political advertising; for the latter we examine four countries. We argue that the rules in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) are necessary, but not sufficient. We show that political advertising, including online political micro-targeting, is protected by the right to freedom of expression. That right is not absolute, however. From a European human rights perspective, it is possible for lawmakers to limit the possibilities for political advertising. Indeed, some countries ban TV advertising for political parties during elections.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Keller2020,
title = {Article 17 stakeholder dialogue: What we have learned so far - Part 1},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/01/13/article-17-stakeholder-dialogue-what-we-have-learned-so-far-part-1/},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-16},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Keller2020b,
title = {Article 17 stakeholder dialogue: What we have learned so far - Part 2},
author = {Keller, P.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/01/14/article-17-stakeholder-dialogue-what-we-have-learned-so-far-part-2/},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-16},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Dommering2020b,
title = {‘Stedelijk Museum verkeert al sinds 2003 in crisis’},
author = {Dommering, E.},
url = {https://www.parool.nl/columns-opinie/stedelijk-museum-verkeert-al-sinds-2003-in-crisis~b2e2302c/},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-11},
journal = {Het Parool},
note = {Opinie},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2019.81,
title = {Toward Compatibility of the EU Trade Policy with the General Data Protection Regulation},
author = {Yakovleva, S. and Irion, K.},
url = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/article/toward-compatibility-of-the-eu-trade-policy-with-the-general-data-protection-regulation/04D5070244733CAEFDAA14C533BAFF7E/share/b44381ff85510e8580104599385baab8c1e3179e},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2019.81},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-09},
journal = {AJIL Unbound},
volume = {114},
pages = {10-14},
abstract = {The European Union’s (EU) negotiating position on cross-border data flows, which the EU has recently included in its proposal for the World Trade Organization (WTO) talks on e-commerce, not only enshrines the protection of privacy and personal data as fundamental rights, but also creates a broad exception for a Member’s restrictions on cross-border transfers of personal data. This essay argues that maintaining such a strong position in trade negotiations is essential for the EU to preserve the internal compatibility of its legal system when it comes to the right to protection of personal data under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the recently adopted General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Quintais2019e,
title = {The New Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: A Critical Look},
author = {Quintais, J.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3424770},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-07},
journal = {European Intellectual Property Review},
volume = {42},
number = {1},
pages = {28-41},
abstract = {This article provides an overview and critical examination of the new Directive on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market. Despite some positive aspects, the Directive includes multiple problematic provisions, including the controversial new right for press publishers and the new liability regime for content-sharing platforms. On balance, the Directive denotes a normative preference for private ordering over public choice in EU copyright law, and lacks adequate safeguards for users. It is also a complex text with multiple ambiguities, which will likely fail promote the desired harmonization and legal certainty in this area.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Dommering2020,
title = {De arresten Funke Medien, Spiegel Onlineen Pelham van het HvJ EU van 29 juli 2019},
author = {Dommering, E.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2019_6.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-07},
journal = {AMI},
volume = {2019},
number = {6},
pages = {185-191},
abstract = {29 juli 2019 was het D-Day voor het Europese auteursrecht. Toen deed een Grote Kamer van het Hof van Justitie uitspraak in drie zaken waarin het Duitse Bundesgerichtshof prejudici\"{e}le vragen had gesteld over de uitleg en toepassing van de Auteursrechtrichtlijn (Richtlijn 2001/29/EG) in relatie tot het Europese Handvest en indirect ook tot het Europese Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens. Het waren
alledrie ‘borderline cases’. In de zaak Funke Medien gaat het om de perspublicatie van een proces-verbaal van een periodieke verslaggeving van de buitenlandse interventies van de Bundeswehr, bedoeld voor beperkt gebruik voor bepaalde afgevaardigden in de Bondsdag. Een van deze rapportages was uitgelekt en de Bondsregering probeerde verspreiding tegen te gaan met een beroep op haar auteursrecht; het proces-verbaal zou een ‘werk’ zijn in de zin van het door de richtlijn geharmoniseerde Duitse auteursrecht. In de Spiegel Online-zaak gaat het om de reikwijdte van het citaatrecht in het geval dat er door middel van een hyperlink op het web naar het werk wordt verwezen. De zaak bevat ook de vraag of het werk waaruit werd geciteerd op geoorloofde manier openbaar was gemaakt en of dat een omstandigheid was die citeren kon verhinderen. In de Pelham-zaak gaat het om de vraag of het gebruik van zeer korte muziekfragmenten (‘soundsampling’) moet worden aangemerkt als een geoorloofd citaat in de zin van artikel 5 lid 3 onder d van de richtlijn (beperking van het muziekreproductierecht).},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{vanEechoud2020,
title = {Artikel 15 DSM-richtlijn: bescherming van perspublicaties met betrekking tot onlinegebruik (persuitgeversrecht)},
