Copyright and the Expression Engine: Idea and Expression in AI-Assisted Creations external link

Chicago-Kent Law Review, vol. 100, iss. : 1, pp: 251-264, 2025

Artificial intelligence, Copyright

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Deepfake Bills in Denmark and the Netherlands: Right idea, wrong legal framework external link

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2025

Copyright, deepfake

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie 6 maart 2025 (ONB e.a. / Belgische Staat) download

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, iss. : 22, num: 177, pp: 3521-3523, 2025

Abstract

Harmonisatie van de wetgevingen. Intellectuele eigendom. Auteursrecht en naburige rechten. Uitvoerende kunstenaars die onder een administratiefrechtelijk statuut zijn aangeworven. Overdracht van naburige rechten bij regelgeving. Reproductierecht en recht van beschikbaarstelling voor het publiek. Vastleggingsrecht, recht tot uitzending en mededeling aan het publiek en distributierecht. Billijke vergoeding in exploitatiecontracten. Toepassing in de tijd. Begrippen ‘handelingen die verricht zijn’ en ‘rechten die verkregen zijn’.

Copyright

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Towards a European Research Freedom Act: A Reform Agenda for Research Exceptions in the EU Copyright Acquis external link

IIC, vol. 56, iss. : 7, pp: 1329–1358, 2025

Abstract

This article explores the impact of EU copyright law on the use of protected knowledge resources in scientific research contexts. Surveying the current copyright/research interface, it becomes apparent that the existing legal framework fails to offer adequate balancing tools for the reconciliation of divergent interests of copyright holders and researchers. The analysis identifies structural deficiencies, such as fragmented and overly restrictive research exceptions, opaque lawful access provisions, outdated non-commercial use requirements, legal uncertainty arising from the three-step test in the EU copyright acquis, obstacles posed by the protection of paywalls and other technological measures, and exposure to contracts that override statutory research freedoms. Empirical data confirm that access barriers, use restrictions and the absence of harmonised rules for transnational research collaborations impede the work of researchers. Against this background, we advance proposals for legislative reform, in particular the introduction of a mandatory, open-ended research exemption that offers reliable breathing space for scientific research across EU Member States, the clarification of lawful access criteria, a more flexible approach to public-private partnerships, and additional rules that support modern research methods, such as text and data mining.

Copyright, open science, research exceptions, right to research, technological protection measures, Text and Data Mining (TDM), three-step test

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Copyright as a Freedom of (Artistic) Expression Right? The Dangers and Human Rights Law Misconceptions in the AG’s Opinion in Pelham II external link

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2025

Copyright, Freedom of expression, Human rights

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

A mid-year review of AI and copyright posts external link

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2025

Copyright

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Copyright, the AI Act and Extraterritoriality download

The Lisbon Council, 2025

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.

AI Act, Copyright, extraterritoriality

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 8 november 2024 (Anne Frank Fonds / Anne Frank Stichting) download

Auteursrecht, iss. : 2, pp: 105-107, 2025

Abstract

Publicatie van wetenschappelijke editie van dagboek van Anne Frank op website met geoblocking-maatregelen voor Nederland. HR stelt prejudiciële vragen aan Hof van Justitie EU. Brengt mogelijkheid om geoblocking door gebruik van VPN- of soortgelijke dienst te omzeilen mee dat sprake is van mededeling aan het publiek in Nederland?

Copyright, Geoblocking

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 24 oktober 2024 (Kwantum / Vitra) download

Auteursrecht, iss. : 2, pp: 95-97, 2025

Abstract

Auteursrechtelijke bescherming van voorwerpen van toegepaste kunst die in het land van oorsprong niet beschermd zijn door het auteursrecht. De materiële-reciprociteitstoets van art. 2(7) Berner Conventie mag door de Nederlandse rechter niet toegepast omdat het Unierecht en in het bijzonder de Auteursrechtrichtlijn 2001/29/EG niet voorziet in een beperking van de bescherming van werken van toegepaste kunst uit landen buiten de EU.

Copyright

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

The Harmonized Law of Streaming in the Eu – A Copyright and Related Rights Perspective download

Copyright Law and Streaming: A Comparative Law Analysis of Lawful and Unlawful Streaming Services, Brill/Nijhoff, 2025, pp: 95-134

Abstract

EU law does not contain a distinct set of rules seeking to regulate various types of streaming services. Instead, the harmonized rules governing streaming services follow from individual pieces of EU legislation – ranging from rules on online broadcasting to a specific liability regime for platforms allowing users to upload and share content – and decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’). The following analysis, first, provides an overview of the exclusive rights that must be taken into account in streaming scenarios. This discussion also addresses the exemption of temporary acts of copying that may cover the reception of streaming content by users (section 2). Rights clearance questions occupy centre stage in sections 3 (general services, such as Netflix) and 4 (platforms for user-generated content (‘UGC’), such as YouTube). Section 5 raises the issue of content filtering obligations in the specific legal regime for on-demand streaming of content uploaded by users. Section 6 takes a closer look at copyright limitations that may become relevant in streaming cases, including private copying rules and the exemption of quotations, parodies and pastiches. Section 7 explains the remarkable extension of the concept of ‘communication to the public’ to the provision of streaming equipment for illegal content and infrastructures for illegal file-sharing. It also examines the legal framework for website blocking. In section 8, the results of the analysis will be summarized.

Copyright

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib