Keyword: AI Act
De AI-Verordening, de Code of Practice en het auteursrecht download
Abstract
De AI-Verordening, ook wel AI Act geheten, heeft op het eerste gezicht weinig met het auteursrecht van doen. Van de talloze regels van de Verordening heeft er precies één direct betrekking op het auteursrecht. Art. 53 lid 1 (c) AI-Vo verplicht aanbieders van algemene AI-modellen een beleid op te stellen “ter naleving van het Unierecht inzake auteursrechten en naburige rechten”. Dit artikel bespreekt de inhoud en reikwijdte van deze verplichting en onderzoekt de mogelijke extraterritoriale werking ervan. Tevens wordt ingegaan op de GPAI Code of Practice, waarin het auteursrechtelijke voorschrift van de AI-Verordening geconcretiseerd wordt.
AI Act, Artificial intelligence, code of practice, Copyright
RIS
Bibtex
Judges-in-the-loop? Judicial involvement in human oversight of high-risk decision support systems under the EU AI Act
Abstract
The European Union (EU) Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) requires institutions that deploy high-risk AI systems to ensure that they are overseen by individuals with the necessary competence, training, authority, and support. Judicial institutions may look to judges who use the high-risk decision support systems they deploy to perform this oversight role. These judges are ‘in-the-loop’ in the sense that they review each output the system generates and decide whether to override, disregard, or defer to it. This article explores the implications of making judges-in-the-loop responsible for human oversight under the AI Act by assessing the unique professional responsibilities, skills, motivations, and biases they bring to the AI-supported decision-making process. It finds that the task of overseeing high-risk decision support systems is too big for judges-in-the-loop alone and proposes an alternative way of involving judges in human oversight that not only meets the AI Act’s requirements, but more reliably safeguards judicial values and fundamental rights.
Links
AI Act
RIS
Bibtex
The Obligations of Providers of General-Purpose AI Models external link
Abstract
During the legislative process, the EU Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act was amended to include provisions related to general-purpose AI (GPAI) models. These broadly relate to transparency towards downstream users and relevant regulators, in addition to obligations connected to intellectual property. In this paper, we provide detailed analysis of these new provisions in the context of current technological applications and emerging trajectories, connecting them to computing literature and practice, and the broader context of connected and adjacent legal regimes, in particular copyright and relevant emerging case law. We find that there are a significant number of inclarities, tensions and contradictions both within the text, between the text and other legal regimes, and between the text and guideline documents, such as the Code of Practice on General-Purpose AI and recent guidelines by the European Commission. We identify a range of issues with the scoping of the provisions which may undermine its policy goals and create loopholes for regulatory avoidance, such as those relating to non-commercial models, open-source models, and model finetuning along the value chain. We find that the Code of Practice contains significant omissions and misstatements, some of which may present a compliance risk for an entity choosing to rely on the Code. We do not consider the provisions on GPAI models which present a systemic risk, which are dealt with elsewhere in the volume which this work will form a part of.
Links
AI Act, code of practice, Copyright, Transparency
RIS
Bibtex
A Procedural Sedative: The GDPR’s Right to an Explanation download
Abstract
What remedies do you have when AI errs, when it discriminates, or harms you in some other way? How can we hold organizations accountable when they cause people harm during the development, distribution, or use of AI? Arguably, the first step is understanding how the system in question works. To this end, the right to an explanation, provided in EU
law under the GDPR and the AI Act, is one of the most important remedies individuals have to contest AI.
AI Act, Artificial intelligence, GDPR
RIS
Bibtex
Copyright, the AI Act and Extraterritoriality download
Abstract
The Lisbon Council launched Copyright, the AI Act and Extraterritoriality, a timely new policy brief authored by João Pedro Quintais, associate professor, Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam. As the European Commission is gearing up for a 2026 review of the directive on copyright in the digital single market and the code of practice for general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI), the publication offers a legally grounded overview of copyright issues across the AI lifecycle – from data training to outputs – and an analysis of how the European AI act interacts with copyright law.
Links
AI Act, Copyright, extraterritoriality
RIS
Bibtex
The Right to an Explanation in Practice: Insights from Case Law for the GDPR and the AI Act external link
Abstract
The right to an explanation under the GDPR has been much discussed in legal-doctrinal scholarship. This paper expands upon this academic discourse, by providing insights into what questions the application of the right to an explanation has raised in legal practice. By looking at cases brought before various judicial bodies and data protection authorities across the European Union, we discuss questions regarding the scope, content, and balancing exercise of the right to an explanation. We argue, moreover, that these questions also raise important interpretative issues regarding the right to an explanation under the AI Act. Similar to the GDPR, the AI Act's right to an explanation leaves many legal questions unanswered. Therefore, the insights from the already established case law under the GDPR, can help us to understand better how the AI Act's right to an explanation should be understood in practice.
Links
AI Act, case law, GDPR, Privacy
RIS
Bibtex
Generative AI, Copyright and the AI Act external link
Abstract
This paper provides a critical analysis of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act's implications for the European Union (EU) copyright acquis, aiming to clarify the complex relationship between AI regulation and copyright law while identifying areas of legal ambiguity and gaps that may influence future policymaking. The discussion begins with an overview of fundamental copyright concerns related to generative AI, focusing on issues that arise during the input, model, and output stages, and how these concerns intersect with the text and data mining (TDM) exceptions under the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (CDSMD).
The paper then explores the AI Act's structure and key definitions relevant to copyright law. The core analysis addresses the AI Act's impact on copyright, including the role of TDM in AI model training, the copyright obligations imposed by the Act, requirements for respecting copyright law—particularly TDM opt-outs—and the extraterritorial implications of these provisions. It also examines transparency obligations, compliance mechanisms, and the enforcement framework. The paper further critiques the current regime's inadequacies, particularly concerning the fair remuneration of creators, and evaluates potential improvements such as collective licensing and bargaining. It also assesses legislative reform proposals, such as statutory licensing and AI output levies, and concludes with reflections on future directions for integrating AI governance with copyright protection.
Links
AI Act, Content moderation, Copyright, Digital Services Act (DSA), Generative AI, Text and Data Mining (TDM), Transparency