S. Vrijenhoek, Author at IVIR

What Member States can learn from the AG opinion on Article 17

Keller, P., Reda, J.

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.

Data na de dood - juridische aspecten van digitale nalatenschappen

Ausloos, J., Loos, M., Mak, C., Pol, L., Reinhartz, B., Schumacher, L.D., van Eechoud, M.

2021, (Onderzoek in opdracht van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, April 2021, Bijlage bij Kamerstuk 2020-2021, 30696 nr. 52).

Panta Rhei: A European Perspective on Ensuring a High Level of Protection of Human Rights in a World in Which Everything Flows

Burri, M (Ed.): Big Data and Global Trade Law, Chapter 11, Cambridge University Press, 2021.

Voorbij privacy: manipulatie is het échte probleem in gezondheidsapps

Sax, M.

Privacy & Informatie, (3), pp. 117-120, 2021.

Hugenholtz, P., Quintais, J.

Auteursrecht en artificiële creatie

Auteursrecht, (2), pp. 47-52, 2021.

Three Cheers for the DSM Directive’s Rules on Author’s Contracts – and a Cautionary Note from the Netherlands

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.

Fahy, R., van Hoboken, J.

Smartphone platforms as privacy regulators

Computer Law & Security Review, 41 , 2021.

News media’s dependency on big tech: should we be worried?

Seipp, T.

Internet Policy Review, 2021, (Opinion).

Commission’s Guidance on Art. 17 CDSM Directive: the authorisation dimension

Kluwer Copyright Blog 2021.

Commission’s Guidance on Art. 17 CDSM Directive: the authorisation dimension

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 11 juni 2020 (Brompton Bicycle / Chedech/Get2Get

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (22), pp. 3136-3138, 2021.

European Commission back-tracks on user rights in Article 17 Guidance

Keller, P., Reda, J.

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.

Annotatie Hof van Justitie EU 19 december 2019 (Airbnb Ireland / Hotelière Turenne)

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, 2021 (20/21), pp. 2799-2802, 2021.

Fahy, R., van Hoboken, J.

Regulating Disinformation in Europe: Implications for Speech and Privacy

UC Irvine Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law, 6 (1), pp. 9-36, 2021.

Book review: European Libraries and the Internet: Copyright and Extended Collective Licences, by Ran Tryggvadottir.

Common Market Law Review, 58 (3), pp. 961 – 964, 2021.

Article 12 DSA: Will platforms be required to apply EU fundamental rights in content moderation decisions?

Appelman, N., Fahy, R., Quintais, J.

DSA Observatory 2021.

'Staan op de schouders van reuzen'. Waarheidsgetrouw citeren als maatschappelijke verantwoordelijkheid van de wetenschapper

pp. 59-69, 2021, (Hoofdstuk in 'Plagiaat in onderzoek en onderwijs', red. J. Soeharno & K. Algra, VSNU: Den Haag 2021.).

Platform ad archives in Article 30 DSA

Leerssen, P.

DSA Observatory blog, 2021.

The commodification of trust

Bodó, B.

Blockchain & Society Policy Research Lab Research Nodes, (1), 2021.

@article{Bod\'{o}2021,
title = {The commodification of trust},
author = {Bod\'{o}, B.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3843707},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-05-17},
journal = {Blockchain & Society Policy Research Lab Research Nodes},
number = {1},
abstract = {Fundamental, wide-ranging, and highly consequential transformations take place in interpersonal, and systemic trust relations due to the rapid adoption of complex, planetary-scale digital technological innovations. Trust is remediated by planetary scale techno-social systems, which leads to the privatization of trust production in society, and the ultimate commodification of trust itself.
Modern societies rely on communal, public and private logics of trust production. Communal logics produce trust by the group for the group, and are based on familiar, ethnic, religious or tribal relations, professional associations epistemic or value communities, groups with shared location or shared past. Public trust logics developed in the context of the modern state, and produce trust as a free public service. Abstract, institutionalized frameworks, institutions, such as the press, or public education, science, various arms of the bureaucratic state create familiarity, control, and insurance in social, political, and economic relations. Finally, private trust producers sell confidence as a product: lawyers, accountants, credit rating agencies, insurers, but also commercial brands offer trust for a fee.
With the emergence of the internet and digitization, a new class of private trust producers emerged. Online reputation management services, distributed ledgers, and AI-based predictive systems are widely adopted technological infrastructures, which are designed to facilitate trust-necessitating social, economic interactions by controlling the past, the present and the future, respectively. These systems enjoy immense economic success, and they are adopted en masse by individuals and institutional actors alike.
The emergence of the private, technical means of trust production paves the way towards the widescale commodification of trust, where trust is produced as a commercial activity, conducted by private parties, for economic gain, often far removed from the loci where trust-necessitating social interactions take place. The remediation and consequent privatization and commodification of trust production has a number of potentially adverse social effects: it may decontextualize trust relationships; it removes trust from the local social, cultural relational contexts; it changes the calculus of interpersonal trust relations. Maybe more importantly as more and more social and economic relations are conditional upon having access to, and good standing in private trust infrastructures, commodification turns trust into the question of continuous labor, or devastating exclusion. By invoking Karl Polanyi’s work on fictious commodities, I argue that the privatization, and commodification of trust may have a catastrophic impact on the most fundamental layers of the social fabric.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

Fundamental, wide-ranging, and highly consequential transformations take place in interpersonal, and systemic trust relations due to the rapid adoption of complex, planetary-scale digital technological innovations. Trust is remediated by planetary scale techno-social systems, which leads to the privatization of trust production in society, and the ultimate commodification of trust itself.
Modern societies rely on communal, public and private logics of trust production. Communal logics produce trust by the group for the group, and are based on familiar, ethnic, religious or tribal relations, professional associations epistemic or value communities, groups with shared location or shared past. Public trust logics developed in the context of the modern state, and produce trust as a free public service. Abstract, institutionalized frameworks, institutions, such as the press, or public education, science, various arms of the bureaucratic state create familiarity, control, and insurance in social, political, and economic relations. Finally, private trust producers sell confidence as a product: lawyers, accountants, credit rating agencies, insurers, but also commercial brands offer trust for a fee.
With the emergence of the internet and digitization, a new class of private trust producers emerged. Online reputation management services, distributed ledgers, and AI-based predictive systems are widely adopted technological infrastructures, which are designed to facilitate trust-necessitating social, economic interactions by controlling the past, the present and the future, respectively. These systems enjoy immense economic success, and they are adopted en masse by individuals and institutional actors alike.
The emergence of the private, technical means of trust production paves the way towards the widescale commodification of trust, where trust is produced as a commercial activity, conducted by private parties, for economic gain, often far removed from the loci where trust-necessitating social interactions take place. The remediation and consequent privatization and commodification of trust production has a number of potentially adverse social effects: it may decontextualize trust relationships; it removes trust from the local social, cultural relational contexts; it changes the calculus of interpersonal trust relations. Maybe more importantly as more and more social and economic relations are conditional upon having access to, and good standing in private trust infrastructures, commodification turns trust into the question of continuous labor, or devastating exclusion. By invoking Karl Polanyi’s work on fictious commodities, I argue that the privatization, and commodification of trust may have a catastrophic impact on the most fundamental layers of the social fabric.

Why a COVID IP Waiver Is not a Good Strategy

Bostyn, S.

2021.

@article{Bostyn2021,
title = {Why a COVID IP Waiver Is not a Good Strategy},
author = {Bostyn, S.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3843327},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-05-17},
abstract = {The COVID-19 pandemic has a profound influence on all aspects of society. The development of successful vaccines in record speed is almost a miracle. But despite the successful development and approval of multiple vaccines, many people still die of this terrible disease, and there is an urgent need to see more vaccines manufactured and distributed across the globe.
The proposed COVID-19 IP waiver has been touted by some to be the perfect solution to a terrible problem. We all agree that there is a terrible problem of insufficient vaccines to inoculate the world population.
An IP waiver is not a good strategy however, to tackle this crisis. There are multiple more effective solution conceivable which do not require a very disruptive IP waiver.
The problem of insufficient supply is much more complicated than a simple IP waiver suggests. This is a complex ecosystem, and there are many moving parts. Moreover, IP rights are only part of the problem relating to more supply of vaccine or therapeutics. In view of the complexities, it will probably take many months to negotiate any kind of IP waiver system that would be acceptable to all WTO member states, if consensus could be reached at all. And the end result is likely to satisfy very few if any countries.
The legality of an IP waiver can be doubted, and it would require retro-active effect, a concept that should be extremely sparingly used.
A multitude of complex issues needs to be sorted out. There are hundreds of patents to navigate. A waiver to the equally patented vaccine platform technology (covering many patents), which may be used to develop any other vaccine, will make those companies who have invested heavily into developing it very nervous indeed, to say the least.
Crucial manufacturing know-how is often not protected by IP rights, but is kept secret, and it will be difficult to force companies to disclose that information, also because one does not know what to ask for.
The present IP waiver proposal also provides for a disclosure of commercially very sensitive information. Companies did not have a chance to adapt their regulatory disclosure strategies to this new reality, which means that information which will be disclosed under the waiver could very well have a major negative impact on future innovation strategies, and may also hamper competitive advantage or leverage.
Market exclusivity is arguably not covered by the IP waiver, which means that separate national statutory intervention will be required to ensure that this market exclusivity is set aside, absent of which the IP waiver cannot have any practical effect.
A quick and determined use of compulsory licensing could be a better way forward, as they have the potential to be a powerful tool. There are inefficiencies in using the instrument however, and invoking them when the need is high will require a relatively long lead time before they sort practical effect. They also require additional statutory intervention to ensure that regulatory exclusivities do not block their practical effect. And they might not necessarily work as well with low and middle-income countries, who would have less leverage in the negotiations.
More efficient solutions can be arrived at by introducing hard clauses into contracts in the context of push and pull mechanisms. Those obligations are much more likely to result in more supply in the shorter to medium term if they are agreed upon long before the vaccine enters the market. It is obviously too late for the contracts that have been concluded in the past, but it should be a template for the future.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

