The European Harmonisation of Intermediairy Civil Liability for Online Copyright Infringement
With the adoption and subsequent national implementation of the E-Commerce Directive’s safe harbour regime, the architecture set up for intermediary liability in Europe has become two-tiered: at a first stage, it is necessary to examine whether a given intermediary attracts, in its pursuit of a certain activity, civil liability according to the standards ensconced in the Member States’ legislation and only then, in the second instance, must the inapplicability of any immunity be established. As a result, although it provides a veneer of approximation by immunising intermediaries under certain circumscribed conditions, the Directive does not harmonise the underlying substantive liability norms which determine whether the safe harbours will be necessary or redundant. This leaves ample room for national divergences, particularly as concerns new types of intermediaries whose eligibility for the existing safe harbours is uncertain.
This PhD research seeks to explore the liability in Europe of online intermediaries for secondary or indirect copyright infringement, i.e. where the material act of infringement is committed by a third party, regardless of the applicability of the safe harbour regime. It will therefore begin with an investigation of the current law relating to intermediary liability for copyright infringement in the legal jurisdictions of England, France and Germany, these three jurisdictions representing each of the three major European extra-contractual liability traditions. The relationship between these rules and national substantive tort principles in the selected countries will subsequently be examined. This shall be done with a view to uncovering common European tort principles that can potentially lead the way to a harmonised, clear and comprehensive European liability regime of intermediaries for copyright infringement.
Publicaties
| Bouchè, G., Fahy, R., McGonagle, T., Rucz, M., Sangen, A, van der, Seel, M., Stapel, S. Safety of journalists and the fighting of corruption in the EU 2020, (Prof. dr. T. McGonagle - Project Leader - European Parliament - Policy Department for Citizen's Rights and Constitutional Affairs - Directorate-General for Internal Policies - July 2020). @techreport{McGonagle2020f, title = {Safety of journalists and the fighting of corruption in the EU}, author = {McGonagle, T. and Fahy, R. and Bouch\`{e}, G. and Rucz, M. and Stapel, S. and Seel, M. and Sangen, A, van der}, url = {https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/655187/IPOL_STU(2020)655187_EN.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-30}, abstract = {Journalism and journalists face a growing range of threats, including violence and harassment; the misuse of defamation and other laws against them, and restrictive measures on freedom of information and expression adopted in response to the Covid-19 crisis. States must ensure a safe and favourable environment for journalists to perform their public watchdog function. This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee, examines the overall chilling effect of crimes and threats against journalists and explores various regulatory and other measures to counter them. This report was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.}, note = {Prof. dr. T. McGonagle - Project Leader - European Parliament - Policy Department for Citizen's Rights and Constitutional Affairs - Directorate-General for Internal Policies - July 2020}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } Journalism and journalists face a growing range of threats, including violence and harassment; the misuse of defamation and other laws against them, and restrictive measures on freedom of information and expression adopted in response to the Covid-19 crisis. States must ensure a safe and favourable environment for journalists to perform their public watchdog function. This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the LIBE Committee, examines the overall chilling effect of crimes and threats against journalists and explores various regulatory and other measures to counter them. This report was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. |
| Drunen, M. van Journal of Media Law, 2020. @article{Drunen2020, title = {The post-editorial control era: how EU media law matches platforms’ organisational control with cooperative responsibility}, author = {Drunen, M. van}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17577632.2020.1796067}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2020.1796067}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-28}, journal = {Journal of Media Law}, abstract = {This paper argues the AVMSD attaches cooperative responsibility to platforms’ organisational control. Firstly, it explores how the new concept of organisational control differs from the editorial control that has traditionally been central to media law, in particular concerning the greater involvement of other stakeholders active on platforms. Secondly, it analyses the measures the AVMSD requires platforms to take with regard to content on their service in light of their organisational control. Finally, it shows how the AVMSD not only requires platforms to assume responsibility for actions under their direct control, but also to enable users and uploaders to exercise their inherent influence differently. The AVMSD consequently moves away from centralised, and towards cooperative responsibility for platforms. The paper concludes by evaluating the choices the AVMSD makes (and fails to make) in the operationalisation of this new responsibility model.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } This paper argues the AVMSD attaches cooperative responsibility to platforms’ organisational control. Firstly, it explores how the new concept of organisational control differs from the editorial control that has traditionally been central to media law, in particular concerning the greater involvement of other stakeholders active on platforms. Secondly, it analyses the measures the AVMSD requires platforms to take with regard to content on their service in light of their organisational control. Finally, it shows how the AVMSD not only requires platforms to assume responsibility for actions under their direct control, but also to enable users and uploaders to exercise their inherent influence differently. The AVMSD consequently moves away from centralised, and towards cooperative responsibility for platforms. The paper concludes by evaluating the choices the AVMSD makes (and fails to make) in the operationalisation of this new responsibility model. |
