Saskia Roos, Author at IVIR

With the shift from the traditional safe harbor for hosting to statutory content filtering and licensing obligations, EU copyright law has substantially curtailed the freedom of users to upload and share their content creations. Seeking to avoid overbroad inroads into freedom of expression, EU law obliges online platforms and the creative industry to take into account human rights when coordinating their content filtering actions. Platforms must also establish complaint and redress procedures for users. The European Commission will initiate stakeholder dialogues to identify best practices. These “safety valves” in the legislative package, however, are mere fig leaves. Instead of safeguarding human rights, the EU legislator outsources human rights obligations to the platform industry. At the same time, the burden of policing content moderation systems is imposed on users who are unlikely to bring complaints in each individual case. The new legislative design in the EU will thus “conceal” human rights violations instead of bringing them to light. Nonetheless, the DSA rests on the same – highly problematic – approach.

Against this background, the paper discusses the weakening – and potential loss – of fundamental freedoms as a result of the departure from the traditional notice-and-takedown approach. Adding a new element to the ongoing debate on content licensing and filtering, the analysis will devote particular attention to the fact that EU law, for the most part, has left untouched the private power of platforms to determine the “house rules” governing the most popular copyright-owner reaction to detected matches between protected works and content uploads: the (algorithmic) monetization of that content. Addressing the “legal vacuum” in the field of content monetization, the analysis explores outsourcing and concealment risks in this unregulated space. Focusing on large-scale platforms for user-generated content, such as YouTube, Instagram and TikTok, two normative problems come to the fore: (1) the fact that rightholders, when opting for monetization, de facto monetize not only their own rights but also the creative input of users; (2) the fact that user creativity remains unremunerated as long as the monetization option is only available to rightholders. As a result of this configuration, the monetization mechanism disregards users’ right to (intellectual) property and discriminates against user creativity. Against this background, we discuss whether the DSA provisions that seek to ensure transparency of content moderation actions and terms and conditions offer useful sources of information that could empower users. Moreover, we raise the question whether the detailed regulation of platform actions in the DSA may resolve the described human rights dilemmas to some extent.

Opinie: Koranverbrandingen in Zweden, Denemarken en Nederland

In: Nederlands Juristenblad (NJB), ed. 29, nr. 2125, pp. 2480-2482, 2023.

Editorial: Open Access: we zijn er bijna – maar tegen welke prijs?

In: Auteursrecht, ed. 3, pp. 101-102, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Quintais, J., Trapova, A.

EU copyright law round up – third trimester of 2023

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Metikoš, L.

An Interdisciplinary Toolbox for Researching the AI-Act

In: Verfassungsblog, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Commentaar

In: & Jan Willen Duyvendak, Lukas M. Verburgt (Ed.): pp. 109-113, Amsterdam University Press, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

AI decrypted: AI, copyright & text and data mining (TDM)

06.09.2023, (Video podcast at Information Labs.).

(Links | BibTeX)

Metikoš, L.

Column: De procedurele wending van de DSA: het recht op menselijke tussenkomst in content moderation

In: Mediaforum, ed. Studenteneditie, pp. 22, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Irion, K., Ocelík, V., Kolk, A.

Shifting Battlegrounds: Corporate Political Activity in the General Data Protection Regulation

vol. 2023, 2023.

Defining the ‘media’ in Europe: pitfalls of the proposed European Media Freedom Act

Drunen, M. van, Fahy, R., Seipp, T.

In: Journal of Media Law, 2023.

Using Terms and Conditions to apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation

In: German Law Journal, 2023.

@article{nokey,

title = {Using Terms and Conditions to apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation},

author = {Quintais, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R.},

doi = {10.1017/glj.2023.53},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-07-11},

journal = {German Law Journal},

abstract = {Large online platforms provide an unprecedented means for exercising freedom of expression online and wield enormous power over public participation in the online democratic space. However, it is increasingly clear that their systems, where (automated) content moderation decisions are taken based on a platformʼs terms and conditions (T\&Cs), are fundamentally broken. Content moderation systems have been said to undermine freedom of expression, especially where important public interest speech ends up suppressed, such as speech by minority and marginalized groups. Indeed, these content moderation systems have been criticized for their overly vague rules of operation, inconsistent enforcement, and an overdependence on automation. Therefore, in order to better protect freedom of expression online, international human rights bodies and civil society organizations have argued that platforms “should incorporate directly” principles of fundamental rights law into their T\&Cs. Under EU law, and apart from a rule in the Terrorist Content Regulation, platforms had until recently no explicit obligation to incorporate fundamental rights into their T\&Cs. However, an important provision in the Digital Services Act (DSA) will change this. Crucially, Article 14 DSA lays down new rules on how platforms can enforce their T\&Cs, including that platforms must have “due regard” to the “fundamental rights” of users under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In this article, we critically examine the topic of enforceability of fundamental rights via T\&Cs through the prism of Article 14 DSA. We ask whether this provision requires platforms to apply EU fundamental rights law and to what extent this may curb the power of Big Tech over online speech. We conclude that Article 14 will make it possible, in principle, to establish the indirect horizontal effect of fundamental rights in the relationship between online platforms and their users. But in order for the application and enforcement of T\&Cs to take due regard of fundamental rights, Article 14 must be operationalized within the framework of the international and European fundamental rights standards. If this is possible Article 14 may fulfil its revolutionary potential.



},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Large online platforms provide an unprecedented means for exercising freedom of expression online and wield enormous power over public participation in the online democratic space. However, it is increasingly clear that their systems, where (automated) content moderation decisions are taken based on a platformʼs terms and conditions (T&Cs), are fundamentally broken. Content moderation systems have been said to undermine freedom of expression, especially where important public interest speech ends up suppressed, such as speech by minority and marginalized groups. Indeed, these content moderation systems have been criticized for their overly vague rules of operation, inconsistent enforcement, and an overdependence on automation. Therefore, in order to better protect freedom of expression online, international human rights bodies and civil society organizations have argued that platforms “should incorporate directly” principles of fundamental rights law into their T&Cs. Under EU law, and apart from a rule in the Terrorist Content Regulation, platforms had until recently no explicit obligation to incorporate fundamental rights into their T&Cs. However, an important provision in the Digital Services Act (DSA) will change this. Crucially, Article 14 DSA lays down new rules on how platforms can enforce their T&Cs, including that platforms must have “due regard” to the “fundamental rights” of users under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In this article, we critically examine the topic of enforceability of fundamental rights via T&Cs through the prism of Article 14 DSA. We ask whether this provision requires platforms to apply EU fundamental rights law and to what extent this may curb the power of Big Tech over online speech. We conclude that Article 14 will make it possible, in principle, to establish the indirect horizontal effect of fundamental rights in the relationship between online platforms and their users. But in order for the application and enforcement of T&Cs to take due regard of fundamental rights, Article 14 must be operationalized within the framework of the international and European fundamental rights standards. If this is possible Article 14 may fulfil its revolutionary potential.

Expert perspectives on GDPR compliance in the context of smart homes and vulnerable persons

Piasecki, S.

In: Information & Communications Technology Law, 2023.

Annotatie Hof van Justitie van de EU 28 april 2022 (Meta Platforms Ireland / Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände)

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, ed. 21, nr. 194, pp. 3621-3623, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Bodó, B., van den Brink, J.E., Janssen, H., Meiring, A., Ortlep, R., van Eechoud, M., van Hoboken, J., Verboeket, L.W.

Gemeentelijke grip op private sensorgegevens: Juridisch kader voor het gemeentelijke handelingsperspectief bij de verwerking van private sensorgegevens in de openbare ruimte

2023, (Onderzoek in opdracht van de gemeente Amsterdam).

(Links | BibTeX)

Quintais, J., Trapova, A.

EU copyright law round up – second trimester of 2023

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Media Concentration Law: Gaps and Promises in the Digital Age

In: Media and Communication, vol. 11, ed. 2, pp. 392-405, 2023.

Opinie: Internetproletariërs aller landen verenigt u!

In: Mediaforum, ed. 3, pp. 85, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Barbereau, T., Bodó, B.

Beyond financial regulation of crypto-asset wallet software: In search of secondary liability

In: Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 49, nr. 105829, 2023.

@article{nokey,

title = {Beyond financial regulation of crypto-asset wallet software: In search of secondary liability},

author = {Barbereau, T. and Bod\'{o}, B.},

url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364923000390},

doi = {10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105829},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-06-22},

urldate = {2023-06-22},

journal = {Computer Law \& Security Review},

volume = {49},

number = {105829},

abstract = {Since Bitcoin, the blockchain space considerably evolved. One crucial piece of software to interact with blockchains and hold private-public key pairs to distinct crypto-assets and securities are wallets. Wallet software can be offered by liable third-parties (‘custodians’) who hold certain rights over assets and transactions. As parties subject to financial regulation, they are to uphold Anti-money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorist (AML/CFT) standards by undertaking Know-Your-Customer (KYC) checks on users of their services.

In juxtaposition, wallet software can also be issued without the involvement of a liable third-party. As no KYC is performed and users have full ‘freedom to act’, such ‘non-custodial’ wallet software is popular in criminal undertakings. They are required to interact with peer-to-peer applications and organisations running on blockchains whose benefits are not the subject of this paper. To date, financial regulation fails to adequately address such wallet software because it presumes the existence of a registered, liable entity offering said software. As illustrated in the case of Tornado Cash, financial regulation fails to trace chains of secondary liability. Alas, the considered solution is a systematic surveillance of all transactions.

Against this backdrop, this paper sets forth an alternative approach rooted in copyright law. Concepts that pertain to secondary liability prove of value to develop a flexible, principles-based approach to the regulation of non-custodial wallet software that accounts for both, infringing and non-infringing uses.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Leg het me nog één keer uit: het recht op een uitleg na Uber en Ola. Annotatie bij Hof Amsterdam, 4 april 2023

Metikoš, L.

In: Privacy & Informatie, ed. 3, pp. 114-116, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Dealing with opinion power and media concentration in the platform era

2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Dergacheva, D., Katzenbach, C., Quintais, J., Schwemer, S.

Improving Data Access for Researchers in the Digital Services Act

In: 2023.

Niet Bern maar Brussel: assimilatie en reciprociteit tussen RAAP en VITRA

In: Auteursrecht, ed. 2, pp. 67-76, 2023.

The right to encryption: Privacy as preventing unlawful access

In: Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 49, 2023.

@article{nokey,

title = {The right to encryption: Privacy as preventing unlawful access},

author = {van Daalen, O.},

url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364923000146},

doi = {10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105804},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-05-23},

journal = {Computer Law \& Security Review},

volume = {49},

abstract = {Encryption technologies are a fundamental building block of modern digital infrastructure, but plans to curb these technologies continue to spring up. Even in the European Union, where their application is by now firmly embedded in legislation, lawmakers are again calling for measures which would impact these technologies. One of the most important arguments in this debate are human rights, most notably the rights to privacy and to freedom of expression. And although some authors have in the past explored how encryption technologies support human rights, this connection is not yet firmly grounded in an analysis of European human rights case law. This contribution aims to fill this gap, developing a framework for assessing restrictions of encryption technologies under the rights to privacy and freedom of expression as protected under the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention) and the Charter of Fundamental rights in the European Union (the Charter). In the first section, the relevant function of encryption technologies, restricting access to information (called confidentiality), is discussed. In the second section, an overview of some governmental policies and practices impacting these technologies is provided. This continues with a discussion of the case law on the rights to privacy, data protection and freedom of expression, arguing that these rights are not only about ensuring lawful access by governments to protected information, but also about preventing unlawful access by others. And because encryption technologies are an important technology to reduce the risk of this unlawful access, it is then proposed that this risk is central to the assessment of governance measures in the field of encryption technologies. The article concludes by recommending that states perform an in-depth assessement of this when proposing new measures, and that courts when reviewing them also place the risk of unlawful access central to the analysis of interference and proportionality.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Encryption technologies are a fundamental building block of modern digital infrastructure, but plans to curb these technologies continue to spring up. Even in the European Union, where their application is by now firmly embedded in legislation, lawmakers are again calling for measures which would impact these technologies. One of the most important arguments in this debate are human rights, most notably the rights to privacy and to freedom of expression. And although some authors have in the past explored how encryption technologies support human rights, this connection is not yet firmly grounded in an analysis of European human rights case law. This contribution aims to fill this gap, developing a framework for assessing restrictions of encryption technologies under the rights to privacy and freedom of expression as protected under the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention) and the Charter of Fundamental rights in the European Union (the Charter). In the first section, the relevant function of encryption technologies, restricting access to information (called confidentiality), is discussed. In the second section, an overview of some governmental policies and practices impacting these technologies is provided. This continues with a discussion of the case law on the rights to privacy, data protection and freedom of expression, arguing that these rights are not only about ensuring lawful access by governments to protected information, but also about preventing unlawful access by others. And because encryption technologies are an important technology to reduce the risk of this unlawful access, it is then proposed that this risk is central to the assessment of governance measures in the field of encryption technologies. The article concludes by recommending that states perform an in-depth assessement of this when proposing new measures, and that courts when reviewing them also place the risk of unlawful access central to the analysis of interference and proportionality.