The COVID-19 pandemic has a profound influence on all aspects of society. The development of successful vaccines in record speed is almost a miracle. But despite the successful development and approval of multiple vaccines, many people still die of this terrible disease, and there is an urgent need to see more vaccines manufactured and distributed across the globe.
The proposed COVID-19 IP waiver has been touted by some to be the perfect solution to a terrible problem. We all agree that there is a terrible problem of insufficient vaccines to inoculate the world population.
An IP waiver is not a good strategy however, to tackle this crisis. There are multiple more effective solution conceivable which do not require a very disruptive IP waiver.
The problem of insufficient supply is much more complicated than a simple IP waiver suggests. This is a complex ecosystem, and there are many moving parts. Moreover, IP rights are only part of the problem relating to more supply of vaccine or therapeutics. In view of the complexities, it will probably take many months to negotiate any kind of IP waiver system that would be acceptable to all WTO member states, if consensus could be reached at all. And the end result is likely to satisfy very few if any countries.
The legality of an IP waiver can be doubted, and it would require retro-active effect, a concept that should be extremely sparingly used.
A multitude of complex issues needs to be sorted out. There are hundreds of patents to navigate. A waiver to the equally patented vaccine platform technology (covering many patents), which may be used to develop any other vaccine, will make those companies who have invested heavily into developing it very nervous indeed, to say the least.
Crucial manufacturing know-how is often not protected by IP rights, but is kept secret, and it will be difficult to force companies to disclose that information, also because one does not know what to ask for.
The present IP waiver proposal also provides for a disclosure of commercially very sensitive information. Companies did not have a chance to adapt their regulatory disclosure strategies to this new reality, which means that information which will be disclosed under the waiver could very well have a major negative impact on future innovation strategies, and may also hamper competitive advantage or leverage.
Market exclusivity is arguably not covered by the IP waiver, which means that separate national statutory intervention will be required to ensure that this market exclusivity is set aside, absent of which the IP waiver cannot have any practical effect.
A quick and determined use of compulsory licensing could be a better way forward, as they have the potential to be a powerful tool. There are inefficiencies in using the instrument however, and invoking them when the need is high will require a relatively long lead time before they sort practical effect. They also require additional statutory intervention to ensure that regulatory exclusivities do not block their practical effect. And they might not necessarily work as well with low and middle-income countries, who would have less leverage in the negotiations.
More efficient solutions can be arrived at by introducing hard clauses into contracts in the context of push and pull mechanisms. Those obligations are much more likely to result in more supply in the shorter to medium term if they are agreed upon long before the vaccine enters the market. It is obviously too late for the contracts that have been concluded in the past, but it should be a template for the future.

International Law Association’s Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Private International Law (“Kyoto Guidelines”): Applicable Law

Ancel, M-E., Binctin, N., Drexl, J., Ginsburg, J.C., Kono, T., Lee, G., Matulionyte, R., Moura Vicente, D., Treppoz, E., van Eechoud, M.

JIPITEC, 12 (1), pp. 44-73, 2021.

Annex Guidelines on Intellectual Property and Private International Law (“Kyoto Guidelines”)

as part of ILA Committee:, van Eechoud, M.

JIPITEC, 12 (1), pp. 86-93, 2021.

The Interplay between the Digital Services Act and Sector Regulation: How Special is Copyright?

Quintais, J., Schwemer, S.

Working Paper, 2021.

@article{Quintais2021e,
title = {The Interplay between the Digital Services Act and Sector Regulation: How Special is Copyright?},
author = {Quintais, J. and Schwemer, S. },
url = {https://privpapers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3841606},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-05-10},
journal = {Working Paper},
abstract = {On 15 December 2020, the European Commission published its proposal for a Regulation on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act). It carries out a regulatory overhaul of the 21-year- old horizontal rules on intermediary liability in the Directive and introduces new due diligence obligations for intermediary services.

Our analysis illuminates an important point that has so far received little attention: how would the Digital Services Act’s rules interact with existing sector-specific lex specialis rules? In this paper, we look specifically at the intersection of the Digital Services Act with the regime for online content sharing service providers (OCSSPs) set forth in art. 17 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive). At first glance, these regimes do not appear to overlap as the rules on copyright are lex specialis to the Digital Services Act. A closer look shows a more complex and nuanced picture. Our analysis concludes that the DSA will apply to OCSSPs insofar as it contains rules that regulate matters not covered by art. 17 CDSM Directive, as well as specific rules on matters where art. 17 leaves margin of discretion to Member States. This includes, to varying degrees, rules in the DSA relating to the liability of intermediary providers and to due diligence obligations for online platforms of different sizes. Importantly, we consider that such rules apply even where art. 17 CDSM Directive contains specific (but less precise) regulation on the matter.

From a normative perspective, this might be a desirable outcome, to the extent that the DSA aims to establish “uniform rules for a safe, predictable and trusted online environment, where fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter are effectively protected”. Based on our analysis, we suggest a number of clarifications that might be help achieve that goal. },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

Freedom of expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the Euopean Court of Human Rights

McGonagle, T., Voorhoof, D.

2021, ISBN: 9789287184351, (IRIS Themes, vol. III, 6th edition, April 2021).

Persvrijheidsmonitor 2020

McGonagle, T., Volgenant, O.

2021.

Too Small to Matter? On the Copyright Directive’s bias in favour of big right-holders

Husovec, M., Quintais, J.

Mylly, Tuomas; Griffiths, Jonathan (Ed.): Oxford University Press, 2021.

@inbook{HusovecQuintais2021-2,
title = {Too Small to Matter? On the Copyright Directive’s bias in favour of big right-holders},
author = {Husovec, M. and Quintais, J.},
editor = {Tuomas Mylly and Jonathan Griffiths},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3835930},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-04-29},
publisher = {Oxford University Press},
abstract = {Copyright law is about recognising the author’s material and non-material interests and setting the incentives for creativity right. The legislative changes in this area increasingly look as if simple linearity governs the world: what we take away from some, we automatically give away in equal part to others. The idea of redistribution is noticeable in recent legislative developments. Art. 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (DSM Directive) is the latest policy intervention to prove this point. According to its logic, imposing stricter liability on some online gatekeepers will automatically improve the position and revenues for all right-holders. This chapter explores the flaws in such an approach by highlighting how the excessive focus of Art. 17 on big right-holders neglects and harms smaller creators.

EU copyright law often uses a technical term of ‘right-holders’ to refer to a wide range of players with legal entitlements in the copyright ecosystem: authors, performers, phonogram producers, film producers, broadcasting organisations and (most recently) press publishers. Obviously, not all right-holders are created equal nor do their legal entitlements flow from identical normative justifications. We argue in this chapter that even the use of this seemingly neutral term can, due to the design of underlying legal solutions, lead to stark inequality between right-holders. Our broader goal is to demonstrate that maximising enforcement by means of Art. 17 of the DSM Directive does not simply maximise the position of every right-holder at the expense of platforms but does so disproportionality for big right-holders. Besides, we show that blind use of ‘right-holder’ and ‘user’ distinction harms the very creators that provision is supposed to protect. },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}

‘Non, non, rien n’a changé’: Over vergoedingsaanspraken voor makers uit hoofde van exploitatiecontracten

Auteursrecht, 2021 (1), pp. 3-9, 2021.

Annotatie bij Rb Amsterdam 10 september 2020 (Left Lane c.s. / Sony Music)

Auteursrecht, (1), pp. 40-42, 2021.

It’s 23 April 2021, so where is the Advocate General opinion in Case C-401/19 Poland v Parliament and Council?

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.

The Rise of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and the Role of Copyright Law – Part II

Bodó, B., Giannopoulou, A., Mezei, P., Quintais, J.

Kluwer Copyright Blog 2021.

The Rise of Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and the Role of Copyright Law – Part I

Bodó, B., Giannopoulou, A., Mezei, P., Quintais, J.

Kluwer Copyright Blog 2021.

A Serpent Eating Its Tail: The Database Directive Meets the Open Data Directive

van Eechoud, M.

IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , 52 (4), pp. 375-378, 2021, (Editorial).

EU copyright law round up – first trimester of 2021

Quintais, J., Trapova, A.

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.

Toward a Critique of Algorithmic Violence

Bellanova, R., Irion, K., Lindskov Jacobsen, K., Ragazzi, F., Saugmann, R., Suchman, L.

International Political Sociology, 15 (1), pp. 121–150, 2021.

Nieuws in de platformeconomie

van Eechoud, M.

De Hofvijver, 11 (118), 2021.

Ensuring the Visibility and Accessibility of European Creative Content on the World Market: The Need for Copyright Data Improvement in the Light of New Technologies

Antal, D., Bodó, B., Handke, C.W., Kretschmer, M., Margoni, T., Poort, J., Quintais, J., Schwemer, S., Senftleben, M., van Gompel, S.

2021.

Formal meeting (oral evidence session): Digital trade and data

2021.

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 16 juli 2020 (Data Protection Commissioner / Facebook Ireland & Schrems)(Schrems II)

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, 2021 (5/6), pp. 455-458, 2021.

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 1 oktober 2019 (nr. 17/01305)

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, 2021 (5/6), pp. 550-551, 2021.

Annotatie bij EHRM 8 oktober 2019 (Szurovecz / Hongarije)

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, 2021 (4), pp. 230-231, 2021.

Evaluatie 2020: Wet op de Inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten 2017

Bot, Th. P.L., Dommering, E., van den Herik, L.J., Jacobs, B.P.F., Jones-Bos, R.V.M., Nagtegaal, W., Zijlstra, S.E. (Evaluatiecommissie Wiv 2017)

2021, (Den Haag: Ministeries BDZK en Defensie, 2021, 180 pp.).

Annotatie bij EHRM 30 januari 2020 (Breyer/ Duitsland)

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (51/52), pp. 7926-7929, 2021.

EU Consumer Protection 2.0: Structural Asymmetries in Digital Consumer Markets

Natali Helberger, Orla Lynskey, Hans-W. Micklitz, Peter Rott, Marijn Sax,, Joanna Strycharz

2021.

Front-running legislatures can foster AI that empowers users of digital technologies

(ed.), Nadia El-Imam (Ed.): pp. 114-15, 2021.

Poort, J., Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.

Personalised pricing: The demise of the fixed price?

2021, (Forthcoming as chapter 10 in: Kohl, U., & Eisler, J. (eds.), Data-Driven Personalisation in Markets, Politics and Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.).

Getting under your skin(s): A legal-ethical exploration of Fortnite’s transformation into a content delivery platform and its manipulative potential

Ausloos, J., Sax, M.

Interactive Entertainment Law Review, 4 (1), 2021.