| Irion, K. 2020. @online{Irion2020c, title = {Schrems II and Surveillance: Third Countries’ National Security Powers in the Purview of EU Law, European Law Blog}, author = {Irion, K.}, url = {https://europeanlawblog.eu/2020/07/24/schrems-ii-and-surveillance-third-countries-national-security-powers-in-the-purview-of-eu-law/}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-24}, abstract = {On 16 July 2020 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) composed as Grand Chamber delivered its landmark ruling Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Ltd and Maximillian Schrems (case C-311/18, “Schrems II”). The focus of my commentary will be on the aspect that EU law on cross-border transfers of personal data to a third country is not deferential to national security powers of that third country. This judgment is remarkable provided that electronic surveillance conducted by Member States’ intelligence authorities for the purpose of national security is off limits for EU law and that exceptions in international agreement are fairly regularly made for national security. This contribution will deal with the embedded assessment of a third country’s national security powers under the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, GDPR) and will address the criticism that a third country is held to stricter standards than a Member State of the Union.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {online} } On 16 July 2020 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) composed as Grand Chamber delivered its landmark ruling Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Ltd and Maximillian Schrems (case C-311/18, “Schrems II”). The focus of my commentary will be on the aspect that EU law on cross-border transfers of personal data to a third country is not deferential to national security powers of that third country. This judgment is remarkable provided that electronic surveillance conducted by Member States’ intelligence authorities for the purpose of national security is off limits for EU law and that exceptions in international agreement are fairly regularly made for national security. This contribution will deal with the embedded assessment of a third country’s national security powers under the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, GDPR) and will address the criticism that a third country is held to stricter standards than a Member State of the Union. |
| Hugenholtz, P. Annotatie bij Rb Amsterdam 1 november 2019 (Van Uem / De Persgroep) AMI, (3-4), pp. 101-105, 2020. @article{Hugenholtz2020c, title = {Annotatie bij Rb Amsterdam 1 november 2019 (Van Uem / De Persgroep)}, author = {Hugenholtz, P.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_AMI_2020_3_4.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-24}, journal = {AMI}, number = {3-4}, pages = {101-105}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Buijtelaar, L.D., Senftleben, M. Auteursrecht op robotcreaties? Een analyse op basis van de incentivetheorie AMI, (3-4), pp. 77-93, 2020. @article{Buijtelaar2020, title = {Auteursrecht op robotcreaties? Een analyse op basis van de incentivetheorie}, author = {Buijtelaar, L.D. and Senftleben, M.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AMI_2020_3_4_77.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-24}, journal = {AMI}, number = {3-4}, pages = {77-93}, abstract = {Vandaag de dag zijn teksten, schilderijen en liedjes niet noodzakelijkerwijs het resultaat van menselijke creativiteit. Geavanceerde robotsystemen zijn in staat om output te genereren die nauwelijks te onderscheiden is van de werken van makers van vlees en bloed. Dit doet de vraag rijzen of door robots gegenereerde creaties in aanmerking kunnen komen voor auteursrechtelijke bescherming. In de volgende analyse staat deze vraag centraal. Na een inleidende bespreking van het traditionele vereiste van menselijke creativiteit in het auteursrecht dienen de ratio’s van auteursrechtelijke bescherming \textendash met name de economische incentivetheorie \textendash als maatstaf om over nut en noodzaak van de toekenning van bescherming te beslissen. Voorts wordt aandacht besteed aan de vraag wie de houder van rechten op robotcreaties zou kunnen zijn. Ten slotte vindt een afweging plaats van de voor- en nadelen van bescherming, mede in het licht van de mogelijkheid om robotcreaties vrij te laten en het publieke domein te verrijken.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Vandaag de dag zijn teksten, schilderijen en liedjes niet noodzakelijkerwijs het resultaat van menselijke creativiteit. Geavanceerde robotsystemen zijn in staat om output te genereren die nauwelijks te onderscheiden is van de werken van makers van vlees en bloed. Dit doet de vraag rijzen of door robots gegenereerde creaties in aanmerking kunnen komen voor auteursrechtelijke bescherming. In de volgende analyse staat deze vraag centraal. Na een inleidende bespreking van het traditionele vereiste van menselijke creativiteit in het auteursrecht dienen de ratio’s van auteursrechtelijke bescherming – met name de economische incentivetheorie – als maatstaf om over nut en noodzaak van de toekenning van bescherming te beslissen. Voorts wordt aandacht besteed aan de vraag wie de houder van rechten op robotcreaties zou kunnen zijn. Ten slotte vindt een afweging plaats van de voor- en nadelen van bescherming, mede in het licht van de mogelijkheid om robotcreaties vrij te laten en het publieke domein te verrijken. |