Generative AI, Copyright and the AI Act

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2023.

A Primer and FAQ on Copyright Law and Generative AI for News Media

Diakopoulos, N., Quintais, J.

2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Meiring, A., Quintais, J., Senftleben, M.

Outsourcing Human Rights Obligations and Concealing Human Rights Deficits: The Example of Monetizing User-Generated Content Under the CDSM Directive and the Digital Services Act

In: 2023.

@article{nokey,

title = {Outsourcing Human Rights Obligations and Concealing Human Rights Deficits: The Example of Monetizing User-Generated Content Under the CDSM Directive and the Digital Services Act},

author = {Senftleben, M. and Quintais, J. and Meiring, A.},

url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4421150},

year = {2023},

date = {2023-04-26},

abstract = {With the shift from the traditional safe harbor for hosting to statutory content filtering and licensing obligations, EU copyright law has substantially curtailed the freedom of users to upload and share their content creations. Seeking to avoid overbroad inroads into freedom of expression, EU law obliges online platforms and the creative industry to take into account human rights when coordinating their content filtering actions. Platforms must also establish complaint and redress procedures for users. The European Commission will initiate stakeholder dialogues to identify best practices. These “safety valves” in the legislative package, however, are mere fig leaves. Instead of safeguarding human rights, the EU legislator outsources human rights obligations to the platform industry. At the same time, the burden of policing content moderation systems is imposed on users who are unlikely to bring complaints in each individual case. The new legislative design in the EU will thus “conceal” human rights violations instead of bringing them to light. Nonetheless, the DSA rests on the same \textendash highly problematic \textendash approach.

Against this background, the paper discusses the weakening \textendash and potential loss \textendash of fundamental freedoms as a result of the departure from the traditional notice-and-takedown approach. Adding a new element to the ongoing debate on content licensing and filtering, the analysis will devote particular attention to the fact that EU law, for the most part, has left untouched the private power of platforms to determine the “house rules” governing the most popular copyright-owner reaction to detected matches between protected works and content uploads: the (algorithmic) monetization of that content. Addressing the “legal vacuum” in the field of content monetization, the analysis explores outsourcing and concealment risks in this unregulated space. Focusing on large-scale platforms for user-generated content, such as YouTube, Instagram and TikTok, two normative problems come to the fore: (1) the fact that rightholders, when opting for monetization, de facto monetize not only their own rights but also the creative input of users; (2) the fact that user creativity remains unremunerated as long as the monetization option is only available to rightholders. As a result of this configuration, the monetization mechanism disregards users’ right to (intellectual) property and discriminates against user creativity. Against this background, we discuss whether the DSA provisions that seek to ensure transparency of content moderation actions and terms and conditions offer useful sources of information that could empower users. Moreover, we raise the question whether the detailed regulation of platform actions in the DSA may resolve the described human rights dilemmas to some extent.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

With the shift from the traditional safe harbor for hosting to statutory content filtering and licensing obligations, EU copyright law has substantially curtailed the freedom of users to upload and share their content creations. Seeking to avoid overbroad inroads into freedom of expression, EU law obliges online platforms and the creative industry to take into account human rights when coordinating their content filtering actions. Platforms must also establish complaint and redress procedures for users. The European Commission will initiate stakeholder dialogues to identify best practices. These “safety valves” in the legislative package, however, are mere fig leaves. Instead of safeguarding human rights, the EU legislator outsources human rights obligations to the platform industry. At the same time, the burden of policing content moderation systems is imposed on users who are unlikely to bring complaints in each individual case. The new legislative design in the EU will thus “conceal” human rights violations instead of bringing them to light. Nonetheless, the DSA rests on the same – highly problematic – approach.

Against this background, the paper discusses the weakening – and potential loss – of fundamental freedoms as a result of the departure from the traditional notice-and-takedown approach. Adding a new element to the ongoing debate on content licensing and filtering, the analysis will devote particular attention to the fact that EU law, for the most part, has left untouched the private power of platforms to determine the “house rules” governing the most popular copyright-owner reaction to detected matches between protected works and content uploads: the (algorithmic) monetization of that content. Addressing the “legal vacuum” in the field of content monetization, the analysis explores outsourcing and concealment risks in this unregulated space. Focusing on large-scale platforms for user-generated content, such as YouTube, Instagram and TikTok, two normative problems come to the fore: (1) the fact that rightholders, when opting for monetization, de facto monetize not only their own rights but also the creative input of users; (2) the fact that user creativity remains unremunerated as long as the monetization option is only available to rightholders. As a result of this configuration, the monetization mechanism disregards users’ right to (intellectual) property and discriminates against user creativity. Against this background, we discuss whether the DSA provisions that seek to ensure transparency of content moderation actions and terms and conditions offer useful sources of information that could empower users. Moreover, we raise the question whether the detailed regulation of platform actions in the DSA may resolve the described human rights dilemmas to some extent.

Annotatie bij Rechtbank Noord-Holland 28 december 2022 (Hendriks/Unibail Rodamco Nederland Winkels B.V.)

In: Mediaforum, ed. 1, nr. 4, pp. 49-51, 2023.

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

McGonagle, T., Voorhoof, D.

8th edition, IRIS Themes, vol. III, European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg, 2023, ISBN: 9789287184351.

Fundamental rights assessment of the framework for detection orders under the CSAM proposal

2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Dobber, T., Goodman, E., Helberger, N., Kruikemeier, S.

Shielding citizens? Understanding the impact of political advertisement transparency information

In: New Media & Society, 2023.

Export control of cybersurveillance items in the new dual-use regulation: The challenges of applying human rights logic to export control

Rucz, M., van Daalen, O., van Hoboken, J.

In: Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 48, 2023.

Money after money: Disassembling value/information infrastructures

Ferrari, V.

2023.

@phdthesis{nokey,

title = {Money after money: Disassembling value/information infrastructures},

author = {Ferrari, V.},

url = {https://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=30904422-2233-4400-bc5f-e7971b33f758},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-04-21},

abstract = {This manuscript is a journey through coexisting, emerging or speculated about, types of digital value transfer infrastructures. Using digital value transfer infrastructures as a central case study, this thesis is concerned with unpacking the negotiation processes that shape the governance, design and political purposes of digital infrastructures that are closely linked to the public interest and state sovereignty. In particular, the papers that are assembled in this manuscript identify and inspect three main socio-technical developments occurring in the domain of value transfer technologies: a) the privatization and platformization of digital payment infrastructures; b) the spread of blockchain-based digital value transfer infrastructures; c) the construction of digital value transfer infrastructures as public utilities, from the part of public institutions or organizations. Concerned with the relationship between law, discourse and technological development, the thesis explores four transversal issues that strike differences and peculiarities of these three scenarios: i) privacy; ii) the synergy and mutual influence of legal change and technological development in the construction of digital infrastructures; iii) the role of socio-technical imaginaries in policy-making concerned with digital infrastructures; iv) the geography and scale of digital infrastructures. The analyses lead to the argument that, in the co-development of legal systems and digital infrastructures that are core to public life, conflicts are productive. Negotiations, ruptures and exceptions are constitutive of the unending process of mutual reinforcement, and mutual containment, in which a plurality of agencies \textendash expressed through legal institutions, symbolic systems, as well as information and media structures - are entangled.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {phdthesis}

}

Seeing what others are seeing: Studies in the regulation of transparency for social media recommender systems

2023.

@phdthesis{nokey,

title = {Seeing what others are seeing: Studies in the regulation of transparency for social media recommender systems},

author = {Leerssen, P.},

url = {https://dare.uva.nl/search?identifier=18c6e9a0-1530-4e70-b9a6-35fb37873d13},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-04-21},

abstract = {This dissertation asks how the law can shed light on social media recommender systems: the algorithmic tools which platforms use to rank and curate online content. Recommender systems fulfil an important gatekeeping function in social media governance, but their actions are poorly understood. Legal reforms are now underway in EU law to impose transparency rules on social media recommenders, and the goal of this dissertation is to interrogate the accountability relations implied by this regulatory project. What kinds of information is the law demanding about social media recommender systems? Who is included in these new models of accountability, and who is excluded?

This dissertation critiques a dominant paradigm in recent law and policy focused on algorithmic explanations. Building on insights from critical transparency studies and algorithm studies, it argues that disclosure regulation should move from algorithmic transparency toward platform observability: approaching recommenders not as discrete algorithmic artifacts but as complex sociotechnical systems shaped in important ways by their users and operators. Before any attempt to ‘open the black box’ of algorithmic machine learning, therefore, regulating for observability invites us to ask how recommenders find uptake in practice; to demand basic data on recommender inputs, outputs and interventions; to ask what is being recommend, sooner than why.

Several avenues for observability regulation are explored, including platform ad archives; notices for visibility restrictions (or ‘shadow bans’); and researcher APIs. Through solutions such as these, which render visible recommender outcomes, this dissertation outlines a vision for a more democratic media governance\textemdashone which supports informed and inclusive deliberation about, across and within social media’s personalised publics.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {phdthesis}

}

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 18 oktober 2022 (Chohan)

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, ed. 12, nr. 118, pp. 2088-2090, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Quintais, J., Trapova, A.

EU copyright law round up – first trimester of 2023

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

An end to shadow banning? Transparency rights in the Digital Services Act between content moderation and curation

In: Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 48, 2023.

@article{nokey,

title = {An end to shadow banning? Transparency rights in the Digital Services Act between content moderation and curation},

author = {Leerssen, P.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/endtoshadowbanning/},

doi = {10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105790},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-04-11},

urldate = {2023-04-11},

journal = {Computer Law \& Security Review},

volume = {48},

abstract = {This paper offers a legal perspective on the phenomenon of shadow banning: content moderation sanctions which are undetectable to those affected. Drawing on recent social science research, it connects current concerns about shadow banning to novel visibility management techniques in content moderation, such as delisting and demotion. Conventional moderation techniques such as outright content removal or account suspension can be observed by those affected, but these new visibility often cannot. This lends newfound significance to the legal question of moderation transparency rights. The EU Digital Services Act (DSA) is analysed in this light, as the first major legislation to regulate transparency of visibility remedies. In effect, its due process framework prohibits shadow banning with only limited exceptions. In doing so, the DSA surfaces tensions between two competing models for content moderation: as rule-bound administration or as adversarial security conflict. I discuss possible interpretations and trade-offs for this regime, and then turn to a more fundamental problem: how to define visibility reduction as a category of content moderation actions. The concept of visibility reduction or ‘demotions’ is central to both the shadow banning imaginary and to the DSA's safeguards, but its meaning is far from straightforward. Responding to claims that demotion is entirely relative, and therefore not actionable as a category of content moderation sanctions, I show how visibility reduction can still be regulated when defined as ex post adjustments to engagement-based relevance scores. Still, regulating demotion in this way will not cover all exercises of ranking power, since it manifests not only in individual cases of moderation but also through structural acts of content curation; not just by reducing visibility, but by producing visibility.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Copyright Content Moderation in the EU: Conclusions and Recommendations

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

2023.

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 7 oktober 2022 (X / ROC-Nijmegen)

In: Mediaforum, ed. 1, nr. 3, pp. 43-45, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Irion, K., Kaminski, M., Yakovleva, S.

Privacy Peg, Trade Hole: Why We (Still) Shouldn’t Put Data Privacy in Trade Law

2023, bezocht: 28.03.2023.

