Publicaties
Top Keywords
- Annotaties (57)
- Art. 10 EVRM (25)
- Auteursrecht (518)
- Bescherming van communicatie (20)
- Consumentenrecht (22)
- Content moderation (22)
- Databankenrecht (25)
- Digital Services Act (DSA) (32)
- EU (19)
- EU law (26)
- Freedom of expression (46)
- Fundamental rights (18)
- GDPR (22)
- Grondrechten (421)
- Industriële eigendom (38)
- Informatierecht (37)
- Intellectual property (29)
- Intellectuele eigendom (425)
- Internet (24)
- Journalistiek (33)
- Kluwer Information Law Series (43)
- Kronieken (18)
- Media law (28)
- Mediarecht (378)
- Mensenrechten (18)
- Merkenrecht (21)
- Naburige rechten (20)
- Omroeprecht (28)
- Online platforms (19)
- Overheidsinformatie (53)
- Personal data (35)
- Persrecht (41)
- Platforms (24)
- Privacy (326)
- Regulering (20)
- Technologie en recht (75)
- Telecommunicatierecht (127)
- Text and Data Mining (TDM) (20)
- Transparency (19)
- Vrijheid van meningsuiting (198)
LAION Round 2: Machine-Readable but Still Not Actionable — The Lack of Progress on TDM Opt-Outs – Part 1 external link
Business-to-government datadelen via een derde. Onderzoek naar een generiek juridisch-technisch data governance raamwerk download
Abstract
Bedrijven bezitten gegevens die een (lokale) overheid kunnen helpen een meer accuraat en evidence-based beleid te vormen en uit te voeren. Bestaat er een werkwijze waarop een gemeente toegang kan verkrijgen tot gegevens die bedrijven bezitten, en kunnen gemeenten die vervolgens op verantwoorde wijze verwerken zonder de rechten, belangen en het vertrouwen van de betrokken bedrijven, consumenten en burgers te beperken of te schaden? Op dit moment vindt business-to-government gegevensdeling (‘B2G’) op beperkte schaal plaats, en voor zover het al gebeurt, geschiedt het veelal op ad hoc basis. Een dergelijke onsystematische toegang tot gegevens is problematisch omdat deze een meer georganiseerde en voorspelbare ondersteuning van accuraat, evidence-based beleid kan belemmeren. De EU-wetgever heeft wetgeving aangenomen (Data Act) om B2G een kader te bieden, maar dat biedt nog niet de gewenste duidelijkheid – noch voor gemeenten, noch voor bedrijven.
Bedrijven zijn terughoudend met het delen van gegevens, omdat met gegevens economische, technische, politieke en juridische risico’s gemoeid zijn. Deze en andere hindernissen zouden deels mogelijk kunnen worden overkomen door het delen van de gegevens te laten verlopen via een derde partij die erop gericht is de gegevensdeling tussen bedrijven en de gemeente op een juridisch correcte wijze en daarmee betrouwbare manier te (laten) delen. Deze derde, die we ‘data intermediary’ noemen mag, teneinde een dergelijke dienst aan bedrijven als de gemeente te kunnen bieden, deze gegevens alleen delen volgens een toegankelijk, transparant en handhaafbaar en specifiek op de situatie gericht juridisch data governance regime. De onlangs in werking getreden EU-Data Governanceverordening (‘DGA’) biedt data intermediaries enkele normen, maar nog geen sluitend data governance regime.
Omdat er geen sluitende regelgeving is voor een dergelijk data govenance regime voor B2G via een data intermediary (B2G3P) dat de rechten en belangen van alle belanghebbenden, met name van hen die hun gegevens beschikbaar stellen, op juridische wijze reguleert, onderzoek ik in deze paper of een generiek data governance raamwerk ontwikkeld kan worden, dat juridische, organisatorische en technische voorwaarden die aan een dergelijk raamwerk moeten worden gesteld, op adequate wijze waar kan maken. We concluderen voorlopig het volgende:
i. een geschikt generiek juridisch data governance raamwerk dient de juridische, organisatorische en technische (‘socio-technische’) aard van gegevensdeling tussen bedrijven, lokale overheden en de data intermediary op passende wijze te reguleren;
ii. dat de EU-wetgeving enkele grondlijnen maar geen sluitend kader voor een generiek juridisch data governance raamwerk biedt;
iii. dat bestaande wetgeving op coherente en consistente wijze moet worden toegepast maar dat dit rechtsonzekerheid met zich meebrengt voor lokale overheden; en
iv. dat bij het ontwikkelen van een generiek juridisch data governance raamwerk een effectieve mix van juridische, organisatorische en technische (‘socio-technische’) aspecten moet worden geadresseerd en dat daarvoor passende socio-technische mechanismen moeten worden ontworpen.