author = {van Eechoud, M.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2019_6_DSM.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-07},
journal = {AMI},
volume = {2019},
number = {6},
pages = {197-202},
abstract = {Het in 2016 voorgestelde naburig recht op perspublicaties was \textendash met de licentieverplichting voor platforms \textendash het meest omstreden onderdeel van de DSM-richtlijn. In dit blad en elders zijn nut, noodzaak en (negatieve) effecten uitgebreid besproken. Nu ligt er dan een ten opzichte van het oorspronkelijke Commissievoorstel uitgekleed recht voor uitgevers (art. 15 DSM-richtlijn), dat wordt ge\"{i}mplementeerd in de Wet op de naburige rechten (nieuw art. 7b Wnr). Dit artikel geeft een korte analyse van de belangrijkste kenmerken van het nieuwe recht, en van de (on)zekerheden die het meebrengt.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{vanDaalen2020,
title = {Openingssalvo in nieuwe Nederlandse Crypto Wars?},
author = {van Daalen, O.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Mediaforum_2019_6.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-01-07},
journal = {Mediaforum},
volume = {2019},
number = {6},
pages = {205},
note = {Opinie},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@book{Goldstein2019,
title = {International Copyright: Principles, Law, and Practice},
author = {Goldstein, P. and Hugenholtz, P.},
url = {https://global.oup.com/academic/product/international-copyright-9780190060619?q=goldstein%20hugenholtz&lang=en&cc=nl},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-12-23},
publisher = {Oxford University Press},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}

@article{Giannopoulou2019bb,
title = {Access and Reuse of Machine-Generated Data for Scientific Research},
author = {Giannopoulou, A.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Erasmus_Law_Review_2019.pdf},
doi = {10.5553/ELR.000136},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-12-20},
journal = {Erasmus Law Review},
number = {2},
pages = {155-165},
abstract = {Data driven innovation holds the potential in transforming current business and knowledge discovery models. For this reason, data sharing has become one of the central points of interest for the European Commission towards the creation of a Digital Single Market. The value of automatically generated data, which are collected by Internet-connected objects (IoT), is increasing: from smart houses to wearables, machine-generated data hold significant potential for growth, learning, and problem solving. Facilitating researchers in order to provide access to these types of data implies not only the articulation of existing legal obstacles and of proposed legal solutions but also the understanding of the incentives that motivate the sharing of the data in question. What are the legal tools that researchers can use to gain
access and reuse rights in the context of their research?},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Rucz2019,
title = {Does the doctrine of exhaustion apply to videogames purchased digitally? French court says oui},
author = {Rucz, M.},
url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/12/12/does-the-doctrine-of-exhaustion-apply-to-videogames-purchased-digitally-french-court-says-oui/},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-12-19},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Fahy2019eb,
title = {European Regulation of Smartphone Ecosystems},
author = {Fahy, R. and van Hoboken, J.},
url = {https://edpl.lexxion.eu/article/EDPL/2019/4/6},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.21552/edpl/2019/4/6},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-12-13},
journal = {European Data Protection Law Review (EDPL)},
volume = {5},
number = {4},
pages = {476-491},
abstract = {For the first time, two pieces of EU legislation will specifically target smartphone ecosystems in relation to smartphone and mobile software (eg, iOS and Android) privacy, and use and monetisation of data. And yet, both pieces of legislation approach data use and data monetisation from radically contrasting perspectives. The first is the proposed ePrivacy Regulation, which seeks to provide enhanced protection against user data monitoring and tracking in smartphones, and safeguard privacy in electronic communications. On the other hand, the recently enacted Platform-to-Business Regulation 2019, seeks to bring fairness to platform-business user relations (including app stores and app developers), and is crucially built upon the premise that the ability to access and use data, including personal data, can enable important value creation in the online platform economy. This article discusses how these two Regulations will apply to smartphone ecosystems, especially relating to user and device privacy. The article analyses the potential tension points between the two sets of rules, which result from the underlying policy objectives of safeguarding privacy in electronic communications and the functioning of the digital economy in the emerging era of platform governance. The article concludes with a discussion on how to address these issues, at the intersection of privacy and competition in the digital platform economy.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{vanEijk2019d,
title = {Kroniek Telecommunicatierecht},
author = {van Eijk, N.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AA_153.pdf},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-12-12},
journal = {KwartaalSignaal Ars Aequi},
number = {153},
pages = {9001-9002},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

@article{Dommering2019g,
title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 14 februari 2019 (Letland / Buivids)},
author = {Dommering, E.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2019_433.pdf},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-12-10},
journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie},
number = {48/49},
pages = {7166-7168},
abstract = {Video opnamen door verdachte tijdens politieverhoor. Journalistieke exceptie van AVG van toepassing? },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}