@article{SaxAusloos2021,
title = {Getting under your skin(s): A legal-ethical exploration of Fortnite’s transformation into a content delivery platform and its manipulative potential},
author = {Sax, M. and Ausloos, J.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3764489},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-03-01},
journal = {Interactive Entertainment Law Review},
volume = {4},
number = {1},
abstract = {This paper investigates the ethical and legal implications of increasingly manipulative practices in the gaming industry by looking at one of the currently most popular and profitable video games in the world. Fortnite has morphed from an online game into a quasi-social network and an important cultural reference point in the lifeworld of many (young) people. The game is also emblematic of the freemium business model, with strong incentives to design the game in a manner which maximises microtransactions. This article suggests that to properly understand Fortnite’s practices \textendash which we predict will become more widely adopted in the video game industry in the near future \textendash we need an additional perspective. Fortnite is not only designed for hyper-engagement; its search for continued growth and sustained relevance is driving its transformation from being a mere video game into a content delivery platform. This means that third parties can offer non game-related services to players within Fortnite’s immersive game experience. In this paper, we draw on an ethical theory of manipulation (which defines manipulation as an ethically problematic influence on a person’s behaviour) to explore whether the gaming experience offered by Fortnite harbours manipulative potential. To legally address the manipulative potential of commercial video game practices such as the ones found in Fortnite, we turn to European data protection and consumer protection law. More specifically, we explore how the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation and Unfair Commercial Practices Directive can provide regulators with tools to address Fortnite’s manipulative potential and to make Fortnite (more) forthright.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

Regulation of news recommenders in the Digital Services Act: empowering David against the Very Large Online Goliath

Drunen, M. van, Helberger, N., Möller, J., Vrijenhoek, S.

Internet Policy Review, 2021, (Opinion).

How to License Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms under the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive

Husovec, M., Quintais, J.

GRUR International - Journal of European and International IP Law, 70 (4), pp. 325-348, 2021.

The Pelham Chronicles: Sampling, Copyright and Fundamental Rights

Jütte, B.J., Quintais, J.

Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 16 (3), pp. 213-225, 2021.

@article{QuintaisJutte2021,
title = {The Pelham Chronicles: Sampling, Copyright and Fundamental Rights},
author = {Quintais, J. and Jutte, B.J.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3775599},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpab040},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-02-18},
journal = {Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice},
volume = {16},
number = {3},
pages = {213-225},
abstract = {On 29 July 2019 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) rendered its long-awaited judgment in Pelham. This judgement was published together, but not jointly, with those on Spiegel Online and Funke Medien. A bit less than a year later, on 30 April 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof or BGH), which had referred the cases to Luxembourg, rendered its judgments in all three cases. There are obvious parallels between these judgments, and their combined relevance for the interpretation of European copyright law in the light of EU fundamental rights cannot be understated.

This article focuses on Pelham, or the “Metall auf Metall” saga, as it is known in Germany. It analyses the relevant aspects and impact of Pelham in EU copyright law and examines how the BGH implemented the guidance provided by the CJEU. Where relevant, we draw the parallels to Funke Medien and Spiegel Online. Pelham gave the Court the opportunity to define the scope of the related right of reproduction of phonogram producers in art. 2(c) of Directive 2001/29/EC (InfoSoc Directive). The question whether such right enjoys the same scope of protection as the reproduction right for authorial works had made its way through the German courts for a remarkable two decades. This saga included a constitutional complaint, which in 2016 answered the question in the affirmative. The BGH’s preliminary reference to the CJEU was particularly important because on the back of the reproduction question it sought to clarify issues with fundamental rights implications, in particular the scope of the quotation right or defence and its application to musical creativity in the form of sampling.

This article proceeds as follows. After this introduction, we briefly revisit the Pelham saga in its journey through the German and European courts, providing he context to the underlying legal issues (2). We then turn to the interpretation of the scope of the reproduction and distribution rights for phonograms (3) before examining the CJEU’s assessment of the systematic nature of exceptions and limitations (E&Ls) (4). We then discuss the wider implications of Pelham on the role of fundamental right in copyright law (5). We conclude with some doctrinal and practical observations on the wider implications of the “Metall auf Metall”-saga (6). },
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

On 29 July 2019 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) rendered its long-awaited judgment in Pelham. This judgement was published together, but not jointly, with those on Spiegel Online and Funke Medien. A bit less than a year later, on 30 April 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof or BGH), which had referred the cases to Luxembourg, rendered its judgments in all three cases. There are obvious parallels between these judgments, and their combined relevance for the interpretation of European copyright law in the light of EU fundamental rights cannot be understated.

This article focuses on Pelham, or the “Metall auf Metall” saga, as it is known in Germany. It analyses the relevant aspects and impact of Pelham in EU copyright law and examines how the BGH implemented the guidance provided by the CJEU. Where relevant, we draw the parallels to Funke Medien and Spiegel Online. Pelham gave the Court the opportunity to define the scope of the related right of reproduction of phonogram producers in art. 2(c) of Directive 2001/29/EC (InfoSoc Directive). The question whether such right enjoys the same scope of protection as the reproduction right for authorial works had made its way through the German courts for a remarkable two decades. This saga included a constitutional complaint, which in 2016 answered the question in the affirmative. The BGH’s preliminary reference to the CJEU was particularly important because on the back of the reproduction question it sought to clarify issues with fundamental rights implications, in particular the scope of the quotation right or defence and its application to musical creativity in the form of sampling.

This article proceeds as follows. After this introduction, we briefly revisit the Pelham saga in its journey through the German and European courts, providing he context to the underlying legal issues (2). We then turn to the interpretation of the scope of the reproduction and distribution rights for phonograms (3) before examining the CJEU’s assessment of the systematic nature of exceptions and limitations (E&Ls) (4). We then discuss the wider implications of Pelham on the role of fundamental right in copyright law (5). We conclude with some doctrinal and practical observations on the wider implications of the “Metall auf Metall”-saga (6).

Opinion: International Instrument on Permitted Uses in Copyright Law

Correa, C., Dusollier, S., Geiger, C., Griffiths, J., Grosse Ruse-Khan, H., Hilty, R.M., Köklü, K., Kur, A., Lin, X., Markiewics, R., Moscon, V., Nérisson, s., Peukert, A., Senftleben, M., Xalabarder, R.

IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , 52 , pp. 62-67, 2021.

Article 17: (Mis)understanding the intent of the legislator

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.

Trends And Developments In Artificial Intelligence: Challenges To Patent Law

Gervais, D.J., P.B. Hugenholtz, Quintais, J.

Kluwer Patent Blog 2021.

AI Regulation in the European Union and Trade Law: How can accountability of AI and a high level of consumer protection prevail over a trade law discipline on source code?, study commissioned by the Vzbv, Amsterdam: Institute for Information Law, 2021

2021.

Divergence instead of guidance: the Article 17 implementation discussion in 2020 – Part 2

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.

Divergence instead of guidance: the Article 17 implementation discussion in 2020 – Part 1

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.

Decentralised Data Processing: Personal Data Stores and the GDPR

Cobbe, J., Janssen, H., Norval, C., Singh, J.

International Data Privacy Law, 10 (4), pp. 356-384, 2021.

@article{Janssen2021,
title = {Decentralised Data Processing: Personal Data Stores and the GDPR},
author = {Janssen, H. and Cobbe, J. and Norval, C. and Singh, J.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3570895
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IDPL-2021-4.pdf},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipaa016},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-01-04},
journal = {International Data Privacy Law},
volume = {10},
number = {4},
pages = {356-384},
abstract = {When it comes to online services, users have limited control over how their personal data is processed. This is partly due to the nature of the business models of those services, where data is typically stored and aggregated in data centres. This has recently led to the development of technologies aiming at leveraging user control over the processing of their personal data.
Personal Data Stores (“PDSs”) represent a class of these technologies; PDSs provide users with a device, enabling them to capture, aggregate and manage their personal data. The device provides tools for users to control and monitor access, sharing and computation over data on their device. The motivation for PDSs are described as (i) to assist users with their confidentiality and privacy concerns, and/or (ii) to provide opportunities for users to transact with or otherwise monetise their data.
While PDSs potentially might enable some degree of user empowerment, they raise interesting considerations and uncertainties in relation to the responsibilities under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). More specifically, the designations of responsibilities among key parties involved in PDS ecosystems are unclear. Further, the technical architecture of PDSs appears to restrict certain lawful grounds for processing, while technical means to identify certain category data, as proposed by some, may remain theoretical.
We explore the considerations, uncertainties, and limitations of PDSs with respect to some key obligations under the GDPR. As PDS technologies continue to develop and proliferate, potentially providing an alternative to centralised approaches to data processing, we identify issues which require consideration by regulators, PDS platform providers and technologists.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

Optimization of what? For-profit health apps as manipulative digital environments

Cobbe, J., Janssen, H., Singh, J.

Personal Data Stores: a user-centric privacy utopia?

Internet Policy Review, Forthcoming.

BibTeX

Sax, M.

Ethics and Information Technology, 2021, (Preprint available here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3752597).

@article{Sax2021,
title = {Optimization of what? For-profit health apps as manipulative digital environments},
author = {Sax, M.},
url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-020-09576-6},
doi = {10.1007/s10676-020-09576-6},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-01-03},
journal = {Ethics and Information Technology},
abstract = {Mobile health applications (‘health apps’) that promise the user to help her with some aspect of her health are very popular: for-profit apps such as MyFitnessPal, Fitbit, or Headspace have tens of millions of users each. For-profit health apps are designed and run as optimization systems. One would expect that these health apps aim to optimize the health of the user, but in reality they aim to optimize user engagement and, in effect, conversion. This is problematic, I argue, because digital health environments that aim to optimize user engagement risk being manipulative. To develop this argument, I first provide a brief analysis of the underlying business models and the resulting designs of the digital environments provided by popular for-profit health apps. In a second step, I present a concept of manipulation that can help analyze digital environments such as health apps. In the last part of the article, I use my concept of manipulation to analyze the manipulative potential of for-profit health apps. Although for-profit health can certainly empower their users, the conditions for empowerment also largely overlap with the conditions for manipulation. As a result, we should be cautious when embracing the empowerment discourse surrounding health apps. An additional aim of this article is to contribute to the rapidly growing literature on digital choice architectures and the ethics of influencing behavior through such choice architectures. I take health apps to be a paradigmatic example of digital choice architectures that give rise to ethical questions, so my analysis of the manipulative potential of health apps can also inform the larger literature on digital choice architectures.},
note = {Preprint available here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3752597},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

Finnish Article 17 implementation proposal prohibits the use of automated upload filters

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020.

Crosshatching Privacy: Financial Intermediaries’ Data Practices Between Law Enforcement and Data Economy

Ferrari, V.

European Data Protection Law Review, 6 (4), pp. 522-535, 2020.

Artikel 18-23 DSM-richtlijn: Exploitatiecontracten

AMI, 2020 (6), pp. 187-192, 2020.

Gervais, D.J., Hugenholtz, P., Quintais, J.

Trends and Developments in Artificial Intelligence: Challenges to Copyright

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020.