RIS
Bibtex
‘Must-carry’, special treatment and freedom of expression on online platforms: a European story external link
Abstract
This paper examines the evolution and implications of ‘must-carry’ obligations in the regulation of online platforms, with a focus on Europe. These obligations, which restrict platforms’ discretion to remove or deprioritise certain content, represent a novel regulatory response to the growing power of platforms in shaping public discourse. The analysis traces developments at EU and national levels. At the EU level, it considers rejected must-carry proposals during the drafting of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the adoption of Article 18 of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), which grants privileges to recognised media service providers. At the national level, it examines Germany’s prohibition on content discrimination, the UK’s Online Safety Act, and Poland’s abandoned legislative proposal on freedom of expression online. Case law from courts in the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, and Poland further illustrates the emergence of judicially crafted duties resembling must-carry obligations. The paper argues that these measures are best understood as special treatment rules that privilege particular speakers, notably media organisations and politicians, by limiting platform autonomy in content moderation. While intended to safeguard pluralism and access to trustworthy information, such rules risk creating a two-tier system of expression in which established voices receive disproportionate protection while ordinary users remain vulnerable. Protections for politicians raise concerns about shielding powerful actors from justified moderation, whereas media privileges, though more defensible, remain limited in scope and potentially counterproductive, especially when exploited by outlets disseminating disinformation. The conclusion is that compelled inclusion and preferential treatment are unlikely to offer sustainable solutions to the structural imbalances between platforms, media providers, and politicians. More durable approaches should focus on strengthening journalism through financial and structural support, fostering innovation and local media, and prioritising user empowerment measures. Only systemic safeguards of this kind can effectively promote pluralism, accountability, and resilience in the digital public sphere.
Digital Services Act (DSA), European Media Freedom Act, Freedom of expression, must carry, platform regulation
RIS
Bibtex
Author remuneration in the streaming age – exploitation rights and fair remuneration rules in the EU external link
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
Bibtex
Fundamental Rights in Out-of-Court Dispute Settlement under the Digital Services Act external link
Abstract
This paper argues that certified out-of-court dispute settlement (ODS) bodies under Article 21 of the Digital Services Act (DSA) should apply a structured fundamental rights review to platform content moderation, operationalised through the concept of case salience. Situating ODS within the DSA's broader regulatory architecture-particularly Articles 14(4), 17, and 20-the paper contends that Article 21 provides the procedural complement to Article 14(4)'s substantive duty to enforce terms of service "diligently, objectively and proportionately, with due regard to fundamental rights." Rather than extending the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR) horizontally in a direct sense, ODS bodies give effect to Charter-conforming statutory obligations owed by platforms, interpreted in light of Article 52(1) CFR. Drawing on jurisprudence from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and national courts, the paper shows how freedom of expression and information interacts with countervailing rights-such as the freedom to conduct a business, privacy and data protection, and human dignity-in the context of online moderation. It proposes an intensity-of-review model: a deeper, meritsbased proportionality analysis for high-impact cases (e.g. political speech, account suspensions, issues of systemic relevance), and a lighter, procedural-sufficiency check for routine disputes. The paper emphasises that ODS remains non-judicial and operates without prejudice to Article 47 CFR and the availability of national court remedies. Over time, reasoned ODS decisions could evolve into a body of soft law, enhancing consistency and transparency in platform accountability. Ultimately, ODS bodies under the DSA represent a novel experiment in multi-actor rights protection. Their success will depend on whether they can reconcile accessibility, efficiency, and rights-based rigour, ensuring that content moderation in Europe evolves in line with the constitutional values of the Charter.
Content moderation, Digital Services Act (DSA), Fundamental rights
RIS
Bibtex
Music streaming debates 2025 roundup: wrap-up for the streaming services as we know them? – Part 1 external link
Reconciling EU Copyright Protection With the Right to Research: Why We Need a General Research Exemption (Now!) external link
Trademark Law and Political Expression: The Case of IKEA v. Vlaams Belang and Beyond external link
Abstract
This article offers a comprehensive exploration of the evolving interface between trademark law and freedom of political expression in Europe, using the CJEU case IKEA v. Vlaams Belang as a focal but not exhaustive case study. It argues that the dispute exemplifies a much broader and increasingly urgent structural question: how EU trademark law – especially in its protection of reputed marks – can be reconciled with the constitutional commitments to political speech, artistic creativity, and democratic participation embedded in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Article 11 of the EU Charter. Against a backdrop of the expanding preliminary infringement criteria of “use in the course of trade” and “use in relation to goods or services”, as well as the uniquely far-reaching Benelux “super anti-dilution” regime, the article demonstrates that “due cause” has become the principal doctrinal locus for internalising freedom-of-expression concerns within trademark law. Drawing on Strasbourg jurisprudence, it develops a holistic framework for a free-speech-conforming interpretation of “due cause”, analysing both the criteria suggested by the Belgian referring court and additional factors central to the European Court of Human Rights’ proportionality review, including commerciality, the value of political speech and artistic expression, the reputation of the mark and the power of corporate symbols, availability of alternatives, tolerance for offensive expression, the limits imposed by hate speech, and the compelled speech doctrine. The article concludes that failing to interpret “due cause” in a speech-sensitive way would risk enabling trademark rights to override core democratic freedoms.
Freedom of expression, Political speech, Trademark law
RIS
Bibtex
Waiting for the DSA’s Big Enforcement Moment external link
Abstract
This blog post explores the issue of DSA enforcement by the European Commission, focusing on the law’s systemic risk management provisions. It first briefly sketches the Commission’s role in regulatory oversight of the systemic risk framework and then sums up enforcement efforts to date, considering also the role of geopolitics in the Commission’s enforcement calculus.
Digital Services Act (DSA)