Remuneration rights and national treatment

In: Improving Intellectual Property: A Global Project, S. Frankel, M. Chon, G. Dinwoodie, B. Lauriat, J. Schovsbo (ed.), Edward Elgar Publishing, Hoofstuk 33, pp. 341-352, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

FAIR, FRAND and open - The institutionalization of research data sharing under the EU data strategy

In: Improving Intellectual Property: A Global Project, S. Frankel, M. Chon, G. Dinwoodie, B. Lauriat, J. Schovsbo (ed.), Edward Elgar Publishing, Hoofstuk 31, pp. 319-329, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Expressive genericity revisited: What EU policymakers can learn from Rochelle Dreyfuss

In: Improving Intellectual Property: A Global Project, S. Frankel, M. Chon, G. Dinwoodie, B. Lauriat, J. Schovsbo (ed.), Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023, Hoofstuk 24, pp. 246-257, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Dergacheva, D., Katzenbach, C., Quintais, J., Riis, T., Schwemer, S.

Impact of content moderation practices and technologies on access and diversity

2023, (D.6.3 Final Evaluation and Measuring Report).

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 22 november 2022 (WM, Sovim SA / Luxembourg Business Registers)

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, ed. 6, nr. 62, pp. 1048-1051, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

De Gregorio, G., Magalhães, J.C., Quintais, J.

How platforms govern users’ copyright-protected content: Exploring the power of private ordering and its implications

In: Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 48, 2023.

@article{nokey,

title = {How platforms govern users’ copyright-protected content: Exploring the power of private ordering and its implications},

author = {Quintais, J. and De Gregorio, G. and Magalh\~{a}es, J.C.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/computer_law_and_security_review_2023/},

doi = {10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105792},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-02-24},

journal = {Computer Law \& Security Review},

volume = {48},

abstract = {Online platforms provide primary points of access to information and other content in the digital age. They foster users’ ability to share ideas and opinions while offering opportunities for cultural and creative industries. In Europe, ownership and use of such expressions is partly governed by a complex web of legislation, sectoral self- and co-regulatory norms. To an important degree, it is also governed by private norms defined by contractual agreements and informal relationships between users and platforms. By adopting policies usually defined as Terms of Service and Community Guidelines, platforms almost unilaterally set use, moderation and enforcement rules, structures and practices (including through algorithmic systems) that govern the access and dissemination of protected content by their users. This private governance of essential means of access, dissemination and expression to (and through) creative content is hardly equitable, though. In fact, it is an expression of how platforms control what users \textendash including users-creators \textendash can say and disseminate online, and how they can monetise their content.



As platform power grows, EU law is adjusting by moving towards enhancing the responsibility of platforms for content they host. One crucial example of this is Article 17 of the new Copyright Directive (2019/790), which fundamentally changes the regime and liability of “online content-sharing service providers” (OCSSPs). This complex regime, complemented by rules in the Digital Services Act, sets out a new environment for OCSSPs to design and carry out content moderation, as well as to define their contractual relationship with users, including creators. The latter relationship is characterized by significant power imbalance in favour of platforms, calling into question whether the law can and should do more to protect users-creators.



This article addresses the power of large-scale platforms in EU law over their users’ copyright-protected content and its effects on the governance of that content, including on its exploitation and some of its implications for freedom of expression. Our analysis combines legal and empirical methods. We carry our doctrinal legal research to clarify the complex legal regime that governs platforms’ contractual obligations to users and content moderation activities, including the space available for private ordering, with a focus on EU law. From the empirical perspective, we conducted a thematic analysis of most versions of the Terms of Services published over time by the three largest social media platforms in number of users \textendash Facebook, Instagram and YouTube \textendash so as to identify and examine the rules these companies have established to regulate user-generated content, and the ways in which such provisions shifted in the past two decades. In so doing, we unveil how foundational this sort of regulation has always been to platforms’ functioning and how it contributes to defining a system of content exploitation.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Online platforms provide primary points of access to information and other content in the digital age. They foster users’ ability to share ideas and opinions while offering opportunities for cultural and creative industries. In Europe, ownership and use of such expressions is partly governed by a complex web of legislation, sectoral self- and co-regulatory norms. To an important degree, it is also governed by private norms defined by contractual agreements and informal relationships between users and platforms. By adopting policies usually defined as Terms of Service and Community Guidelines, platforms almost unilaterally set use, moderation and enforcement rules, structures and practices (including through algorithmic systems) that govern the access and dissemination of protected content by their users. This private governance of essential means of access, dissemination and expression to (and through) creative content is hardly equitable, though. In fact, it is an expression of how platforms control what users – including users-creators – can say and disseminate online, and how they can monetise their content.

As platform power grows, EU law is adjusting by moving towards enhancing the responsibility of platforms for content they host. One crucial example of this is Article 17 of the new Copyright Directive (2019/790), which fundamentally changes the regime and liability of “online content-sharing service providers” (OCSSPs). This complex regime, complemented by rules in the Digital Services Act, sets out a new environment for OCSSPs to design and carry out content moderation, as well as to define their contractual relationship with users, including creators. The latter relationship is characterized by significant power imbalance in favour of platforms, calling into question whether the law can and should do more to protect users-creators.

This article addresses the power of large-scale platforms in EU law over their users’ copyright-protected content and its effects on the governance of that content, including on its exploitation and some of its implications for freedom of expression. Our analysis combines legal and empirical methods. We carry our doctrinal legal research to clarify the complex legal regime that governs platforms’ contractual obligations to users and content moderation activities, including the space available for private ordering, with a focus on EU law. From the empirical perspective, we conducted a thematic analysis of most versions of the Terms of Services published over time by the three largest social media platforms in number of users – Facebook, Instagram and YouTube – so as to identify and examine the rules these companies have established to regulate user-generated content, and the ways in which such provisions shifted in the past two decades. In so doing, we unveil how foundational this sort of regulation has always been to platforms’ functioning and how it contributes to defining a system of content exploitation.

Gebruikersrechten door de achterdeur. Nationale implementaties van artikel 17 DSM-richtlijn en de uitspraak van het HvJ EU in de zaak Polen/EU (C-401/19)

In: Auteursrecht, ed. 1, pp. 12-17, 2023.

Ongehoord Nederland! Underdog en waakhond.

In: Ars Aequi, vol. 72, pp. 114-117, 2023, (Opinie).

Protecting creatives or impeding progress? Machine learning and the EU copyright framework

2023, bezocht: 20.02.2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Kerste, M., Kuczynski, A., Poort, J., Tieben, B.

Herberekening reserveprijzen

2023, (SEO-notitie 2023-19).

(Links | BibTeX)

Appelman, N., Buri, I., Fahy, R., Quintais, J., Straub, M., van Hoboken, J.

Putting the DSA into Practice: Enforcement, Access to Justice and Global Implications

2023, ISBN: 9783757517960.

Diakopoulos, N., Helberger, N.

ChatGPT and the AI Act

In: Internet Policy Review, vol. 12, ed. 1, 2023.

Polen is plotseling de verdediger van de Europese grondwet. Een beschouwing over de zaak Polen/Europees Parlement: HvJ EU 22 april 2022, zaak C-401/19

In: Auteursrecht, vol. 2022, ed. 4, pp. 219-227, 2023.

Utilisme ‘on steroids’: effectief altruïsme, longtermism en uitlevering aan big tech

In: De Nederlandse Boekengids, vol. 2023, ed. 2, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Quintais, J., Trapova, A.

EU copyright law round up – fourth trimester of 2022

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2023.

(Links | BibTeX)

Dodds, T., Helberger, N., Resendez, V., Seipp, T., Vreese, C. de

In: Journalism Studies, 2023.

Dealing with Opinion Power in the Platform World: Why We Really Have to Rethink Media Concentration Law

Ausloos, J., Helberger, N., Seipp, T., Vreese, C.H. de

In: Digital Journalism, 2023.

De uitspraak C-817/19 van het HvJ EU inzake de PNR-richtlijn en de gevolgen voor nationale implementatiewetgeving en in het bijzonder de Nederlandse PNR-wet

Es, R. van, Irion, K.

In: Mediaforum, vol. 2022, nr. 6, pp. 185-192, 2022.

Towards a Normative Perspective on Journalistic AI: Embracing the Messy Reality of Normative Ideals

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

In: Digital Journalism, vol. 10, ed. 10, pp. 1605-1626, 2022.

Freedom of Expression and the EU’s Ban on Russia Today: A Dangerous Rubicon Crossed

Fahy, R., Voorhoof, D.

In: Communications Law, vol. 27, ed. 4, pp. 186-193, 2022.

Is Spotify the New Radio? The Scope of the Right to Remuneration for "Secondary Uses" in Respect of Audio Streaming Services

In: Gestaltung der Informationsrechtsordnung: Festschrift für Thomas Dreier zum 65. Geburtstag, Fischer, Nolte, Senftleben & Specht-Riemenschneider (ed.), C.H. Beck: München, pp. 161-176, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Territoriality Roundtables (combined report)

2022, (ReCreating Europe, D4.4).

ALLEA Statement on Open Access Publication under “Big Deals” and the New Copyright Rules

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Butler, B., Carroll, M., Cohen-Sasson, O., Contreras, J.L., Craig, C., Flynn, S., Guibault, L., Jaszi, P., Jütte, B.J., Katz, A., Margoni, T., Quintais, J., Rocha de Souza, A., Sag, M., Samberg, R., Schirru, L., Senftleben, M., Tur-Sinai, O.

Legal reform to enhance global text and data mining research: Outdated copyright laws around the world hinder research

In: Science, vol. 378, ed. 6623, pp. 951-953, 2022.

Book review: Media Freedom, by Damian Tambini

In: Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Broeders, D., Csernatoni, R., Irion, K., Kaminska, M., Monti, G., Robles-Carrillo, M., Soare, S., Timmers, P.

Digital Sovereignty: from Narrative to Policy?

EU Institute for Security Studies, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Leiden University, 2022.

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 25 februari 2022 (Google)

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, ed. 37/38/39, nr. 259, pp. 4708-4709, 2022.

Annotatie Hoge Raad 3 december 2021 (Hoist Finance AB)

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, ed. 37/38/39, nr. 258, pp. 4640-4642, 2022.

Using Terms and Conditions to Apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation

In: German Law Journal, Komende.

@article{nokey,

title = {Using Terms and Conditions to Apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation},

author = {Quintais, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R.},

url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4286147

https://osf.io/f2n7m/},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-11-25},

journal = {German Law Journal},

abstract = {Large online platforms provide an unprecedented means for exercising freedom of expression online and wield enormous power over public participation in the online democratic space. However, it is increasingly clear that their systems, where (automated) content moderation decisions are taken based on a platform's terms and conditions (T\&Cs), are fundamentally broken. Content moderation systems have been said to undermine freedom of expression, especially where important public interest speech ends up suppressed, such as speech by minority and marginalized groups. Indeed, these content moderation systems have been criticized for their overly vague rules of operation, inconsistent enforcement, and an overdependence on automation. Therefore, in order to better protect freedom of expression online, international human rights bodies and civil society organizations have argued that platforms “should incorporate directly” principles of fundamental rights law into their T\&Cs. Under EU law, and apart from a rule in the Terrorist Content Regulation, platforms had until recently no explicit obligation to incorporate fundamental rights into their T\&Cs. However, an important provision in the Digital Services Act (DSA) will change this. Crucially, Article 14 DSA lays down new rules on how platforms can enforce their T\&Cs, including that platforms must have “due regard” to the “fundamental rights” of users under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In this article, we critically examine the topic of enforceability of fundamental rights via T\&Cs through the prism of Article 14 DSA. We ask whether this provision requires platforms to apply EU fundamental rights law and to what extent this may curb the power of Big Tech over online speech. We conclude that Article 14 will make it possible, in principle, to establish the indirect horizontal effect of fundamental rights in the relationship between online platforms and their users. But in order for the application and enforcement of T\&Cs to take due regard of fundamental rights, Article 14 must be operationalized within the framework of the international and European fundamental rights standards, and therefore allowing Article 14 to fulfil its revolutionary potential.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {forthcoming},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Large online platforms provide an unprecedented means for exercising freedom of expression online and wield enormous power over public participation in the online democratic space. However, it is increasingly clear that their systems, where (automated) content moderation decisions are taken based on a platform's terms and conditions (T&Cs), are fundamentally broken. Content moderation systems have been said to undermine freedom of expression, especially where important public interest speech ends up suppressed, such as speech by minority and marginalized groups. Indeed, these content moderation systems have been criticized for their overly vague rules of operation, inconsistent enforcement, and an overdependence on automation. Therefore, in order to better protect freedom of expression online, international human rights bodies and civil society organizations have argued that platforms “should incorporate directly” principles of fundamental rights law into their T&Cs. Under EU law, and apart from a rule in the Terrorist Content Regulation, platforms had until recently no explicit obligation to incorporate fundamental rights into their T&Cs. However, an important provision in the Digital Services Act (DSA) will change this. Crucially, Article 14 DSA lays down new rules on how platforms can enforce their T&Cs, including that platforms must have “due regard” to the “fundamental rights” of users under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In this article, we critically examine the topic of enforceability of fundamental rights via T&Cs through the prism of Article 14 DSA. We ask whether this provision requires platforms to apply EU fundamental rights law and to what extent this may curb the power of Big Tech over online speech. We conclude that Article 14 will make it possible, in principle, to establish the indirect horizontal effect of fundamental rights in the relationship between online platforms and their users. But in order for the application and enforcement of T&Cs to take due regard of fundamental rights, Article 14 must be operationalized within the framework of the international and European fundamental rights standards, and therefore allowing Article 14 to fulfil its revolutionary potential.

Compliance of National TDM Rules with International Copyright Law: An Overrated Nonissue?

In: IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , vol. 53, pp. 1477-1505, 2022.

Practical fundamental rights impact assessments

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

In: International Journal of Law and Information, vol. 30, ed. 2, pp. 200-232, 2022.

De lange schaduw van de Koude Oorlog in de kunst: over kunst, kitsch, camp en dictatorkunst

In: De Nederlandse Boekengids, nr. 6, 2022.

Actualisatie reserveprijs veiling 3,5 GHz

Kuczynski, A., Poort, J., Tieben, B., Vlaanderen, M.

2022, (SEO-rapport 2022-96).

(Links | BibTeX)

Ausloos, J., Delacroix, S., Giannopoulou, A., Janssen, H.

Intermediating data rights exercises: the role of legal mandates

In: International Data Privacy Law, vol. 12, ed. 4, pp. 316-331, 2022.

@article{nokey,

title = {Intermediating data rights exercises: the role of legal mandates},

author = {Giannopoulou, A. and Ausloos, J. and Delacroix, S. and Janssen, H.},

doi = {10.1093/idpl/ipac017},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-11-15},

journal = {International Data Privacy Law},

volume = {12},

issue = {4},

pages = {316-331},

abstract = {Data subject rights constitute critical tools for empowerment in the digitized society. There is a growing trend of relying on third parties to facilitate or coordinate the collective exercises of data rights, on behalf of one or more data subjects.

This contribution refers to these parties as ‘Data Rights Intermediaries’ (DRIs), ie where an ‘intermediating’ party facilitates or enables the collective exercise of data rights. The exercise of data rights by these DRIs on behalf of the data subjects can only be effectuated with the help of mandates.

Data rights mandates are not expressly framed in the GDPR their delineation can be ambiguous. It is important to highlight that data rights are mandatable and this without affecting their inalienability in light of their fundamental rights’ nature.

This article argues that contract law and fiduciary duties both have longstanding traditions and robust norms in many jurisdictions, all of which can be explored towards shaping the appropriate environment to regulate data rights mandates in particular.

The article concludes that the key in unlocking the full potential of data rights mandates can already be found in existing civil law constructs, whose diversity reveals the need for solidifying the responsibility and accountability of mandated DRIs. The continued adherence to fundamental contract law principles will have to be complemented by a robust framework of institutional safeguards. The need for such safeguards stems from the vulnerable position of data subjects, both vis-\`{a}-vis DRIs as well as data controllers.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Opinie: Commerciële datakluizen lossen problemen met big tech niet op

Janssen, H.

In: De Volkskrant, 2022.

Effects of an issue-based microtargeting campaign: A small-scale field experiment in a multi-party setting

Dobber, T., Helberger, N., Trilling, D., Vreese, C.H. de

In: The Information Society, 2022.

Goed bestuur en integriteit bij de publieke omroep

In: Mediaforum, ed. 5, pp. 158-163, 2022.

The DSA has been published – now the difficult bit begins

Appelman, N., Buri, I., Fahy, R., Quintais, J., Straub, M., van Hoboken, J.

In: Verfassungsblog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Testimony for PEGA hearing on spyware and fundamental rights

In: 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Repairing the EU Passenger Name Record Directive: the ECJ’s judgment in Ligue des droits humains (Case C-817/19)

2022, bezocht: 24.10.2022.

Opinie: Leg wettelijk vast dat experts onderzoek mogen doen naar gaten in cyberbeveiliging

In: De Volkskrant, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Rucz, M.

SLAPPed by the GDPR: protecting public interest journalism in the face of GDPR-based strategic litigation against public participation

In: Journal of Media Law, vol. 14, ed. 2, pp. 378-405, 2022.

Code of Best Practices on Creative Reuse for Immersive Experiences

Meletti, B., van Gompel, S.

2022, (ReCreating Europe, D4.11).

NIT S.R.L. t. Moldavië (EHRM, 28470/12) – Het EHRM introduceert intern pluralisme

Drunen, M. van

In: European Human Rights Cases Updates, 2022.

EU copyright law round up – third trimester of 2022

Quintais, J., Trapova, A.

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Bruning, T., Dommering, E., Kruikemeier, S., Maussen, M., Smeets, H.

Moet fake news verboden worden? De toekomst van samen beslissen

2022, bezocht: 18.09.2022.

Study on media plurality and diversity online

Brogi, E., Fahy, R., Idiz, D., Irion, K., Meiring, A., Parcu, P.L., Poort, J., Seipp, T., Verza, S. et. al.

2022, ISBN: 978-92-76-51323-0, (Report commissioned by European Commission, Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, written by Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF), European University Institute, CiTiP (Centre for Information Technology and Intellectual Property) of KU Leuven, Institute for Information Law of the University of Amsterdam (IViR/UvA), Vrije Universiteit Brussels (Studies in Media, Innovation and Technology, VUB- SMIT)).

@techreport{nokey,

title = {Study on media plurality and diversity online},

author = {Parcu, P.L. and Brogi, E. and Verza, S. et. al. and Irion, K. and Fahy, R. and Idiz, D. and Meiring, A. and Seipp, T. and Poort, J. 

},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/study-on-media-plurality-and-diversity-online/

https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/529019},

doi = {10.2759/529019},

isbn = {978-92-76-51323-0},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-09-16},

urldate = {2022-09-16},

publisher = {Publications Office of the European Union},

abstract = {The Study on Media Plurality and Diversity Online investigates the value of safeguarding media pluralism and diversity online, focusing on (i) the prominence and discoverability of general interest content and services, and on (ii) market plurality and the concentration of economic resources. With a focus on Europe, the project is funded by a tender from the European Commission to produce a study on Media Plurality and Diversity Online and involves four partner universities: CMPF (EUI); CiTiP (Centre for Information Technology and Intellectual Property) of KU Leuven; the Institute for Information Law of the University of Amsterdam (IViR/UvA); imec-SMIT-Vrije Universiteit Brussel. The purpose of the assignment was to describe, analyse and evaluate the existing regulatory and business practices in the two areas mentioned above, and finally to elaborate some policy recommendations. Data were collected from the database of the Media Pluralism Monitor (CMPF) and through desk research, online consultations and interviews with stakeholders. The contractor was able to call on a network of national experts across the Member States to support this work.},

note = {Report commissioned by European Commission, Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, written by Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (CMPF), European University Institute, CiTiP (Centre for Information Technology and Intellectual Property) of KU Leuven, Institute for Information Law of the University of Amsterdam (IViR/UvA), Vrije Universiteit Brussels (Studies in Media, Innovation and Technology, VUB- SMIT)},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {techreport}

}

Algorithmic News Diversity and Democratic Theory: Adding Agonism to the Mix

In: Digital Journalism, 2022.

RADio – Rank-Aware Divergence Metrics to Measure Normative Diversity in News Recommendations

Bénédict, G., De Rijke, M., Gutierrez Granada, M., Odijk, D., Vrijenhoek, S.

In: RecSys '22: Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pp. 208-219, 2022.

In het Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam heeft het eigen gelijk een ereplek gekregen

Dommering, E., Lamoree, J.

In: Vrij Nederland, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

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

Copyright Content Moderation in the EU: An Interdisciplinary Mapping Analysis

2022, (ReCreating Europe, August 2022).

Copyright Content Moderation in the EU: An Interdisciplinary Mapping Analysis

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

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Burri, M., Irion, K.

§ 16 Digitaler Handel (Handels- und Kooperationsvertrag EU/GB Handbuch)

In: C.J. Tams G. Kübek, J. P. Terhechte (Ed.): Nomos, 2022, ISBN: 978-3-8487-7188-2 .

(Links | BibTeX)

Buri, I., Chapman, M., Culloty, E., Drunen, M. van, Fahy, R., Giannopoulou, A., Gil González, E., Heuvelhof, C. ten, Meiring, A., Strycharz, J.

New actors and risks in online advertising

2022, ISSN: 2079-1062, (IRIS Special 2022-1, European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg).

(Links | BibTeX)

McGonagle, T., Voorhoof, D.

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

2022, ISBN: 9789287184351, (IRIS Themes, vol. III, 7th edition, European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg).

Opinie: Staatspropaganda en uitingsvrijheid

In: Mediaforum, vol. 34, ed. 2, pp. 45, 2022.

The UK government moves forward with a text and data mining exception for all purposes

Quintais, J., Trapova, A.

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Benabou, V.L., Metzger, A., Rognstad, O-A.,, Sganga, C., van Eechoud, M.

Comment of the European Copyright Society on the impact and consequences of the CJEU decision in C-265/19 (RAAP)

2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Drunen, M. van, Fechner, D.

Safeguarding Editorial Independence in an Automated Media System: The Relationship Between Law and Journalistic Perspectives

In: Digital Journalism, 2022.

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 2 oktober 2020 (Stichting Lira / Ziggo, Delta Fiber Nederland & Vereniging Rechtenoverleg voor distributie van audiovisuele producties)

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, ed. 30, nr. 225, pp. 4168-4170, 2022.

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 8 februari 2022 (Demonstratie in de RAI bij vakbeurs)

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, ed. 29, nr. 222, pp. 4062-4065, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Study on the Open Data Directive, Data Governance and Data Act and their possible impact on research

2022, ISBN: 9789276536314, (Independent expert report commissioned by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation).

Study on EU copyright and related rights and access to and reuse of data

2022, ISBN: 9789276536321, (Independent expert report commissioned by European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation).

Doubling down on safety of journalists – An analysis and positioning of OSCE Ministerial Council Decision No. 3/18 - Safety of Journalists (2018) in a wider context

McGonagle, T.

2022, (Study commissioned by the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media).

(Links | BibTeX)

McGonagle, T.

Another string to the bow of media freedom: An analysis of the Communiqués of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media (2014 – 2022)

2022, (Study commissioned by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, OSCE, Vienna).

Allocating Control in Decentralised Identity Management

Giannopoulou, A.

In: European Review of Digital Administration & Law - Erdal, vol. 2021, ed. 2, pp. 75-87, 2022.

Report on effect of digitisation and regulatory changes on access to cultural/creative goods and services

Martinelli, A., Mazzei, J., Nuvolari, A., Poort, J.

2022, (Part of Rethinking digital copyright law for a culturally diverse, accessible, creative Europe, ReCreating Europe).

Persvrijheidsmonitor 2021

McGonagle, T., Volgenant, O.

In: Mediaforum, ed. 3, pp. 74-77, 2022.

The Right to Lodge a Data Protection Complaint: Ok, But Then What? An empirical study of current practices under the GDPR

European Data Protection Scholars Network

2022.

In defense of offense: information security research under the right to science

In: Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 46, 2022.

EU copyright law round up – second trimester of 2022

Quintais, J., Trapova, A.

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Keller, P., Reda, F.

Filtered Futures Conference: Exploring the Fundamental Rights Constraints of Automated Filtering After the CJEU Ruling on Article 17

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Algorithms Off-limits? If digital trade law restricts access to source code of software then accountability will suffer

In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’22), June 21–24, 2022, Seoul, Republic of Korea. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2022.

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

Defining the scope of AI ADM system risk assessment

In: Research handbook on EU data protection law, E. Kosta, R. Leenes & I. Kamara (ed.), Hoofstuk 16, pp. 405-434, Edgar Elgar Publishing, 2022.

Janssen, H., Singh, J.

Data intermediary

In: Internet Policy Review, vol. 11, ed. 1, 2022, (Glossary of decentralised technosocial systems).

Personal Information Management Systems

Janssen, H., Singh, J.

In: Internet Policy Review, vol. 11, ed. 2, 2022, (Glossary of decentralised technosocial systems).

Annotatie bij Rb Noord-Holland 6 oktober 2021 (Kamerlid / LinkedIn Ierland & LinkedIn Nederland)

In: Computerrecht, ed. 3, nr. 97, pp. 228-230, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Mil, J. van, Quintais, J.

A Matter of (Joint) control? Virtual assistants and the general data protection regulation

In: Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 45, 2022.

Inbreng Rondetafelgesprek over de Wet kansspelen op afstand

2022, (Position paper voor Rondetafelgesprek van de Vaste commissie voor Justitie en Veiligheid, 9 juni 2022).

(Links | BibTeX)

Margoni, T., Quintais, J., Schwemer, S.

Algorithmic propagation: do property rights in data increase bias in content moderation? – Part II

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Margoni, T., Quintais, J., Schwemer, S.

Algorithmic propagation: do property rights in data increase bias in content moderation? Part I

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 12 december 2021 (SENA/Organisatoren Dance Events)

In: Auteursrecht, ed. 2, nr. 4, pp. 107-109, 2022.

De playlists van Spotify: Hoe ver reikt het nabuurrechtelijke vergoedingsrecht met betrekking tot audiostreamingdiensten?

In: Auteursrecht, ed. 2, pp. 75-84, 2022.

Naar een algemeen transparantiebeginsel? : Bespreking van het preadvies van A.W.G.J. Buijze voor de VAR 2022

In: Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Bestuursrecht, ed. 5, nr. 141, pp. 265-271, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

The Meaning of “Additional” in the Poland ruling of the Court of Justice: Double Safeguards – Ex Ante Flagging and Ex Post Complaint Systems – are Indispensable

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Helberger, N., Micklitz, H.-W., Sax, M., Strycharz, J.

Choice Architectures in the Digital Economy: Towards a New Understanding of Digital Vulnerability

In: Journal of Consumer Policy, vol. 45, ed. 2, pp. 175-200, 2022.

Maintaining trust in a technologized public sector

Bodó, B., Janssen, H.

In: Policy and Society, 2022.

@article{nokey,

title = {Maintaining trust in a technologized public sector},

author = {Bod\'{o}, B. and Janssen, H.},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac019},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-05-19},

journal = {Policy and Society},

abstract = {Emerging technologies permeate and potentially disrupt a wide spectrum of our social, economic, and political relations. Various state institutions, including education, law enforcement, and healthcare, increasingly rely on technical components, such as automated decision-making systems, e-government systems, and other digital tools to provide cheap, efficient public services, and supposedly fair, transparent, disinterested, and accountable public administration. The increased interest in various blockchain-based solutions from central bank digital currencies, via tokenized educational credentials, and distributed ledger-based land registries to self-sovereign identities is the latest, still mostly unwritten chapter in a long history of standardized, objectified, automated, technocratic, and technologized public administration. The rapid, (often) unplanned, and uncontrolled technologization of public services (as happened in the hasty adoption of distance-learning and teleconferencing systems during Corona Virus Disease (COVID) lockdowns) raises complex questions about the use of novel technological components, which may or may not be ultimately adequate for the task for which they are used. The question whether we can trust the technical infrastructures the public sector uses when providing public services is a central concern in an age where trust in government is declining: If the government’s artificial intelligence system that detects welfare fraud fails, the public’s confidence in the government is ultimately hit. In this paper, we provide a critical assessment of how the use of potentially untrustworthy (private) technological systems including blockchain-based systems in the public sector may affect trust in government. We then propose several policy options to protect the trust in government even if some of their technological components prove fundamentally untrustworthy.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

The platformisation of digital payments: The fabrication of consumer interest in the EU FinTech agenda

Ferrari, V.

In: Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 45, 2022.

@article{nokey,

title = {The platformisation of digital payments: The fabrication of consumer interest in the EU FinTech agenda},

author = {Ferrari, V.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/computerlawsecurityreview_2022/},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105687},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-05-19},

journal = { Computer Law \& Security Review},

volume = {45},

abstract = {This paper investigates, through a qualitative analysis of official documents, how certain imaginaries about technology filter into EU policymaking, allowing or accelerating the transformation of payment infrastructures into the platform economy.



One of the ways in which socio-technical imaginaries filter into policymaking is, it turns out, by informing an image of the consumer which serves to justify measures for the realization of a desired future. In particular, the documents offer a view of the consumer as an actor that is empowered by digitisation. The thesis of this paper is that this view of the consumer is partial: the rhetoric of consumer technological empowerment outweighs and conceals much needed considerations about the vulnerability of consumers vis-a-vis data-intensive payment technologies. Ultimately, the fault lies with the future imaginaries upon which such image is grounded. The vision of the digital payment infrastructure portrayed in the documents is in fact problematic for two reasons. First, the technologies that are portraited as desirable are chosen based on industry interests and trends rather than considerations of benefits and risks that these technologies entail. Secondly, the assumption that a liberalized market will offer more and better choices is flawed, as platformisation entails risks of monopolization and abuses of market power. We suggest that policymakers in this domain should be more critical of the risks entailed by platformisation, and open their imagination to alternative technological futures.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Between Filters and Fundamental Rights: How the Court of Justice saved Article 17 in C-401/19 - Poland v. Parliament and Council

In: Verfassungsblog, 2022.

Opinion of the European Copyright Society on selected aspects of the proposed Data Act

Derclaye E., Husovec, M., Senftleben, M., van Eechoud, M.

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Groundhog Day in Geneva: The WIPO Broadcasting Treaty is on the Agenda Once Again

2022, (Draft paper prepared for American University International Law Review Symposium on the Right to Research in International Copyright Law, April 22, 2022).

(Links | BibTeX)

Giorello, M., Keller, P., Quintais, J., Reda, F.

Video recording of the COMMUNIA Salon on the CJEU decision on Article 17 (Case C-401/19)

04.05.2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Chocarro, S., Harrison,J., McGonagle, T., Parmar, S., Torsner, S.

Closing the normative gap: What ten years of Human Rights Council Resolutions tell us about its approach to the safety of journalists

2022, (Working paper, the seventh Academic Conference on the Safety of Journalists, jointly organised by the University of the Republic and UNESCO, World Press Freedom Day in Punta del Este, Uruguay).

@techreport{nokey,

title = {Closing the normative gap: What ten years of Human Rights Council Resolutions tell us about its approach to the safety of journalists },

author = {Chocarro, S. and Harrison,J. and McGonagle, T. and Parmar, S. and Torsner, S. },

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/nl/closing-the-normative-gap/

https://www.article19.org/resources/world-press-freedom-day-journalism-under-siege/},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-05-03},

urldate = {2022-05-03},

abstract = {In the last ten years, there have been high levels of development of normative work within the United Nations (UN) system on the issue of the safety of journalists. Since the approval of the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity in 2012, the first ever UN strategy on this matter, and the subsequent first Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution on the safety of journalists that same year, fifteen resolutions have been adopted by the principal UN Charter-based bodies, namely the Security Council, the General Assembly and the HRC, and also UNESCO.

The HRC resolutions, which have been adopted on a biennial basis, have proven to be the most progressive in addressing the safety of journalists from a human rights-based perspective. However, the main challenge remains their effective implementation. How have these resolutions evolved and what do they reveal about how the issue of the safety of journalists is addressed by the HRC? What are the shortcomings and gaps in the protection of the safety of journalists offered by this set of resolutions?

To answer these questions, this paper first undertakes a qualitative document analysis of HRC resolutions. It then analyzes the development of these resolutions from a humanrights perspective. Finally, based on this analysis, it identifies the normative gaps that should be addressed in order to properly respond to the most pressing challenges to the safety of journalists in the years to come. 

},

note = {Working paper, the seventh Academic Conference on the Safety of Journalists, jointly organised by the University of the Republic and UNESCO, World Press Freedom Day in Punta del Este, Uruguay},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {techreport}

}

Article 17 survives, but freedom of expression safeguards are key: C-401/19 – Poland v Parliament and Council

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Bulayenko, O., Gervais, D.J., Poort, J., Quintais, J.

AI Music Outputs: Challenges to the Copyright Legal Framework – Part II

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Keller, P., Reda, F.

CJEU upholds Article 17, but not in the form (most) Member States imagined

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Bulayenko, O., Gervais, D.J., Poort, J., Quintais, J.

AI Music Outputs: Challenges to the Copyright Legal Framework – Part I

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 8 september 2020 (Recorded Artists Actors Performers / Phonographic Performance (Ireland))

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, ed. 15, nr. 126, pp. 2384-2386, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Robustness Check: Evaluating and Strengthening Artistic Use Defences in EU Trademark Law

In: IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , vol. 53, nr. 4, pp. 567-603, 2022.

@article{nokey,

title = {Robustness Check: Evaluating and Strengthening Artistic Use Defences in EU Trademark Law},

author = {Senftleben, M.},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-022-01182-x},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-04-12},

urldate = {2022-04-12},

journal = {IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law },

volume = {53},

number = {4},

pages = {567-603},

abstract = {The 2015 EU trademark law reform introduced a peculiar rule for reconciling trademark rights with freedom of artistic expression. According to Recital 21 EUTMR and Recital 27 TMD, artistic use can be deemed fair as long as the artist ensures compliance with “honest practices in industrial and commercial matters”. The honest practices proviso forges a link with the provisions on limitations of trademark rights. Article 14(1) EUTMR and Art. 14(1) TMD exempt from the control of trademark proprietors several types of use that can allow for artistic use. All these limitations, however, apply only when the use satisfies the test of honest practices. Confirming the obligation to comply with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters, the fairness rule of Recital 21 EUTMR and Recital 27 TMD turns out to be a double-edged sword. Instead of readily immunizing artistic use against trademark claims, it obliges artists to rely on limitations of trademark rights and furnish corresponding proof. Moreover, artists are expected to align their artistic activity with behavioural standards in the field of industry and commerce \textendash a realm that is alien to the artistic community. Evidently, this approach endangers artistic autonomy. To avoid detrimental effects on artistic expression, it is advisable to strengthen the position of artists and develop a legal solution that resembles the measures taken in Art. 9(3)(f) EUTMR and Art. 10(3)(f) TMD with regard to freedom of commercial expression. Drawing inspiration from cultural sciences and case law on both sides of the Atlantic, the analysis explores avenues for achieving this goal.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

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.

In: JIPITEC, vol. 13, ed. 1, pp. 67-86, 2022.

Alberdingk Thijm, Chr. A.

Knock Knock Who's There? Tussenpersonen, persoonsgegevens en de kunst van het juiste evenwicht

In: Ars Aequi, ed. april, pp. 279-288, 2022.

De CoronaMelder door een economische lens

In: TPEdigitaal, vol. 16, ed. 2, pp. 48-60, 2022.

EU copyright law round up – first trimester of 2022

Quintais, J., Trapova, A.

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Bulayenko, O., Gervais, D.J., Poort, J., Quintais, J.

AI Music Outputs: Challenges to the Copyright Legal Framework

2022, (reCreating Europe report, D3.5).

Grondrechten voor de vijand

In: De Hofvijver, vol. 12, ed. 129, 2022.

The General Data Protection Regulation though the lens of digital sovereignty

EU CYBER DIRECT RESEARCH SEMINAR, 2022.

Contribution to the public consultation on the European Media Freedom Act

Irion, K., Rucz, M., Senftleben, M.

In: 2022.

De toekomst van de digitale rechtsstaat. Pleidooi voor het gebruik van een mensenrechten impact assessment voor de publieke sector

Janssen, H.

In: (L)aw Matters: Blogs and Essays in Honour of prof. dr. Aalt Willem Hering, Hoofstuk 34, pp. 198-204, Boekenmaker, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Poort, J., Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.

Online prijsdiscriminatie: heeft iedereen zijn prijs?

17.03.2022, (presentatie Amsterdamse Academische Club).

(Links | BibTeX)

Annotatie bij EHRM 7 december 2021 (Standard Verlagsgesellschaft / Oostenrijk)

In: Jurisprudentie Bescherming Persoonsgegevens, ed. 1, nr. 1, pp. 19-23, 2022.

European Copyright Society – Comment on Copyright and the Digital Services Act Proposal

Husovec, M., Kretschmer, M., Mezei, P., Peukert, A., Quintais, J.

In: IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , vol. 53, ed. 3, pp. 358-376, 2022, (Opinion).

(Links | BibTeX)

Quintais, J., Schwemer, S.

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

In: European Journal of Risk Regulation, vol. 13, ed. 2, pp. 191-217, 2022.

@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://www.ivir.nl/ejrr_2022/},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2022.1},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-03-14},

urldate = {2022-03-14},

journal = {European Journal of Risk Regulation},

volume = {13},

issue = {2},

pages = {191-217},

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}

}

A vanishing right? The Sui Generis Database Right and the proposed Data Act

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Drechsler, L., Yakovleva, S.

Contribution to the public consultation on the Guidelines 05/2021 on the Interplay between the application of Article 3 and the provisions on international transfers as per Chapter V of the GDPR

In: 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Annotatie bij Rechtbank Midden-Nederland 22 december 2021 (VVZBI/KVK)

In: Auteursrecht, ed. 1, pp. 71-72, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Angelopoulos, C., Quintais, J.

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 22 juni 2021 Frank Peterson / Google & YouTube (C 682/18) & Elsevier / Cyando AG (C 683/18)

In: Auteursrecht, ed. 1, nr. 1, pp. 46-51, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Schumacher, L.D., Senftleben, M., van Gompel, S.

Web harvesting: auteursrechtelijke implicaties en oplossingsrichtingen

In: Auteursrecht, ed. 1, pp. 3-14, 2022.

@article{nokey,

title = {Web harvesting: auteursrechtelijke implicaties en oplossingsrichtingen},

author = {van Gompel, S. and Schumacher, L.D. and Senftleben, M.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/auteursrecht_2022_1/},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-03-03},

journal = {Auteursrecht},

issue = {1},

pages = {3-14},

abstract = {‘Web harvesting’ is het proces waarbij een web crawler \textendash een gespecialiseerd computerprogramma \textendash wordt ingezet om websites en internetpagina’s op geautomatiseerde wijze te verzamelen en toe te voegen aan een webarchief. Nederlandse erfgoedinstellingen gebruiken deze techniek bijvoorbeeld om websites aan hun collecties toe te voegen die op het Nederlandse publiek zijn gericht (‘nationale domeincrawl’). Web harvesting kan ook beperkt zijn tot specifiek geselecteerde websites die met een bepaald onderwerp of gebeurtenis samenhangen (‘beredeneerde selectie’). In Nederland gebeurt web harvesting thans enkel nog op kleine schaal. Web crawling gaat namelijk gepaard met talloze reproductiehandelingen, waarvoor vanuit auteursrechtelijk perspectief toestemming kan zijn vereist. Voor het herhaaldelijk en systematisch harvesten van grote hoeveelheden materiaal op het web is het verkrijgen van individuele toestemming een schier onmogelijke taak. Daarnaast willen erfgoedinstellingen het geharveste materiaal ook op een of andere manier ontsluiten om het gebruik voor algemene zin \textendash toegang tot het digitale culturele erfgoed te bieden. Dit artikel onderzoekt tegen deze achtergrond, mede aan de hand van een rechtsvergelijking met het buitenland, welke oplossingsrichtingen er binnen het huidige auteursrechtelijke kader bestaan om web harvesting-activiteiten door erfgoedinstellingen op grotere schaal mogelijk te maken. Dit is nodig om gaten in de archivering van het online Nederlands erfgoed te voorkomen en het digitale culturele erfgoed voor het nageslacht te bewaren en beschikbaar te stellen. },

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Schumacher, L.D., van Eechoud, M.

Data na de dood: Zwevend tussen contract en gegevensbescherming

In: Nederlands Juristenblad (NJB), ed. 6, nr. 355, pp. 396-405, 2022.

van Hoboken, J., Yakovleva, S.

The Algorithmic Learning Deficit: Artificial Intelligence, Data Protection and Trade

In: Big Data and Global Trade Law, Mira Burri (ed.) Cambridge University Press, 2021, Hoofstuk 10, pp. 212-230, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

DJs are Phonogram Producers, says Dutch Supreme Court

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Ebbers, J., Idiz, D. R, Irion, K., Vliegenthart, R.

European audiovisual media policy in the age of global video on demand services: A case study of Netflix in the Netherlands

In: Journal of Digital Media & Policy, vol. 12, nr. 3, pp. 425-449, 2022.

Microtargeted propaganda by foreign actors: An interdisciplinary exploration

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

In: Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, pp. 856-877, 2022, (MJ, vol. 28, nr. 6, 2021).

Article 17, the year in review (2021 edition)

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Husovec, M., Kretschmer, M., Mezei, P., Peukert, A., Quintais, J.

European Copyright Society (ECS): Comment on Copyright and the Digital Services Act Proposal

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Baarsma, B., Berg, G. van den, Broek-Altenburg, E. van den, Dommering, E., Teulings, C.

Lockdowns zijn niet meer te rechtvaardigen

In: NRC, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

Baarsma, B., Berg, G. van den, Broek-Altenburg, E. van den, Dommering, E., Teulings, C.

Naar een coronabeleid zonder lockdowns

In: ESB, 2022.

(Links | BibTeX)

No Trademark Protection for Artworks in the Public Domain – A Practical Guide to the Application of Public Order and Morality as Grounds for Refusal

In: GRUR International, vol. 71, nr. 1, pp. 3-17, 2022.

@article{nokey,

title = {No Trademark Protection for Artworks in the Public Domain \textendash A Practical Guide to the Application of Public Order and Morality as Grounds for Refusal},

author = {Senftleben, M.},

url = {https://academic.oup.com/grurint/article/71/1/3/6349172

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/grurint_2022_1.pdf},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikab107},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-01-11},

journal = {GRUR International},

volume = {71},

number = {1},

pages = {3-17},

abstract = {With its 2017 landmark decision in Vigeland, the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association States (EFTA Court) has paved the way for the invocation of public order and morality as grounds for refusal when trademark protection is sought for cultural expressions in the public domain. Dealing with an attempt to register artworks of the famous Norwegian sculptor Gustav Vigeland as trademarks, the EFTA Court took this step to safeguard the public domain status of literary and artistic works after the expiry of copyright, shield cultural creations against ‘commercial greed’ and ensure the freedom of the arts.1 Trademark examiners and judges seeking to follow in the footsteps of the EFTA Court, however, may find it difficult to operationalize the Vigeland criteria and put corresponding arguments for refusal into practice. Against this background, the following analysis provides guidelines for the practical application of public order and morality arguments in cultural heritage cases. It describes problems arising from the grant of trademark rights in cultural public domain material (Section I) and the traditional reluctance of trademark offices and courts to rely on public order and morality considerations in this context (Section II). After this statement of the problem, the criteria following from the Vigeland decision will be introduced (Section III) before we explore the practical implementation of the EFTA Court’s morality (Section IV) and public order (Section V) arguments in more detail. The final Section VI summarizes the results of the analysis.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

The rise of NFTs: These aren't the droids you're looking for

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

In: European Intellectual Property Review, 2022.

EU copyright law round up – fourth trimester of 2021

Quintais, J., Trapova, A.

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

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

Social Welfare, Risk Profiling and Fundamental Rights: The Case of SyRI in the Netherlands

In: JIPITEC, vol. 12, nr. 4, pp. 257-271, 2021.

@article{nokey,

title = {Social Welfare, Risk Profiling and Fundamental Rights: The Case of SyRI in the Netherlands},

author = {Appelman, N. and Fahy, R. and van Hoboken, J.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/jipitec_2021_4.pdf

https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-12-4-2021/5407},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-12-16},

journal = {JIPITEC},

volume = {12},

number = {4},

pages = {257-271},

abstract = {This article discusses the use of automated decisioning-making (ADM) systems by public administrative bodies, particularly systems designed to combat social-welfare fraud, from a European fundamental rights law perspective. The article begins by outlining the emerging fundamental rights issues in relation to ADM systems used by public administrative bodies. Building upon this, the article critically analyses a recent landmark judgment from the Netherlands and uses this as a case study for discussion of the application of fundamental rights law to ADM systems by public authorities more generally. In the so-called SyRI judgment, the District Court of The Hague held that a controversial automated welfare-fraud detection system (SyRI), which allows the linking and analysing of data from an array of government agencies to generate fraud-risk reports on people, violated the right to private life, guaranteed under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Court held that SyRI was insufficiently transparent, and contained insufficient safeguards, to protect the right to privacy, in violation of Article 8 ECHR. This was one of the first times an ADM system being used by welfare authorities has been halted on the basis of Article 8 ECHR. The article critically analyses the SyRI judgment from a fundamental rights perspective, including by examining how the Court brought principles contained in the General Data Protection Regulation within the rubric of Article 8 ECHR as well as the importance the Court attaches to the principle of transparency under Article 8 ECHR. Finally, the article discusses how the Dutch government responded to the judgment. and discusses proposed new legislation, which is arguably more invasive, with the article concluding with some lessons that can be drawn for the broader policy and legal debate on ADM systems used by public authorities. implications.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

YouTube Copyright Transparency Report: Overblocking is real

In: Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Annotatie bij EHRM 25 mei 2021 (Big Brother Watch e.a. / Verenigd Koninkrijk) en Hof van Justitie EU 6 oktober 2020 (La Quadrature du Net e.a. / Premier ministre e.a.)

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, nr. 49, pp. 6225-6237, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Annotatie bij Rb. Noord-Holland 6 oktober 2021 (Van Haga / LinkedIn)

In: Mediaforum, vol. 33, nr. 6, pp. 206-208, 2021.

Annotatie bij Hof Arnhem-Leeuwarden 25 mei 2021 (Atlantic/Marell Boats)

In: Auteursrecht, nr. 4, pp. 228-229, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Gervais, D.J.

AI-JAX

In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 437-448, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.

Helberger, N., Zarouali, B.

'Voetbal Hoort niet bij Robots': Attitudes Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Refereeing

In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 395-409, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.

Database Rights in the EU's Data Strategy: A Question of Sport?

In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 251-261, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.

Sacrificing the Gods on the Altar of Sports: The Redefinition of Cultural Symbols in the Sports Sector

In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 233-247, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.

An Economic Note on Reselling Tickets

In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 211-216, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.

Do We Need More Copyright Protection for Sports Events?

In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 143-156, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.

van Gompel, S.

Sports as Policy Levers in Intellectual Property Lawmaking

In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 119-130, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.

'The Portrait of a Gentleman'- The Cruijff Case

In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 75-84, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.

Helberger, N., Poort, J., Senftleben, M., van Eechoud, M., van Gompel, S.

Introduction: An Information Law Approach to Intellectual Property and Sports

In: Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz, pp. 3-11, Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.

Het coronabeleid is onconstitutioneel

In: Nederlands Juristenblad (NJB), nr. 41, pp. 3396-3398, 2021.

The Regulatory Landscape for Copyright Content Moderation: Evaluation and Future Trajectories

Kowalewska Jahromi, H., Mezei, P., Priora, G., Quintais, J., Reda, J., Riis, T., Schwemer, S., Szkalej, K.

2021, (Webinar ReCreating Europe 16 November 2021).

Ausloos, J., Helmond, A., Quintais, J., Schumacher, L.D., Senftleben, M., van Gompel, S., van Hoboken, J.

Webharvesting

2021, (Onderzoek in opdracht van het Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC), 20 september 2021, WODC rapport 3142.).

Study on emerging issues on collective licensing practices in the digital environment

Bulayenko, O., and Handke, C., Peeters, R., Poort, J., Quintais, J., Regeczi, D., van Gompel, S.

2021, ISBN: 978-92-76-39981-0, (Study written by Ecorys, IViR and Erasmus University Rotterdam, commissioned by the European Commission.).

@techreport{nokey,

title = {Study on emerging issues on collective licensing practices in the digital environment},

author = {Bulayenko, O. and van Gompel, S. and and Handke, C. and Peeters, R. and Poort, J. and Quintais, J. and Regeczi, D.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Study_on_collective_practices_in_the_digital_environment.pdf

https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/reports-collective-management-and-extended-licensing},

doi = {10.2759/611658},

isbn = {978-92-76-39981-0},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-11-25},

abstract = {Collective management of copyright and related rights is an important element of the copyright system. First and foremost, it can ensure that rightholders reap greater rewards. By exploiting economies of scale and network effects, collective management can also make markets for copyright licences more efficient, to benefit users and other stakeholders. This study examines two central aspects of collective management of copyright and related rights in Europe.

Part I documents the development of multi-territorial licensing of online rights in musical works in the European Economic Area (EEA) under Title III of Directive 2014/26/EU on Collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market (CRM Directive). It highlights the consequences of legal and regulatory reform, based on pervasive quantitative and qualitative data \textendash produced in surveys, interviews and a workshop with stakeholders \textendash and collected among collective management organisations (CMOs), rightholders, online music service providers, and national competent authorities.

Part II examines national mechanisms of collective licensing with an extended effect and comprehensive network of national experts, complemented by surveys of CMOs, as well as interviews with national competent authorities. 

The present study provides a legal and economic analysis that can serve as input for the European Commission to draft the reports required by Article 40 of the CRM Directive and Article 12(6) of the Directive 2019/790/EU on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (DSM Directive).



},

note = {Study written by Ecorys, IViR and Erasmus University Rotterdam, commissioned by the European Commission.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {techreport}

}

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 8 september 2020 (RAAP/PPI)

In: Auteursrecht, vol. 2021, nr. 2, pp. 77-79, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Appelman, N., Fahy, R., Helberger, N.

The perils of legally defining disinformation

In: Internet Policy Review, vol. 10, nr. 4, 2021.

Dijkman, D., Es, R. van, Irion, K., Meeren, K. van der

Evaluatie PNR Wet

2021, (WODC Rapport 3181, geschreven door K. Irion, R. van Es (IViR), K. van der Meeren & D. Dijkman (It's Public), november 2021).

From Risk to Reward? The DSA's risk-based approach to disinformation

McGonagle, T., Pentney, K.

In: Unravelling the Digital Services Act package', M. Cappello (ed.), IRIS Special, Strasbourg: European Audiovisual Observatory, pp. 40-57, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Janssen, H.

Persoonlijke PIMS: privacyfort of luchtkasteel?

In: Privacy & Informatie, nr. 5, pp. 214-225, 2021.

(Abstract | BibTeX)

Kamelen, tijgers en de Wet Open Overheid

In: De Hofvijver, vol. 11, 2021.

Putting Data Protection by Design on the Blockchain

Giannopoulou, A.

In: European Data Protection Law Review, vol. 7, nr. 3, pp. 388-399, 2021.

Personal data ordering in context: the interaction of meso-level data governance regimes with macro frameworks

Bodó, B., Giannopoulou, A., Irion, K., Janssen, H.

In: Internet Policy Review, vol. 10, nr. 3, 2021.

@article{Bod\'{o}2021b,

title = {Personal data ordering in context: the interaction of meso-level data governance regimes with macro frameworks},

author = {Bod\'{o}, B. and Irion, K. and Janssen, H. and Giannopoulou, A.},

url = {https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/personal-data-ordering-context-interaction-meso-level-data-governance-regimes},

doi = {10.14763/2021.3.1581},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-10-11},

urldate = {2021-10-11},

journal = {Internet Policy Review},

volume = {10},

number = {3},

abstract = {The technological infrastructures enabling the collection, processing, and trading of data have fuelled a rapid innovation of data governance models. We differentiate between macro, meso, and micro level models, which correspond to major political blocks; societal-, industry-, or community level systems, and individual approaches, respectively. We focus on meso-level models, which coalesce around: (1) organisations prioritising their own interests over interests of other stakeholders; (2) organisations offering technological and legal tools aiming to empower individuals; (3) community-based data intermediaries fostering collective rights and interests. In this article we assess these meso-level models, and discuss their interaction with the macro-level legal frameworks that have evolved in the US, the EU, and China. The legal landscape has largely remained inconsistent and fragmented, with enforcement struggling to keep up with the latest developments. We argue, first, that the success of meso-logics is largely defined by global economic competition, and, second, that these meso-logics may potentially put the EU’s macro-level framework with its mixed internal market and fundamental rights-oriented model under pressure. We conclude that, given the relative absence of a strong macro level-framework and an intensive competition of governance models at meso-level, it may be challenging to avoid compromises to the European macro framework. },

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Governing “European values” inside data flows: : interdisciplinary perspectives

Buri, M., Irion, K., Kolk, A., Milan, S.

In: Internet Policy Review, vol. 10, nr. 3, 2021.

Copyright and Artificial Creation: Does EU Copyright Law Protect AI-Assisted Output?

Quintais, J., Trapova, A.

2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Hugenholtz, P., Quintais, J.

In: IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law , vol. 52, nr. 9, pp. 1190-1216, 2021.

The Siren Song of the Subtle Copycat - Revisiting Trademark Law with Insights from Consumer Research

Horen, F. van, Senftleben, M.

In: The Trademark Reporter, vol. 111, nr. 4, pp. 739-777, 2021.

@article{Senftleben2021b,

title = {The Siren Song of the Subtle Copycat - Revisiting Trademark Law with Insights from Consumer Research},

author = {Senftleben, M. and Horen, F. van},

url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3922568

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/TheTrademarkReporter_2021_4.pdf},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-10-01},

journal = {The Trademark Reporter},

volume = {111},

number = {4},

pages = {739-777},

abstract = {The architecture of trademark protection systems rests on the assumption that brand imitation strategies are particularly harmful when they seek to achieve a high level of similarity by copying specific trademarked features of the original brand. Marketing research, however, shows that this assumption is doubtful. Subtle, theme-based imitation strategies \textendash aiming at a modest degree of similarity \textendash may allow copycats to garner greater profits and manipulate consumers’ purchasing decisions. Like an enchanting siren song, they may lure customers away from the original products of brand owners. Against this background, the paper discusses the question whether trademark law should be recalibrated.

To lay groundwork for this discussion, the analysis outlines central functions of trademarks in today’s market economy before describing, on the basis of EU trademark law, the traditional approach to copycat strategies from a marketing and legal perspective. Introducing insights from recent marketing research, the paper explains why subtle, theme-based strategies may be more harmful than blatant, feature-based copying. The further examination places this insight in a legal context. Contrasting the empirical findings of marketing research with traditional assessment schemes in EU trademark law, it becomes apparent that there is a remarkable mismatch between legal theory and market reality. Current trademark provisions are not aligned with “real life” consumer perception. As a result, copycats with a subtle imitation strategy remain under the radar of applicable infringement tests. This dilemma is taken as a starting point to discuss the need for reforms in trademark law.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Between Empowerment and Manipulation: The Ethics and Regulation of For-Profit Health Apps

Wolters Kluwer, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537917.

(Links | BibTeX)

Keller, P., Reda, J.

A Proposal to leverage Article 17 to build a public repository of Public Domain and openly licensed works

(Links | BibTeX)

Angelopoulos, C., Senftleben, M., Thije, P. ten

De reikwijdte van artikel 17 DSM-richtlijn in het licht van het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen: een Odyssee

In: Auteursrecht, nr. 3, pp. 120-142, 2021.

@article{Angelopoulos2021,

title = {De reikwijdte van artikel 17 DSM-richtlijn in het licht van het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen: een Odyssee},

author = {Angelopoulos, C. and Senftleben, M. and Thije, P. ten},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Auteursrecht_2021_3.pdf},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-09-21},

journal = {Auteursrecht},

number = {3},

pages = {120-142},

abstract = {Met de Richtlijn auteursrechten en naburige rechten in de digitale eengemaakte markt (‘DSM-RL’) zijn nieuwe wettelijke verplichtingen op het terrein van het filteren van online content ontstaan. Aanbieders van onlinediensten voor het delen van content (‘OCSSPs’) dienen \textendash op basis van door rechthebbenden verstrekte informatie \textendash ervoor te zorgen dat beschermd materiaal niet beschikbaar is op hun platforms. Tegelijkertijd bevestigt artikel 17 lid 8 DSM-RL dat de nieuwe auteursrechtelijke regels niet tot een algemene toezichtverplichting moeten leiden. Ondanks de nieuwe filterverplichtingen heeft de Uniewetgever het traditionele verbod op een algemene toezichtverplichting \textendash dat al 20 jaar deel uitmaakt van de regeling van aansprakelijkheidsprivileges in de Richtlijn inzake elektronische handel (‘REH’) \textendash uitdrukkelijk overeind gehouden. Ook het voorstel van de Europese Commissie voor een Digital Services Act (‘DSA’) houdt het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen in stand. Tegen deze achtergrond rijst de vraag hoe de nieuwe auteursrechtelijke filterverplichtingen moeten worden uitgelegd om een verboden algemene toezichtverplichting te voorkomen. De volgende analyse geeft antwoord op deze vraag op basis van een nadere bespreking van het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen in de REH, de DSM-RL en het DSA-voorstel. Naast relevante rechtspraak van het HvJ EU komt het nauwe verband tussen het verbod op algemene toezichtverplichtingen en fundamentele rechten aan de orde.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Editorial independence in an automated media system

Drunen, M. van

In: Internet Policy Review, vol. 10, nr. 3, 2021.

Conditions for technological solutions in a COVID-19 exit strategy, with particular focus on the legal and societal conditions

Bouchè, G., Eskens, S., Helberger, N., Mil, J. van, Strycharz, J., Toh, J., van Hoboken, J.

2021, (Report for ZonMw, written by N. Helberger, S. Eskens, J. Strycharz, G. Bouchè, J. van Hoboken, J. van Mil, J. Toh, with N. Appelman, J. van Apeldoorn, M. van Eechoud, N. van Doorn, M. Sax & C. de Vreese, September 2021, Amsterdam).

@techreport{Helberger2021bb,

title = {Conditions for technological solutions in a COVID-19 exit strategy, with particular focus on the legal and societal conditions},

author = {Helberger, N. and Eskens, S. and Strycharz, J. and Bouch\`{e}, G. and van Hoboken, J. and Mil, J. van and Toh, J. },

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/covid-report-1.pdf},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-09-13},

urldate = {2021-09-13},

abstract = {Which legal, ethical and societal conditions need to be fulfilled for the use of digital solutions in managing the COVID-19 exit-strategy? This was the central question of this research. Digital technologies can be part of solutions to societal challenges, for example to manage the pandemic and lead the Netherlands out of the COVID-19 crisis. One set of technologies that figured particularly prominently in that debate was the use of contact tracing apps like the CoronaMelder, as well as digital vaccination passports (CoronaCheck app).  

In the Netherlands, Europe and worldwide, the introduction of apps such as the CoronaMelder or the CoronaCheck app was met by criticism from experts, politicians, civil society and academics. Concerns range from the lack of evidence for the effectiveness of such apps, uncertainty about the conditions that need to be fulfilled to reach their goal, our growing dependency on technology companies up to worries about the fundamental rights and adverse effects for vulnerable groups, such as elderly or users without a smart phone. 

The overall goal of the research was to monitor the societal, ethical and legal implications of implementing apps like the CoronaMelder, and from that draw lessons for the future use of ‘technology-assisted governance solutions’. One important conclusion from the report is that ‘there are no easy technological fixes, and in order for a technological solution to work, it needs to be part of a broader vision on what such a solution needs to function in society, achieve its intended goals and respect the fundamental rights of users as well as non-users.’ The report also offers critical reflections on the need for democratic legitimisation and accountability, the role of big tech and insights on the societal impact of the CoronaMelder and other technological solutions.

},

note = {Report for ZonMw, written by N. Helberger, S. Eskens, J. Strycharz, G. Bouch\`{e}, J. van Hoboken, J. van Mil, J. Toh, with N. Appelman, J. van Apeldoorn, M. van Eechoud, N. van Doorn, M. Sax \& C. de Vreese, September 2021, Amsterdam},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {techreport}

}

Intellectual Property and Sports: Essays in Honour of P. Bernt Hugenholtz

Helberger, N., Poort, J., Senftleben, M., van Eechoud, M., van Gompel, S.