Notions of Disinformation and Related Concepts

Betzel, M., Fahy, R., Helberger, N., Marrazzo, F., Matějka, S., Nyakas, L., Papp, J.

2020, (ERGA report).

@techreport{Betzel2020,
title = {Notions of Disinformation and Related Concepts },
author = {Betzel, M. and Fahy, R. and Helberger, N. and Marrazzo, F. and Matv{e}jka, S. and Nyakas, L. and Papp, J.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/ERGA-SG2-Report-2020-Notions-of-disinformation-and-related-concepts.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-12-11},
abstract = {Previous work of the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA) has shown that the definitions used by the European Commission, Member States and online platforms for the different phenomena of disinformation deviate and should be further clarified in order to ensure a consistent approach. The aim of this Report is to provide for clearer and more uniform definitions of disinformation to ensure optimal guidance to all actors involved and contribute to more consistency within the national approaches. The Report also aims to assist in coming to clearer definitions and ensure more consistency and uniformity regarding the notions of political advertising and issue-based advertising. The information for this report was collected through various means including an examination of existing academic research, interviews with relevant stakeholders, particularly from the civil society and media. The scope of the survey was not limited to the single notion of disinformation but also covered concepts that are usually associated with disinformation such as misinformation, malinformation, fake news, false news, false information, and foreign influence operations. Information was collected on definitions, interpretations, and understandings of disinformation and related concepts available in the legislation and other regulation including (self-regulatory) codes and guidelines of ERGA members and observers. The Report concludes with identifying key relevant elements and characteristics of the notions of disinformation, political advertising, and related concepts, and includes recommendations to assist in coming to clearer definitions regarding disinformation, political advertising and issue-based advertising.},
note = {ERGA report},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}

Can scholarly pirate libraries bridge the knowledge access gap? An empirical study on the structural conditions of book piracy in global and European academia

Antal, D., Bodó, B., Puha, Z.

PLoS ONE, 15 (12), 2020.

Panta rhei: A European Perspective on Ensuring a High-Level of Protection of Digital Human Rights in a World in Which Everything Flows

Amsterdam Law School Research Paper No. 2020, (38), 2020.

Trends and Developments in Artificial Intelligence: Challenges to the Intellectual Property Rights Framework: Final Report

Allan, J., Gervais, D.J., Hartmann, C., Hugenholtz, P., Quintais, J.

2020, (Report written for the European Commission by P.B. Hugenholtz, D. Gervais, J.P. Quintais, C. Hartmann & J. Allan, completed September 2020. ISBN: 97892762244488).

@techreport{Hugenholtz2020f,
title = {Trends and Developments in Artificial Intelligence: Challenges to the Intellectual Property Rights Framework: Final Report},
author = {Hugenholtz, P. and Quintais, J. and Gervais, D.J. and Hartmann, C. and Allan, J.},
url = {https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/394345a1-2ecf-11eb-b27b-01aa75ed71a1/language-en
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Trends_and_Developments_in_Artificial_Intelligence-1.pdf},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-11-27},
abstract = {This report examines copyright and patent protection in Europe for AI-assisted outputs in general and in three priority domains: science (in particular, meteorology), media (journalism), and pharmaceutical research. It comprises an assessment of the state of the art of uses of AI in the three focus areas, and a legal analysis of how IP laws currently apply to AI-assisted creative and innovative outputs. The report concludes that the current state of the art in AI does not require or justify immediate substantive changes in copyright and patent law in Europe. The existing concepts of copyright and patent law are sufficiently abstract and flexible to meet the current challenges from AI. In addition, related rights regimes potentially extend to ‘authorless’ AI productions in a variety of sectors, and the sui generis database right may offer protection to AI-produced databases resulting from substantial investment. However, taking into account the practical implications of AI technologies, the report identifies specific avenues for future legal reform (if justified by empirical evidence), offers recommendations for improvements in the application of existing rules (e.g. via guidelines), and highlights the need to study the role of alternative IP regimes to protect AI-assisted outputs, such as trade secret protection, unfair competition and contract law.},
note = {Report written for the European Commission by P.B. Hugenholtz, D. Gervais, J.P. Quintais, C. Hartmann & J. Allan, completed September 2020. ISBN: 97892762244488},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}

Signs Eligible for Trademark Protection - Dysfunctional Incentives and a Functionality Dilemma in the EU

pp. 209-225, 2020, (Chapter in: Cambridge Handbook on International and Comparative Trademark Law, I. Calboli & J.C. Ginsburg (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2020.).

@inbook{Senftleben2020f,
title = {Signs Eligible for Trademark Protection - Dysfunctional Incentives and a Functionality Dilemma in the EU},
author = {Senftleben, M.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3717753
https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Signs_Eligible_for_Trademark_Protection.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108399456.014},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-11-26},
pages = {209-225},
abstract = {In the European Union (EU), the criteria for determining a sign’s eligibility for trademark protection are harmonized to a large extent. On the one hand, the trademark legislation and office practices in EU Member States have to keep within the harmonized legal framework set forth in the EU Trade Mark Directive (TMD). On the other hand, the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR) provides for a set of eligibility criteria that apply to European Union Trade Marks (EUTM) with equal effect throughout the EU territory. As the rules in the Regulation are in line with those in the Directive, the two legislative instruments constitute a robust body of harmonized norms informing the decision on the registration of a sign as a trademark. The harmonizing effect is enhanced by the fact that national courts have to refer questions relating to the application and interpretation of eligibility criteria to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
As in other regions of the world, the criteria applied to determine eligibility for trademark protection are quite flexible in the EU. The open-ended definition of protectable subject matter leaves room for the extension of trademark protection to non-traditional types of marks, such as shape, sound and colour marks. Trademark offices applying EU trademark law have also accepted, for instance, abstract colours and colour combinations, motion and multimedia marks, melodies and sounds, taste marks, hologram marks and position marks.
The analysis of the trend to register non-traditional marks in the EU outlines the legal framework which the CJEU developed to assess the eligibility of non-traditional types of source identifiers for trademark protection. On this basis, it discusses the objective to safeguard freedom of competition and the legal instruments which the CJEU employs for this purpose: the requirement of providing evidence of the acquisition of distinctive character through use in trade and the categorical exclusion of functional signs from trademark protection. Drawing conclusions, it will become apparent that the basic requirement of distinctive character plays an ambiguous role in the regulation of access to trademark protection for non-traditional marks. It is both an obstacle to trademark protection and an incentive for enhanced investment in non-traditional types of marks.},
note = {Chapter in: Cambridge Handbook on International and Comparative Trademark Law, I. Calboli & J.C. Ginsburg (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2020.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}

In the European Union (EU), the criteria for determining a sign’s eligibility for trademark protection are harmonized to a large extent. On the one hand, the trademark legislation and office practices in EU Member States have to keep within the harmonized legal framework set forth in the EU Trade Mark Directive (TMD). On the other hand, the European Union Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR) provides for a set of eligibility criteria that apply to European Union Trade Marks (EUTM) with equal effect throughout the EU territory. As the rules in the Regulation are in line with those in the Directive, the two legislative instruments constitute a robust body of harmonized norms informing the decision on the registration of a sign as a trademark. The harmonizing effect is enhanced by the fact that national courts have to refer questions relating to the application and interpretation of eligibility criteria to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
As in other regions of the world, the criteria applied to determine eligibility for trademark protection are quite flexible in the EU. The open-ended definition of protectable subject matter leaves room for the extension of trademark protection to non-traditional types of marks, such as shape, sound and colour marks. Trademark offices applying EU trademark law have also accepted, for instance, abstract colours and colour combinations, motion and multimedia marks, melodies and sounds, taste marks, hologram marks and position marks.
The analysis of the trend to register non-traditional marks in the EU outlines the legal framework which the CJEU developed to assess the eligibility of non-traditional types of source identifiers for trademark protection. On this basis, it discusses the objective to safeguard freedom of competition and the legal instruments which the CJEU employs for this purpose: the requirement of providing evidence of the acquisition of distinctive character through use in trade and the categorical exclusion of functional signs from trademark protection. Drawing conclusions, it will become apparent that the basic requirement of distinctive character plays an ambiguous role in the regulation of access to trademark protection for non-traditional marks. It is both an obstacle to trademark protection and an incentive for enhanced investment in non-traditional types of marks.

Intermediary Liability and Trade Mark Infringement - Proliferation of Filter Obligations in Civil Law Jurisdictions?

pp. 381-403, 2020, (Chapter in: Oxford Handbook of Online Intermediary Liability, G.F. Frosio (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.).

@inbook{Senftleben2020g,
title = {Intermediary Liability and Trade Mark Infringement - Proliferation of Filter Obligations in Civil Law Jurisdictions?},
author = {Senftleben, M.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Intermediary_Liability_and_Trade_Mark_Infringement.pdf
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3736919
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198837138.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780198837138},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-11-26},
pages = {381-403},
abstract = {The erosion of the safe harbour for hosting in the EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive) leads to a remarkable climate change in the field of EU copyright law and the civil law jurisdictions of continental EU Member States. Inevitably, it raises the question of potential repercussions on the safe harbour for hosting and filtering standards in trademark cases. Even though online marketplaces are explicitly exempted from the new copyright rules and the CDSM Directive is not intended to neutralize the safe harbour for hosting in trademark cases, the adoption of a more restrictive approach in copyright law may quicken the appetite of trademark proprietors for similar measures in trademark law.
The extension of the new copyright approach to trademark cases, however, is unlikely to yield satisfactory results.Due to the different conceptual contours of trademark rights, a system mimicking the filtering obligations following from the CDSM Directive would give trademark proprietors excessive control over the use of their trademarks in the digital environment. Such an overbroad system of automated, algorithmic filtering would encroach upon the fundamental guarantee of freedom of expression and freedom of competition. It is likely to have a chilling effect on legitimate descriptive use of trademarks, comparative advertising, advertising by resellers, information about alternative offers in the marketplace, and use criticizing or commenting upon trademarked products.
As a result, consumers would receive less diverse information on goods and services and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market would be curtailed. The reliability of the internet as an independent source of trademark-related information would be put at risk. The analysis, thus, leads to the insight that a proliferation of the new filtering obligations in copyright law is undesirable and should be avoided.},
note = {Chapter in: Oxford Handbook of Online Intermediary Liability, G.F. Frosio (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inbook}
}

CIPIL Evening Webinar: 'Article 17 and the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms'

2020.

@online{Quintais2020d,
title = {CIPIL Evening Webinar: 'Article 17 and the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms' },
author = {Quintais, J.},
url = {https://youtu.be/f1tGV_IdueQ },
year = {2020},
date = {2020-11-17},
abstract = {This presentation addresses the hottest topic in EU copyright law and policy: Article 17 of the new Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM) Directive (2019/790). The CDSM Directive is the culmination of a controversial political and legislative process at EU level. None of its provisions has caused greater debate than Article 17, which introduces a new liability regime for "online content-sharing service providers". These include most user-generated content platforms hosting copyright-protected content accessed daily by millions of individuals in the EU and across the globe. Even before the CDSM Directive is implemented into national law, the issues surrounding Article 17 have already spilled out to the policy and judicial arenas. At the policy level, the debates taking place in a number of Commission-led Stakeholder Dialogues have laid bare many of the unresolved challenges ahead for national legislators and courts. At the judicial level, the Polish government has filed an action for annulment with the CJEU under Article 263 TFEU, focusing on the most problematic aspects of Article 17. This presentation will first place Article 17 into its broader EU policy context of the discussion on the responsibilities of online platforms \textendash from the agenda on "Tackling Illegal Content Online" to the Digital Services Act \textendash and the narrow copyright context regarding the liability of intermediary platforms for third-party content they host. This will be followed by an explanation of the complex mechanics of Article 17 and an identification of some of its fundamental problems. Finally, some tentative proposals will be advanced for how to begin to address such problems, focusing on the core issues of licensing mechanisms and fundamental rights safeguards.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {online}
}

WODC-onderzoek: Voorziening voor verzoeken tot snelle verwijdering van onrechtmatige online content

Appelman, N., Blom, T., van Duin, A., Fahy, R., Helberger, N., Steel, M., Stringhi, E., van Hoboken, J., Zarouali, B.

2020.

CJEU hearing in the Polish challenge to Article 17: Not even the supporters of the provision agree on how it should work

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020.

Annotatie bij Rb. Den Haag 5 februari 2020 (NJCM c.s. / Staat der Nederlanden - SyRI-wetgeving)

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (45), pp. 6792-6795, 2020.

News Recommenders and Cooperative Explainability: Confronting the contextual complexity in AI explanations

Appelman, N., Ausloos, J., Drunen, M. van, Helberger, N.

2020.

Angelopoulos, C., Senftleben, M.

The Odyssey of the Prohibition on General Monitoring Obligations on the Way to the Digital Services Act: Between Article 15 of the E-Commerce Directive and Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market

2020, (Amsterdam: Institute for Information Law & Cambridge: Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).

@techreport{Senftleben2020e,
title = {The Odyssey of the Prohibition on General Monitoring Obligations on the Way to the Digital Services Act: Between Article 15 of the E-Commerce Directive and Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market},
author = {Senftleben, M. and Angelopoulos, C.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3717022},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-10-29},
abstract = {EU law provides explicitly that intermediaries may not be obliged to monitor their service in a general manner in order to detect and prevent the illegal activity of their users. However, a misunderstanding of the difference between monitoring specific content and monitoring FOR specific content is a recurrent theme in the debate on intermediary liability and a central driver of the controversy surrounding it. Rightly understood, a prohibited general monitoring obligation arises whenever content \textendash no matter how specifically it is defined \textendash must be identified among the totality of the content on a platform. The moment platform content must be screened in its entirety, the monitoring obligation acquires an excessive, general nature. Against this background, a content moderation duty can only be deemed permissible if it is specific in respect of both the protected subject matter and potential infringers.

This requirement of 'double specificity' is of particular importance because it prevents encroachments upon fundamental rights. The jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union has shed light on the anchorage of the general monitoring ban in primary EU law, in particular the right to the protection of personal data, the freedom of expression and information, the freedom to conduct a business, and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market. Due to their higher rank in the norm hierarchy, these legal guarantees constitute common ground for the application of the general monitoring prohibition in secondary EU legislation, namely Article 15(1) of the E-Commerce Directive ('ECD') and Article 17(8) of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market ('CDSMD').

With regard to the Digital Services Act (‘DSA’), this result of the analysis implies that any further manifestation of the general monitoring ban in the DSA would have to be construed and applied \textendash in the light of applicable CJEU case law \textendash as a safeguard against encroachments upon the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms. If the final text of the DSA does not contain a reiteration of the prohibition of general monitoring obligations known from Article 15(1) ECD and Article 17(8) CDSMD, the regulation of internet service provider liability, duties of care and injunctions would still have to avoid inroads into the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms and observe the principle of proportionality. The double specificity requirement plays a central role in this respect.},
note = {Amsterdam: Institute for Information Law & Cambridge: Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}

EU law provides explicitly that intermediaries may not be obliged to monitor their service in a general manner in order to detect and prevent the illegal activity of their users. However, a misunderstanding of the difference between monitoring specific content and monitoring FOR specific content is a recurrent theme in the debate on intermediary liability and a central driver of the controversy surrounding it. Rightly understood, a prohibited general monitoring obligation arises whenever content – no matter how specifically it is defined – must be identified among the totality of the content on a platform. The moment platform content must be screened in its entirety, the monitoring obligation acquires an excessive, general nature. Against this background, a content moderation duty can only be deemed permissible if it is specific in respect of both the protected subject matter and potential infringers.

This requirement of 'double specificity' is of particular importance because it prevents encroachments upon fundamental rights. The jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union has shed light on the anchorage of the general monitoring ban in primary EU law, in particular the right to the protection of personal data, the freedom of expression and information, the freedom to conduct a business, and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market. Due to their higher rank in the norm hierarchy, these legal guarantees constitute common ground for the application of the general monitoring prohibition in secondary EU legislation, namely Article 15(1) of the E-Commerce Directive ('ECD') and Article 17(8) of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market ('CDSMD').

With regard to the Digital Services Act (‘DSA’), this result of the analysis implies that any further manifestation of the general monitoring ban in the DSA would have to be construed and applied – in the light of applicable CJEU case law – as a safeguard against encroachments upon the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms. If the final text of the DSA does not contain a reiteration of the prohibition of general monitoring obligations known from Article 15(1) ECD and Article 17(8) CDSMD, the regulation of internet service provider liability, duties of care and injunctions would still have to avoid inroads into the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms and observe the principle of proportionality. The double specificity requirement plays a central role in this respect.

Appelman, N., Fahy, R.

Netherlands/Research

pp. 164-175, 2020, (Chapter in: Report Automating Society 2020, Chiusi, F., Fischer, S., Kayser-Bril, N. & Spielkamp, M. eds., Berlin: AlgorithmWatch, October 2020.).

Evaluatie Wet Auteurscontractenrecht: Eindrapport

Hugenholtz, P., Poort, J., Schumacher, L.D., van Gompel, S., Visser, D.

2020.

Annotatie bij HvJ EU 29 juli 2019, C-469/17 (Funke), C-516/17 (Spiegel) & C-4476/17 (Pelham)

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (43), pp. 6068-6073, 2020.

Institutionalized Algorithmic Enforcement - The Pros and Cons of the EU Approach to UGC Platform Liability

Florida International University Law Review, 14 (2), pp. 299-328, 2020.

@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
https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/lawreview/vol14/iss2/11/},
doi = {10.25148/lawrev.14.2.11},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-10-20},
journal = {Florida International University Law Review},
volume = {14},
number = {2},
pages = {299-328},
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 = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

Algorithmic copyright enforcement – the use of automated filtering tools to detect infringing content before it appears on the internet – 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.

Robot Creativity: An Incentive-Based Neighbouring Rights Approach

Buijtelaar, L.D., Senftleben, M.

European Intellectual Property Review, 42 (12), Forthcoming.

Transparency Rules in Online Political Advertising: Mapping Global Law and Policy

Ausloos, J., Leerssen, P., Menezes Cwajg, C.

2020, (This report has been prepared by Carolina Menezes Cwajg. It was written under the academic guidance of Dr. Jef Ausloos and Paddy Leerssen, at IViR and the Information, Communication & the Data Society (ICDS) Initiative at the University of Amsterdam.).

Data Protection or Data Frustration? Individual perceptions and attitudes towards the GDPR

Ausloos, J., Helberger, N., Strycharz, J.

European Data Protection Law Review, 6 (3), pp. 407-421, 2020.

Privacy and Data Protection in the EU- and US-led Post- WTO Free Trade Agreements

Yakovleva, S.

pp. 95-115, 2020, (Chapter in: Coherence and Divergence in Services Trade Law, ed. R.T. Hoffmann & M. Krajewski).

Personal Data Transfers in International Trade and EU Law: A Tale of Two ‘Necessities’

Yakovleva, S.

The Journal of World Investment & Trade, pp. 1-39, 2020.

De kunstmatige maker: over de gevolgen van het Endstra-arrest voor de bescherming van artificiële creaties

Intellectuele Eigendom & Reclamerecht (IER), (5), pp. 276-280, 2020.

Kaleidoscopic data-related enforcement in the digital age

Arnbak, A., Geursen, W., Yakovleva, S.

Common Market Law Review, 57 (5), pp. 1461-1494, 2020.

How to License Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms

Husovec, M., Quintais, J.

2020.

Centering the Law in the Digital State

Cobbe, J., Janssen, H., Seng Ah Lee, M., Singh, J.

Computer, 53 (10), pp. 47-58, 2020.

Who is the fairest of them all? Public attitudes and expectations regarding automated decision-making

Araujo, T., Helberger, N., Vreese, C.H. de

Computer Law & Security Review, 39 , 2020.

Opinie: Doorsturen telecomdata naar RIVM vereist een beter verhaal

Eskens, S., Mil, J. van

Het Financieele Dagblad, 2020.

Macro and Exogenous Factors in Computational Advertising: Key Issues and New Research Directions

Helberger, N., Huh, J., Milne, G., Strycharz, J.

Journal of Advertising, 49 (4), pp. 377-393, 2020.

Eskens, S., Helberger, N.

Opinie: corona-app vraagt om meer toezicht op grote techbedrijven

De Volkskrant, 2020.

Appelman, N., Fahy, R.

Netherlands

2020, (Chapter in: F. Chiusi, S. Fischer, & M. Spielkamp (eds.), Automated Decision-Making Systems in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A European Perspective, AlgorithmWatch, 2020).

Article 17 of the Copyright Directive: Why the German implementation proposal is compatible with EU law – Part 2

Husovec, M., Quintais, J.

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020.

Article 17 of the Copyright Directive: Why the German implementation proposal is compatible with EU law – Part 1

Husovec, M., Quintais, J.

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020.

Opinie: De wettelijke mogelijkheden voor online proctoring door universiteiten zijn zeer beperkt

Eskens, S.

Tijdschrift voor Internetrecht, (4), pp. 141-143, 2020.

Techno-optimism and solutionism as a crisis response

Appelman, N., Fahy, R., Toh, J., van Hoboken, J.

2020, (Chapter in L. Taylor, G. Sharma, A. Martin, and S. Jameson (eds.), Data Justice and COVID-19: Global Perspectives, Meatspace Press, 2020)).

Reserveprijs veiling DAB+-laag 7

Poort, J., Rougoor, W., Tieben, B.

2020, (Rapport in opdracht van het ministerie van Economische Zaken en Klimaat, SEO Economisch Onderzoek, mei 2020. ISBN 9789052200675.).

Choice of Law in EU Trade Secrecy Cases

Cooper Dreyfuss, R., van Eechoud, M.

Chapter 10, pp. 171-191, 2020.

Safety of journalists and the fighting of corruption in the EU

Bouchè, G., Fahy, R., McGonagle, T., Rucz, M., Sangen, A, van der, Seel, M., Stapel, S.

2020, (Prof. dr. T. McGonagle - Project Leader - European Parliament - Policy Department for Citizen's Rights and Constitutional Affairs - Directorate-General for Internal Policies - July 2020).

The post-editorial control era: how EU media law matches platforms’ organisational control with cooperative responsibility

Drunen, M. van

Journal of Media Law, 12 (2), pp. 166-190, 2020.

Auteursrecht op robotcreaties? Een analyse op basis van de incentivetheorie

Buijtelaar, L.D., Senftleben, M.

AMI, (3-4), pp. 77-93, 2020.

Annotatie bij Rb Amsterdam 1 november 2019 (Van Uem / De Persgroep)

AMI, (3-4), pp. 101-105, 2020.

Schrems II and Surveillance: Third Countries’ National Security Powers in the Purview of EU Law, European Law Blog

2020.

Annotatie HvJ EU 2 oktober 2018 (Ministerio Fiscal)

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (28), pp. 3753-3754, 2020.

Mediated trust: A theoretical framework to address the trustworthiness of technological trust mediators

Bodó, B.

New Media & Society, 2020.

Harnessing the collective potential of GDPR access rights: towards an ecology of transparency

Ausloos, J., Mahieu, R.

Internet Policy Review, 2020, (Opinion).

McGonagle, T., Volgenant, O.

Kroniek Persrecht 2019

Mediaforum, 2020 (3), pp. 87-89, 2020.

Challenging rabbit holes: towards more diversity in news recommendation systems

Bernstein, A., Helberger, N., Schulz, W., Vreese, C.H. de

LSE Media Blog, 2020.

The Political Power of Platforms: How Current Attempts to Regulate Misinformation Amplify Opinion Power

Helberger, N.

Digital Journalism, 8 (6), pp. 842-854, 2020.

Hungary’s fast tracked implementation of Article 5 CDSM directive in response to the pandemic

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020.

Ausloos, J., Leerssen, P., Thije, P. ten

Operationalizing Research Access in Platform Governance: What to learn from other industries?

2020.

Technologiereuzen moeten zeggen hoe ze ons gedrag bepalen en zo dwingen we dat af

Ausloos, J.

2020, (Opinie).

Annotatie bij EHRM 24 januari 2019 (Catt / Verenigd Koninkrijk)

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (24), pp. 3185-3187, 2020, (nr. 192).

User Perspectives on the News Personalisation Process: Agency, Trust and Utility as Building Blocks

Eskens, S., Helberger, N., Möller, J., Monzer, C.

Digital Journalism, 8 (9), pp. 1142-1162, 2020.

Drie mogelijke boetes van mededingings-, consumenten- en persoonsgegevensautoriteiten voor hetzelfde datagebruik

Arnbak, A., Geursen, W,W,, Yakovleva, S.

Tijdschrift Mededingingsrecht in de Praktijk, (2), pp. 30-37, 2020.

Webinar on Public and Regulatory Framework of Online Intermediaries

Harkai, I., Katzenbach, C., Magalhães, J.C., Mezei, P., Quintais, J., Riis, T., Schwemer, S.

2020.

The regulation of crypto-assets in the EU – investment and payment tokens under the radar

Ferrari, V.

Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 2020.

Telecommunicatierecht

Handboek Consumentenrecht, red. E.H. Hondius & V. Mak, Chapter 16, pp. 391-402, Uitgeverij Paris, 5e druk, 2020, ISBN: 9789462512108.

Het juridisch kader voor de verspreiding van desinformatie via internetdiensten en de regulering van politieke advertenties

Appelman, N., Fahy, R., Helberger, N., Leerssen, P., McGonagle, T., van Eijk, N., van Hoboken, J.

2020, (Rapport voor het ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, Amsterdam, december 2019).

@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}
}

The legal framework on the dissemination of disinformation through Internet services and the regulation of political advertising

Appelman, N., Fahy, R., Helberger, N., Leerssen, P., McGonagle, T., van Eijk, N., van Hoboken, J.

2020, (A report for the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, Amsterdam, December 2019).

@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}
}

Flexibility Grave – Partial Reproduction Focus and Closed System Fetishism in CJEU, Pelham

IIC, 51 (6), pp. 751-769, 2020.

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

McGonagle, T., Voorhoof, D.

2020, (IRIS Themes - Volume III (5th edition), European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg).

Money talks? The impact of corporate funding on information law research

Appelman, N., Bodó, B., Schwichow, H. von

2020, (Amsterdam: IViR, Berlin: European Hub of the NoC).

@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}
}

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.

Selected Aspects of Implementing Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market into National Law – Comment of the European Copyright Society

Dreier, T., Derclaye E., Geiger, C., Griffiths, J., Hilty, R., Hugenholtz, P., Metzger, A., Riis, T., Rognstad, O.A., Senftleben, M., Strowel, A.M., Synodinou, T., Xalabarder, R.

2020.

@article{Metzger2020,
title = {Selected Aspects of Implementing Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market into National Law \textendash Comment of the European Copyright Society},
author = {Metzger, A. and Senftleben, M. and Derclaye E. and Dreier, T. and Geiger, C. and Griffiths, J. and Hilty, R. and Hugenholtz, P. and Riis, T. and Rognstad, O.A. and Strowel, A.M. and Synodinou, T. and Xalabarder, R.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3589323},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-05-07},
abstract = {The national implementation of Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSMD) poses particular challenges. Article 17 is one of the most complex \textendash and most controversial \textendash provisions of the new legislative package which EU Member States must transpose into national law by 7 June 2021. Seeking to contribute to the debate on implementation options, the European Copyright Society addresses several core aspects of Article 17 that may play an important role in the national implementation process. It deals with the concept of online content-sharing service providers (OCSSPs) before embarking on a discussion of the licensing and content moderation duties which OCSSPs must fulfil in accordance with Article 17(1) and (4). The analysis also focuses on the copyright limitations mentioned in Article 17(7) that support the creation and dissemination of transformative user-generated content (UGC). It also discusses the appropriate configuration of complaint and redress mechanisms set forth in Article 17(9) that seek to reduce the risk of unjustified content removals. Finally, the European Copyright Society addresses the possibility of implementing direct remuneration claims for authors and performers, and explores the private international law aspect of applicable law \textendash an impact factor that is often overlooked in the debate.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

Statement Prof. Dr. Natali Helberger bij Rondetafelgesprek over de Corona-app in de Tweede Kamer op 22 April 2020

Helberger, N.

2020.

Implementing User Rights for Research in the Field of Artificial Intelligence: A Call for International Action

Carroll, M., Flynn, S., Geiger, C., Guibault, L., Margoni, T., Quintais, J., Sag, M.

European Intellectual Property Review, 2020 (7), Forthcoming.

Implementing User Rights for Research in the Field of Artificial Intelligence: A Call for Action at International Level

Flynn, S., Geiger, C., Quintais, J.

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020.

From Flexible Balancing Tool to Quasi-Constitutional Straitjacket - How the EU Cultivates the Constraining Function of the Three-Step Test

2020, (Chapter in T. Mylly/J. Griffiths (eds.), The Transformation of Global Intellectual Property Protection, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020, forthcoming.).

@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}
}

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 – its enabling and constraining function – 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.

Infographic: ‘The Council of Europe and the safety of journalists’

2020.

Annotatie bij HvJ EU 29 juli 2019 (Fashion ID)

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (13/14), pp. 1659-1661, 2020, (nr. 97).

Annotatie bij HvJ EU 1 oktober 2019 (Planet 49)

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (13/14), pp. 1671-1673, 2020, (nr. 98).

Diversity, Fairness, and Data-Driven Personalization in (News) Recommender System

Bernstein, A., Helberger, N., Schulz, W., Vreese, C.H. de, Zweig, K.A.

Dagstuhl Reports, 9 (11), pp. 117-124, 2020, (Report from Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop 19482).

@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}
}

Pitching trade against privacy: reconciling EU governance of personal data flows with external trade

Irion, K., Yakovleva, S.

International Data Privacy Law, 10 (3), pp. 201-221, 2020.

Rien ne va plus: Reclame en onlinekansspelen

Poort, J., Power, L., Zimin, A., Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.

SEW, (3), pp. 116-126, 2020.

Four tales of sci-fi and information law

Helberger, N., Makhortykh, M., Poort, J.

Internet Policy Review, 9 (1), 2020, (Editorial).

Belgian court asks CJEU whether seeding is communicating to the public

Bouchè, G.

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020.

Strengthening legal protection against discrimination by algorithms and artificial intelligence

Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.

The International Journal of Human Rights, 2020.

Stichting Brein versus Safe Harbour: The Ongoing Battle Between Intermediaries and Right Holders

Stapel, S.

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020.

Algorithmic systems: the consent is in the detail?

Giannopoulou, A.

Internet Policy Review, 9 (1), 2020.

Preliminary ruling to the CJEU on geographical boundaries of UCD novelty assessment

Stapel, S.

Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 15 (4), pp. 240-241, 2020, (Current Intelligence).

The personal information sphere: An integral approach to privacy and related information and communication rights

Eskens, S.

JASIST, 71 (9), pp. 1116-1128, 2020.

Much ado about judges: perspectieven van het EHRM

Mediaforum, (1), pp. 2-6, 2020.

Rechter en uitingsvrijheid – een actueel thema

Korthals Altes, W.

Mediaforum, (1), pp. 1, 2020, (Opinie).

An approach to a fundamental rights impact assessment to automated decision-making

Janssen, H.

International Data Privacy Law, 10 (1), pp. 76-106, 2020.