Kluwer Law International, 2021, ISBN: 9789403537337.

Using Terms and Conditions to apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation: Is Article 12 DSA a Paper Tiger?

Verfassungsblog, (Ed.): Verfassungsblog 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

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

Towards Unfair Political Practices Law: Learning lessons from the regulation of unfair commercial practices for online political advertising

In: JIPITEC, vol. 12, nr. 3, pp. 273-296, 2021.

@article{Helberger2021bb,

title = {Towards Unfair Political Practices Law: Learning lessons from the regulation of unfair commercial practices for online political advertising},

author = {Helberger, N. and Dobber, T. and Vreese, C.H. de},

url = {https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-12-3-2021/5338},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-08-26},

journal = {JIPITEC},

volume = {12},

number = {3},

pages = {273-296},

abstract = {Online political advertising operates in a tense forcefield between political and commercial elements and thus presents regulators with a difficult conundrum: because online political advertising is political rather than commercial speech, it is destined to follow a different regulatory tradition than commercial advertising. And yet many of the tools used, players involved and concerns triggered by modern online political advertising strategies very much resemble the tools, players and concerns in online commercial targeting. Commercial advertising is subject to consumer law and unfair advertising regulation, including rules about unfair commercial practices. Unfair commercial practices law and other rules about commercial advertising, however, are explicitly not applicable to forms of non-commercial political or ideological advertising. An important reason why this is so is the different level of protection of political and commercial speech under fundamental rights law standards. And yet with the ongoing commercial turn in advertising, the traditional division between forms of commercial and political advertising is no longer that self-evident. Also, it cannot be denied that commercial advertising law has a long tradition of thinking of where and how to draw the line between lawful advertising and unlawful persuasion through withholding or misleading consumers about the information they need to take informed decisions, or abusing superior knowledge, exerting undue psychological pressure and engaging in other forms of unfair behaviour. The question this article explores is whether there are lessons to be learned from the regulation of commercial advertising for the pending initiatives at the national and the European level to regulate online political advertising, and online political targeting in specific.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Please share nicely — From Database directive to Data (governance) acts

(Links | BibTeX)

Quintais, J., Trapova, A.

(Links | BibTeX)

Fokkens, A., Helberger, N., Mattis, N., Müller, J., Reuver, M., Sax, M., Tintarev, N., Van Atteveldt, W., Verberne, S., Vrijenhoek, S.

Are we human, or are we users? The role of natural language processing in human-centric news recommenders that nudge users to diverse content

In: The 1st Workshop on NLP for Positive Impact: NLP4PosImpact 2021 : proceedings of the workshop, pp. 47-59, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Bastian, M., Helberger, N., Makhortykh, M.

Safeguarding the Journalistic DNA: Attitudes towards the Role of Professional Values in Algorithmic News Recommender Designs

In: Digital Journalism, 2021.

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

Keller, P., Reda, J.

(Links | BibTeX)

Opinie: Wie naar Dokter Quin gaat, betaalt de rekening voor technologie-kwakzalverij

2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

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

Data na de dood - juridische aspecten van digitale nalatenschappen

2021, (Onderzoek in opdracht van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, April 2021, Bijlage bij Kamerstuk 2020-2021, 30696 nr. 52. Auteurs: M.M.M. van Eechoud, J. Ausloos, M. Loos, C. Mak, B. Reinhartz, L. Schumacher & L. Pol.).

@techreport{vanEechoud2021bb,

title = {Data na de dood - juridische aspecten van digitale nalatenschappen},

author = {van Eechoud, M. and Ausloos, J. and Loos, M. and Mak, C. and Reinhartz, B. and Schumacher, L.D. and Pol, L. },

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Data-na-de-dood.pdf

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Datanadedood_summary.pdf

https://www.sectorplandls.nl/wordpress/news/data-after-death-legal-aspects-of-digital-inheritances/},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-07-08},

urldate = {2021-07-08},

abstract = {Jaarlijks overlijden ruim 150.000 mensen en worden er dus ook ongeveer evenveel nalatenschappen afgewikkeld. Vrijwel zonder uitzondering laten overledenen digitale ‘bezittingen’ achter, zoals sociale media-accounts, e-mails, documenten opgeslagen in de cloud en (gebruiksrechten op) allerlei media en entertainment. De vraag is of het huidige Nederlandse wettelijk kader voldoende handvatten biedt om de bij afwikkeling van digitale nalatenschappen gemoeide private en publieke belangen te behartigen. De centrale onderzoeksvraag van deze studie is: Welke eventuele aanpassingen van het Nederlandse wettelijke kader zijn wenselijk met het oog op de adequate bescherming van private en publieke belangen gemoeid met het regelen en afwikkelen van digitale nalatenschappen?

Voor de beantwoording van deze vraag is om te beginnen een analyse gedaan van het beleid van aanbieders van veelgebruikte informatiediensten rond overlijden, en van de relevante voorwaarden die zij hanteren. Bronnen voor de analyse zijn gebruikersovereenkomsten, algemene voorwaarden, privacy policies en andere (openbare) documenten zoals FAQ’s. Informatiediensten aanbieders zijn onderscheiden in digitale mediadiensten (commercieel aanbod zoals streaming video of -muziek), communicatiediensten (waaronder sociale media en berichtendiensten) en ICT-diensten (o.a. cloudopslag en digitale kluizen). Vervolgens is het relevante wettelijke kader beschreven en zijn onduidelijkheden daarin ge\"{i}dentificeerd. Naast het erfrecht, betreft dit het overeenkomstenrecht en dan in het bijzonder consumentenrecht, intellectuele eigendomsrechten (met name auteursrecht), persoonlijkheidsrechten en gegevensbeschermingsrecht (Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming). Ook het algemene vermogensrecht is van belang, voor zover betrekking hebbend op de vraag welk digitaal ‘bezit’ in de nalatenschap valt. Tot slot is met het oog op het formuleren van oplossingsrichtingen, naar een selectie van wetgeving in andere landen gekeken.},

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



Auteurs: M.M.M. van Eechoud, J. Ausloos, M. Loos, C. Mak, B. Reinhartz, L. Schumacher \& L. Pol.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {techreport}

}

Jaarlijks overlijden ruim 150.000 mensen en worden er dus ook ongeveer evenveel nalatenschappen afgewikkeld. Vrijwel zonder uitzondering laten overledenen digitale ‘bezittingen’ achter, zoals sociale media-accounts, e-mails, documenten opgeslagen in de cloud en (gebruiksrechten op) allerlei media en entertainment. De vraag is of het huidige Nederlandse wettelijk kader voldoende handvatten biedt om de bij afwikkeling van digitale nalatenschappen gemoeide private en publieke belangen te behartigen. De centrale onderzoeksvraag van deze studie is: Welke eventuele aanpassingen van het Nederlandse wettelijke kader zijn wenselijk met het oog op de adequate bescherming van private en publieke belangen gemoeid met het regelen en afwikkelen van digitale nalatenschappen?
Voor de beantwoording van deze vraag is om te beginnen een analyse gedaan van het beleid van aanbieders van veelgebruikte informatiediensten rond overlijden, en van de relevante voorwaarden die zij hanteren. Bronnen voor de analyse zijn gebruikersovereenkomsten, algemene voorwaarden, privacy policies en andere (openbare) documenten zoals FAQ’s. Informatiediensten aanbieders zijn onderscheiden in digitale mediadiensten (commercieel aanbod zoals streaming video of -muziek), communicatiediensten (waaronder sociale media en berichtendiensten) en ICT-diensten (o.a. cloudopslag en digitale kluizen). Vervolgens is het relevante wettelijke kader beschreven en zijn onduidelijkheden daarin geïdentificeerd. Naast het erfrecht, betreft dit het overeenkomstenrecht en dan in het bijzonder consumentenrecht, intellectuele eigendomsrechten (met name auteursrecht), persoonlijkheidsrechten en gegevensbeschermingsrecht (Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming). Ook het algemene vermogensrecht is van belang, voor zover betrekking hebbend op de vraag welk digitaal ‘bezit’ in de nalatenschap valt. Tot slot is met het oog op het formuleren van oplossingsrichtingen, naar een selectie van wetgeving in andere landen gekeken.

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

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

Voorbij privacy: manipulatie is het échte probleem in gezondheidsapps

In: Privacy & Informatie, nr. 3, pp. 117-120, 2021.

The new rules for export control of cyber-surveillance items in the EU

Koot, M., Rucz, M., van Daalen, O., van Hoboken, J.

2021, (Commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs.).

(Links | BibTeX)

Hugenholtz, P., Quintais, J.

Auteursrecht en artificiële creatie

In: Auteursrecht, nr. 2, pp. 47-52, 2021.

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

(Links | BibTeX)

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

(Links | BibTeX)

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

(Links | BibTeX)

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

In: Internet Policy Review, 2021, (Opinion).

(Links | BibTeX)

Fahy, R., van Hoboken, J.

Smartphone platforms as privacy regulators

In: Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 41, 2021.

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

Keller, P., Reda, J.

(Links | BibTeX)

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

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, nr. 22, pp. 3136-3138, 2021.

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

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, vol. 2021, nr. 20/21, pp. 2799-2802, 2021.

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

In: Common Market Law Review, vol. 58, nr. 3, pp. 961 – 964, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Fahy, R., van Hoboken, J.

Regulating Disinformation in Europe: Implications for Speech and Privacy

In: UC Irvine Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law, vol. 6, nr. 1, pp. 9-36, 2021.

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

DSA Observatory 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

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

In: pp. 59-69, 2021, (Hoofdstuk in 'Plagiaat in onderzoek en onderwijs', red. J. Soeharno & K. Algra, VSNU: Den Haag 2021. Ook beschikbaar in het Engels, zie link hieronder, ''Standing on the shoulders of giants'. Truthful citation is the social responsibility of academics.').

(Links | BibTeX)

Platform ad archives in Article 30 DSA

In: DSA Observatory blog, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

Bostyn, S.

Why a COVID IP Waiver Is not a Good Strategy

In: 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.

The commodification of trust

Bodó, B.

In: Blockchain & Society Policy Research Lab Research Nodes, nr. 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.

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

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

In: JIPITEC, vol. 12, nr. 1, pp. 86-93, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

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

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

In: JIPITEC, vol. 12, nr. 1, pp. 44-73, 2021.

Data protection and tech startups: The need for attention, support, and scrutiny

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

In: Policy & Internet, vol. 13, ed. 2, pp. 278-299, 2021.

@article{nokey,

title = {Data protection and tech startups: The need for attention, support, and scrutiny},

author = {Norval, C. and Janssen, H. and Cobbe, J. and Singh, J.},

doi = {10.1002/poi3.255},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-05-07},

journal = {Policy \& Internet},

volume = {13},

issue = {2},

pages = {278-299},

abstract = {Though discussions of data protection have focused on the larger, more established organisations, startups also warrant attention. This is particularly so for tech startups, who are often innovating at the ‘cutting-edge’\textemdashpushing the boundaries of technologies that typically lack established data protection best-practices. Initial decisions taken by startups could well have long-term impacts, and their actions may inform (for better or for worse) how particular technologies and the applications they support are implemented, deployed, and perceived for years to come. Ensuring that the innovations and practices of tech startups are sound, appropriate and acceptable should therefore be a high priority. This paper explores the attitudes and preparedness of tech startups to issues of data protection. We interviewed a series of UK-based emerging tech startups as the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into effect, which revealed areas in which there is a disconnect between the approaches of the startups and the nature and requirements of the GDPR. We discuss the misconceptions and associated risks facing innovative tech startups and offer a number of considerations for the firms and supervisory authorities alike. In light of our discussions, and given what is at stake, we argue that more needs to be done to help ensure that emerging technologies and the practices of the companies that operate them better align with the regulatory obligations. We conclude that tech startups warrant increased attention, support, and scrutiny to raise the standard of data protection for the benefit of us all.},

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.

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

Persvrijheidsmonitor 2020

McGonagle, T., Volgenant, O.

In: 2021.

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

van Gompel, S.

In: Auteursrecht, nr. 1, pp. 40-42, 2021.

(Links | BibTeX)

van Gompel, S.

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

In: Auteursrecht, vol. 2021, nr. 1, pp. 3-9, 2021.

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

Husovec, M., Quintais, J.

In: 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}

}