@article{Janssen2020,
title = {An approach to a fundamental rights impact assessment to automated decision-making},
author = {Janssen, H.},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipz028},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-03-06},
journal = {International Data Privacy Law},
volume = {10},
number = {1},
pages = {76-106},
abstract = {Companies and other private institutions see great and promising profits in the use of automated decision-making (‘ADM’) for commercial-, financial- or efficiency in work processing purposes. Meanwhile, ADM based on a data subjects’ personal data may (severely) impact its fundamental rights and freedoms. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides for a regulatory framework that applies whenever a controller considers and deploys ADM onto individuals on the basis of their personal data. In the design stage of the intended ADM, article 35 (3)(a) obliges a controller to apply a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA), part of which is an assessment of ADM’s impact on individual rights and freedoms. Article 22 GDPR determines under what conditions ADM is allowed and endows data subjects with increased protection.

Research among companies of various sizes has shown that there is (legal) insecurity about the interpretation of the GDPR (including the provisions relevant to ADM). The first objective of the author is to detect ways forward by offering practical handles to execute a DPIA that includes a slidable assessment of impacts on data subjects’ fundamental rights. This assessment is based on four benchmarks that should help to assess the gravity of potential impacts, i.e. i) to determine the impact on the fundamental right(s) at stake, ii) to establish the context in which the ADM is used, iii) the establishment of who is beneficiary of the use of personal data in the ADM and iv) the establishment who is in control over the data flows in the ADM. From the benchmarks an overall fundamental rights impact assessment about ADM should arise. A second objective is to indicate potential factors and measures that a controller should consider in its risk management after the assessment. The proposed approach should help fostering fair, compliant and trustworthy ADM and contains directions for future research.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

Implications of AI-driven tools in the media for freedom of expression

Bastian, M., Drunen, M. van, Eskens, S., Helberger, N., Möller, J.

2020, (Council of Europe, September 2019).

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 5 november 2019 en Hoge Raad 3 december 2019

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (10), pp. 1368-1369, 2020.

Privacy Protection(ism): The Latest Wave of Trade Constraints on Regulatory Autonomy

Yakovleva, S.

University of Miami Law Review, 74 (2), pp. 416-519, 2020.

@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}
}

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.

Joint Comment to WIPO on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence

Behrens, C., Brouwer, E., van Eechoud, M., Witteman, J.

Toegang tot data uit apparaten: Praktijk, marktfalen en publieke belangen

2020, ISBN: 9789067339742, (SEO-rapport nr. 2019-29).

Abstract | BibTeX

Bogataj Jancic, M., Botero, C., Butler, B., Carroll, M., Craig, C., Flynn, S., Geiger, C., Guibault, L., Jaszi, P., Margoni, T., Ncube, C., Quintais, J., Rocha de Souza, A., Sag, M., Scaria, A.G., White, B.

2020.

Safeguarding User Freedoms in Implementing Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: Recommendations from European Academics

Frosio, G., Hugenholtz, P., Husovec, M., Jütte, B.J., Quintais, J., Senftleben, M., van Gompel, S.

JIPITEC, vol. 10 (nr. 3 - 2019), 2020.

BGH: uploading a free-trial version of Microsoft Office is also making available to the public

Bouchè, G.

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020.

In Memoriam Jan Kabel

AMI, (1), pp. 1-2, 2020.

Artikelen 8 tot en met 11 DSM-richtlijn: Niet of niet meer in de handel zijnde werken en andere materialen

AMI, (1), pp. 3-10, 2020.

The Council of Europe and Internet Intermediaries: A Case Study of Tentative Posturing

Chapter in: Human Rights in the Age of Platforms, ed. R.F. Jørgensen, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2019., pp. 227-253, 2020, ISBN: 9780262039055.

van Hoboken, J.

The Privacy Disconnect

Chapter in: Human Rights in the Age of Platforms, ed. R.F. Jørgensen, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2019., pp. 255-284, 2020, ISBN: 9780262039055.

Panel discussion at CPDP 2020: We need to talk about filters: algorithmic copyright enforcement vs data protection.

Ducato, R., Hegladóttir, A., Mazgal, A., Quintais, J., Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.

06.02.2020.

@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}
}

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 3 oktober 2019 (Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek)

European Human Rights Cases Updates, 2020.

Szurovecz t. Hongarije (EHRM, nr. 15428/16) - Court underscores importance of direct news-gathering by journalists

European Human Rights Cases, 2020.

Hugenholtz, P., Poort, J.

Film Financing in the Digital Single Market: Challenges to Territoriality

IIC, 51 (2), pp. 167-186, 2020.

@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}
}

De 'Affaire Ruf': Crisis in het Stedelijk Museum

Brave New Books, 2020, ISBN: 9789402133592.

Annotatie bij EHRM 12 november 2019 (Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft e.a. Zwitserland)

Hins, A.

European Human Rights Cases - Updates, 2020.

Journalist and editor’s conviction for incitement to religious hatred violated Article 10

Fahy, R., Voorhoof, D.

2020.

Prospective Policy Study on Artificial Intelligence and EU Trade Policy

Irion, K., Williams, J.

2020.

The regulation of online political micro-targeting in Europe

Dobber, T., Fahy, R., Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.

Internet Policy Review, 8 (4), 2020.

Article 17 stakeholder dialogue: What we have learned so far - Part 1

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020.

Article 17 stakeholder dialogue: What we have learned so far - Part 2

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020.

‘Stedelijk Museum verkeert al sinds 2003 in crisis’

Het Parool, 2020, (Opinie).

Toward Compatibility of the EU Trade Policy with the General Data Protection Regulation

Irion, K., Yakovleva, S.

AJIL Unbound, 114 , pp. 10-14, 2020.

The New Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: A Critical Look

European Intellectual Property Review, 42 (1), pp. 28-41, 2020.

De arresten Funke Medien, Spiegel Onlineen Pelham van het HvJ EU van 29 juli 2019

AMI, 2019 (6), pp. 185-191, 2020.

Artikel 15 DSM-richtlijn: bescherming van perspublicaties met betrekking tot onlinegebruik (persuitgeversrecht)

van Eechoud, M.

AMI, 2019 (6), pp. 197-202, 2020.

Openingssalvo in nieuwe Nederlandse Crypto Wars?

van Daalen, O.

Mediaforum, 2019 (6), pp. 205, 2020, (Opinie).

Getting Data Subject Rights Right: A submission to the European Data Protection Board from international data rights academics, to inform regulatory guidance

Ausloos, J., Mahieu, R., Veale, M.

JIPITEC, 10 (3), 2019.

International Copyright: Principles, Law, and Practice

Goldstein, P., Hugenholtz, P.

Oxford University Press, 2019.

Access and Reuse of Machine-Generated Data for Scientific Research

Giannopoulou, A.

Erasmus Law Review, (2), pp. 155-165, 2019.

Does the doctrine of exhaustion apply to videogames purchased digitally? French court says oui

Rucz, M.

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2019.

Fahy, R., van Hoboken, J.

European Regulation of Smartphone Ecosystems

European Data Protection Law Review (EDPL), 5 (4), pp. 476-491, 2019.

Kroniek Telecommunicatierecht

KwartaalSignaal Ars Aequi, (153), pp. 9001-9002, 2019.

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 14 februari 2019 (Letland / Buivids)

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (48/49), pp. 7166-7168, 2019.

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 24 september 2019 (Google / Frankrijk)

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (48/49), pp. 7182-7185, 2019.

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 24 september 2019 (Google / Frankrijk II)

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (48/49), pp. 7197-7200, 2019.

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie 3 oktober 2019 (Facebook / Glawischnig)

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (48/49), pp. 7206-7208, 2019.

Fundamental rights review of EU data collection instruments and programmes

Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini, Irion, K.

2019, (Final report).

McGonagle, T., Volgenant, O.

Kroniek Persrecht 2018

Mediaforum, 2019 (5), pp. 167-169, 2019.

Spinoza en het internet: tussen ‘libertas philosophandi’ en het ‘ultimi barbarorum’

24.11.2019.

Elections and media in digital times

Bednarski, M., Francese Coutinho, M., McGonagle, T., Zimin, A.

2019, (In-Focus edition of the World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development Series, UNESCO, Paris, November 2019).

Kansspelreclame: toestaan, beperken, verbieden? : Onderzoek over mogelijke regels voor kansspelreclame voor het Directoraat-Generaal Straffen en Beschermen van het Ministerie van Justitie en Veiligheid

Power, L., van Eijk, N., Zimin, A., Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.

2019.

Sample, sample in my song, can they tell where you are from? The Pelham judgment – Part II

Jütte, B.J., Quintais, J.

Denying journalist access to asylum-seeker ‘reception centre’ in Hungary violated Article 10 ECHR

Fahy, R., Voorhoof, D.

Strasbourg Observers, 2019.

Safeguarding User Freedoms in Implementing Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: Recommendations from European Academics

Frosio, G., Hugenholtz, P., Husovec, M., Jütte, B.J., Quintais, J., Senftleben, M., van Gompel, S.

2019.

Safeguarding User Freedoms in Implementing Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: Recommendations from European Academics

Justitie toegang geven tot versleutelde chatberichten is geen goed idee

van Daalen, O.

Trouw, 2019, (Opinie).

Sample, sample in my song, can they tell where you are from? The Pelham judgment – Part I

Jütte, B.J., Quintais, J.

De verspreiding van desinformatie via internetdiensten en de regulering van politieke advertenties

Appelman, N., Fahy, R., Helberger, N., Leerssen, P., McGonagle, T., van Eijk, N., van Hoboken, J.

2019, (Tussenrapportage oktober 2019).

Annotatie bij Rb Noord-Nederland 24 juli 2019 (Piet Hein Eek / Dudink)

AMI, 2019 (5), pp. 180-181, 2019.

Artikelen 3 en 4 DSM-richtlijn: tekst- en datamining

AMI, 2019 (5), pp. 167-171, 2019.

Over artikel 14 DSM-richtlijn: Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner digitalen Reproduzierbarkeit: Reactie van een fijnproever

AMI, 2019 (5), pp. 172-173, 2019.

Why Quality Journalism Matters? Tarlach McGonagle answers the question ahead of the international conference in Ljubljana

31.10.2019, (Council of Europe video).

Annotatie bij HvJ EU 31 mei 2016 (Reha Training), HvJ EU 29 november 2017 (Vcast) en HvJ EU 7 augustus 2018 (Renckoff)

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, 2019 (43), pp. 6142-6145, 2019.

Territorial scope of the “right to erasure” limited to the EU

Rucz, M.

IRIS, 2019.

ECtHR engages in dangerous "triple pirouette" to find criminal prosecution for media coverage of PKK statements did not violate Article 10

Fahy, R., Voorhoof, D.

Strasbourg Observers, 2019.

Angelopoulos, C., Quintais, J.

Fixing Copyright Reform: A Better Solution to Online Infringement

JIPITEC, 10 (2), 2019.

Platform ad archives: promises and pitfalls

Ausloos, J., Helberger, N., Leerssen, P., Vreese, C.H. de, Zarouali, B.

Internet Policy Review, 8 (4), 2019.

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 2 juli 2019 (nr. 348)

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (40), pp. 5658-5659, 2019.

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 2 juli 2019 (nr. 349)

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (40), pp. 5677, 2019.

How to license Article 17? Exploring the Implementation Options for the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms

Husovec, M., Quintais, J.

2019, (Working paper).

Ende, M. van der, Poort, J., Yagafarova, A.

Polderpiraten voor anker

TPEdigitaal, 13 (2), pp. 97-111, 2019.

The independence of media regulatory authorities in Europe

Coutinho, M.F., Delinavelli, G., Fahy, R., Irion, K., Jusić, T., Kersevan Smokvina, T., Klimkiewicz, B., Llorens, C., Rozgonyi, K., Svensson, S., Til, G. van

2019, (Capello, M. (ed.), IRIS Special 2019-1, European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg).

Bastian, M., Drunen, M. van, Helberger, N.

Know you algorithm: what media organizations need to explain to their users about news personalization

International Data Privacy Law, 2019 , 2019.

Jütte, B.J., Quintais, J.

Annotatie bij Rb. Noord-Holland 23 mei 2019

Mil, J. van

Computerrecht, 2019 (4), pp. 267-273, 2019.

Designing for the Better by Taking Users into Account: A Qualitative Evaluation of User Control Mechanisms in (News) Recommender Systems

Bountouridis, D., Harambam, J., Makhortykh, M., van Hoboken, J.

RecSys'19: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pp. 69-77, 2019.

Kroniek Telecommunicatierecht

KwartaalSignaal Ars Aequi, (152), pp. 8935-8936, 2019.

Neighbouring Rights are Obsolete

IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2019.

Patent Abolition: A Real-Life Historical Case Study

American University International Law Review, 34 (4), pp. 877-922, 2019.

Annotatie bij EHRM 4 december 2018 (Magyar Jeti Zrt / Hongarije)

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (33/34), pp. 4691-4693, 2019.

The Decline of Online Piracy: How Markets - Not Enforcement - Drive Down Copyright Infringement

Hins, A.

Book review of Aleksandra Kuczerawy, Intermediary Liability and Freedom of Expression in the EU

Common Market Law Review, 56 (4), pp. 1154-1155, 2019.

BibTeX

Poort, J., Quintais, J.

American University International Law Review, 34 (4), pp. 807-876, 2019.

Infographic: ‘The Council of Europe and the safety of journalists’

2019.

Hosting intermediary services and illegal content online: An analysis of the scope of article 14 ECD in light of developments in the online service landscape

Poort, J., Quintais, J., van Eijk, N., van Hoboken, J.

, 2019, ISBN: 9789279930027, (A study prepared for the European Commission DG Communications Networks, Content & Technology, European Union, 2018, 47 p.).

Het prinsesje op de erwt en de tovenaarsleerling

Kabel, J.

Privacy & Informatie, 22 (3), pp. 89-90, 2019, (Redactioneel).

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 29 maart 2019 (Dijkstra / De 4 Jaargetijden): Is artikel 25 Aw nu eindelijk helemaal af?

Kabel, J.

AMI, 2019 (3), pp. 96-99, 2019.

The New Copyright Directive: Text and Data Mining (Articles 3 and 4)

Kostić, B., McGonagle, T.

How Social are New and Social Media for National Minorities? Perspectives from the FCNM

European Yearbook of Minority Issues, 16 (1), pp. 3-33, 2019.

Poort, J., Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.

Prijsdiscriminatie, privacy en publieke opinie

Ars Aequi, 2019 , pp. 580-590, 2019.

Filter bubbles in the Netherlands

Helberger, N., Makhortykh, M., Möller, J.

2019, (Report commissioned by the Dutch Media Authority (Commissariaat voor de Media)).

The New Copyright Directive: Article 14 or when the Public Domain Enters the New Copyright Directive

Giannopoulou, A.

On the Democratic Role of News Recommenders

Helberger, N.

Digital Journalism, 7 (8), pp. 993-1012, 2019.

Samen voor het publiek belang. Evaluatierapport NPO 2013 t/m 2017

Albrecht, Y., Bockxmeer, H. van, Dibbits, T., Helberger, N., Kasem, I., Oudeman, M., Vanseveren, W., Vermeir, L.

2019.

Light Bulb

C. op den Kamp & D. Hunter, (Ed.): A History of Intellectual Property in 50 Objects, 2019 , Chapter 12, pp. 104-111, Cambridge University Press, 2019, ISBN: 9781108325806.

Article 10 ECHR and Expressive Conduct

Fahy, R., Voorhoof, D.

Communications Law, 24 (2), pp. 62-73, 2019, (Pre-print).

Knocking on Heaven’s Door: User preferences on digital cultural distribution

Bodó, B., Handke, C.W., Quintais, J., Vallbé, J.

Internet Policy Review, 8 (2), 2019.

@article{Vallb\'{e}2019,
title = {Knocking on Heaven’s Door: User preferences on digital cultural distribution},
author = {Vallb\'{e}, J. and Bod\'{o}, B. and Quintais, J. and Handke, C.W.},
url = {https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/knocking-heavens-door-user-preferences-digital-cultural-distribution},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-06-20},
journal = {Internet Policy Review},
volume = {8},
number = {2},
abstract = {This paper explores the social, demographic and attitudinal basis of consumer support of a Copyright Compensation System (CCS), which, for a small monthly fee would legalise currently infringing online social practices such as private copying from illegal sources and online sharing of copyrighted works. We do this by first identifying how different online and offline, legal and illegal, free and paying content acquisition channels are used in the media market using a cluster-based classification of respondents. Second, we assess the effect of cultural consumption on the support for a shift from the status quo towards alternative, CCS-based forms of digital cultural content distribution. Finally, we link these two analyses to identify the factors that drive the dynamics of change in digital cultural consumption habits. Our study shows significant support to a CCS compared to the status quo by both occasional and frequent buyers of cultural goods, despite the widespread adoption of legal free and paying online services by consumers. The nature of these preferences are also explored with the inclusion of consumer preference intensities regarding certain CCS attributes. Our results have relevant policy implications, for they outline CCS as a reform option. In particular, they point evidence-based copyright reform away from its current direction in the EU of stronger enforcement measures, additional exclusive rights, and increased liability and duties of care for online platforms. This work shows that CCS may be an apt policy tool to hinder piracy and potentially increase right holder revenues, while respecting fundamental rights and promoting technological development.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}

Selling News to Audiences – A Qualitative Inquiry into the Emerging Logics of Algorithmic News Personalization in European Quality News Media

Bodó, B.

Digital Journalism, 7 (8), pp. 1054-1075, 2019.

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 26 juni 2018

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (25), pp. 3503-3504, 2019.

The New Copyright Directive: A tour d’horizon – Part II (of press publishers, upload filters and the real value gap)

Fahy, R.

The Chilling Effect of Turkey’s Article 301 Insult Law

European Human Rights Law Review , 2019 (3), pp. 298-308, 2019.

Abstract | BibTeX

De Europese informatierechtsorde

deLex, 2019, ISBN: 9789086920716 .

@book{Dommering2019b,
title = {De Europese informatierechtsorde},
author = {Dommering, E.},
url = {https://www.delex.nl/shop/boeken/de-europese-informatierechtsorde},
isbn = {9789086920716 },
year = {2019},
date = {2019-06-11},
volume = {2019},
publisher = {deLex},
abstract = {Onze samenleving is in de laatste tien jaar in hoog tempo veranderd in een door data, digitalisering en kunstmatige intelligentie gedreven omwenteling. Op de informatiemarkt zijn de sociale media, zoekmachines en Apps de grootste ondernemingen geworden. Zij sturen op de persoon gerichte reclameboodschappen op de consument af. Maar ook de overheid gebruikt steeds meer data om macht uit te oefenen. Persoonsgegevens zijn het nieuwe sturingsmechanisme van een ge\"{i}ndividualiseerde samenleving. Het internet groeit in aansluitingsdichtheid en capaciteit. Het schept de voorwaarden voor communicatie die geen scherpe scheiding meer maakt tussen openbaar en priv\'{e}. Klassieke media, sociale en politieke organisaties zijn niet verdwenen, maar worstelen met de uitstroom van gebruikers en leden die zich steeds meer individueel of in informele verbanden organiseren. Voor het informatierecht betekent dit dat de klassieke modellen voor vrijheid van meningsuiting, auteursrecht, privacy en media- en telecommunicatierecht niet meer voldoen. Deze rechtsgebieden zijn ook steeds meer met elkaar verknoopt geraakt. Is een dataverzameling herleidbaar tot personen, free flow of information of eigendom? Wie is er verantwoordelijk voor de informatieboodschap? Het zijn vragen die tegelijkertijd om een antwoord vragen. Dit boek schetst aan de hand van de rechtspraak (een kleine driehonderd nationale en Europese uitspraken), de belangrijkste nationale en Europese wetswijzigingen en de belangrijkste discussies in de vakliteratuur van de laatste tien jaar, hoe deze verandering een heel rechtsgebied op zijn kop heeft gezet. Het laat zien hoe de mythe van cyberspace heeft plaats gemaakt voor een nieuw fenomeen. Dat is de wederzijdse doordringing van de elektronische media en de sociale werkelijkheid. Of het nu gaat om het spelletje Pok\'{e}mon of de opstand van de gele hesjes.
},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {book}
}

The New Copyright Directive: A tour d’horizon – Part I

Kroniek Telecommunicatierecht

KwartaalSignaal Ars Aequi, 2019 (151), pp. 8866-8867, 2019.

Drunen, M. van, Helberger, N., Leerssen, P.

Germany proposes Europe's first diversity rules for social media platforms

LSE Media Policy Project Blog, 2019 , 2019.

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 6 oktober 2017 (Imation / Thuiskopie en Staat)

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, 2019 (21/22), pp. 3068-3070, 2019.

Overwegingen en advies vaccinatieproblematiek vanuit een antropologisch perspectief

Harambam, J.

2019 , pp. 39-42, 2019, (In: Hoe nu verder met de vaccinatietwijfel?: Tien adviezen aan Staatssecretaris Paul Blokhuis, red. Roland Pierik, Universiteit van Amsterdam, 2019. ISBN 9789090317144.).