| Dommering, E. Annotatie HvJ EU 2 oktober 2018 (Ministerio Fiscal) Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (28), pp. 3753-3754, 2020. @article{Dommering2020h, title = {Annotatie HvJ EU 2 oktober 2018 (Ministerio Fiscal)}, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_232.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-21}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, number = {28}, pages = {3753-3754}, abstract = {Toegang tot door elektronische communicatiedienstaanbieder verwerkte persoonsgegevens alleen gerechtvaardigd als het om ernstig delict gaat. Identificatiegegevens op SIMkaart van gestolen mobiele telefoon ook bij lichtere vormen van criminaliteit toegestaan toegestaan omdat deze op zich zelf geen inzicht geven in de priv\'{e} communicatie.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Toegang tot door elektronische communicatiedienstaanbieder verwerkte persoonsgegevens alleen gerechtvaardigd als het om ernstig delict gaat. Identificatiegegevens op SIMkaart van gestolen mobiele telefoon ook bij lichtere vormen van criminaliteit toegestaan toegestaan omdat deze op zich zelf geen inzicht geven in de privé communicatie. |
| McGonagle, T., Volgenant, O. Mediaforum, 2020 (3), pp. 87-89, 2020. @article{Volgenant2020, title = {Kroniek Persrecht 2019}, author = {Volgenant, O. and McGonagle, T.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Mediaforum_2020_3_Volgenant.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-17}, journal = {Mediaforum}, volume = {2020}, number = {3}, pages = {87-89}, abstract = {Was 2018 het jaar van de serieuze aanslagen op de gebouwen van De Telegraaf en Panorama en ernstige bedreigingen van individuele journalisten, in 2019 zagen we hoe de beroepsgroep en de overheid daarop reageerden. Het initiatief ‘PersVeilig’ werd gepresenteerd, en in de strafzaken over de twee aanslagen werden verdachten opgepakt en veroordeeld. In 2019 werd \textendash helaas \textendash voor het eerst sinds lange tijd weer een journalist gegijzeld, ondanks het feit dat een jaar eerder het recht op journalistieke bronbescherming wettelijk was verankerd.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Was 2018 het jaar van de serieuze aanslagen op de gebouwen van De Telegraaf en Panorama en ernstige bedreigingen van individuele journalisten, in 2019 zagen we hoe de beroepsgroep en de overheid daarop reageerden. Het initiatief ‘PersVeilig’ werd gepresenteerd, en in de strafzaken over de twee aanslagen werden verdachten opgepakt en veroordeeld. In 2019 werd – helaas – voor het eerst sinds lange tijd weer een journalist gegijzeld, ondanks het feit dat een jaar eerder het recht op journalistieke bronbescherming wettelijk was verankerd. |
| Ausloos, J., Mahieu, R. Harnessing the collective potential of GDPR access rights: towards an ecology of transparency Internet Policy Review, 2020, (Opinion). @article{Mahieu2020, title = {Harnessing the collective potential of GDPR access rights: towards an ecology of transparency}, author = {Mahieu, R. and Ausloos, J.}, url = {https://policyreview.info/articles/news/harnessing-collective-potential-gdpr-access-rights-towards-ecology-transparency/1487}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-17}, journal = {Internet Policy Review}, abstract = {The GDPR’s goal of empowering citizens can only be fully realised when the collective dimensions of data subject rights are acknowledged and supported through proper enforcement. The power of the collective use of data subjects’ rights, however, is currently neither acknowledged nor properly enforced. This is the message we sent to the European Commission in response to its call for feedback for its two-year review of the GDPR. In our submission entitled Recognising and Enabling the Collective Dimension of the GDPR and the Right of Access \textendash A call to support the governance structure of checks and balances for informational power asymmetries, we demonstrate the collective potential of GDPR access rights with a long list of real-life examples.}, note = {Opinion}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } The GDPR’s goal of empowering citizens can only be fully realised when the collective dimensions of data subject rights are acknowledged and supported through proper enforcement. The power of the collective use of data subjects’ rights, however, is currently neither acknowledged nor properly enforced. This is the message we sent to the European Commission in response to its call for feedback for its two-year review of the GDPR. In our submission entitled Recognising and Enabling the Collective Dimension of the GDPR and the Right of Access – A call to support the governance structure of checks and balances for informational power asymmetries, we demonstrate the collective potential of GDPR access rights with a long list of real-life examples. |
| Bodó, B. New Media & Society, 2020. @article{Bod\'{o}2020b, title = {Mediated trust: A theoretical framework to address the trustworthiness of technological trust mediators}, author = {Bod\'{o}, B.}, url = {https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461444820939922}, doi = {10.1177/1461444820939922}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-17}, journal = {New Media & Society}, abstract = {This article considers the impact of digital technologies on the interpersonal and institutional logics of trust production. It introduces the new theoretical concept of technology-mediated trust to analyze the role of complex techno-social assemblages in trust production and distrust management. The first part of the article argues that globalization and digitalization have unleashed a crisis of trust, as traditional institutional and interpersonal logics are not attuned to deal with the risks introduced by the prevalence of digital technologies. In the second part, the article describes how digital intermediation has transformed the traditional logics of interpersonal and institutional trust formation and created new trust-mediating services. Finally, the article asks as follows: why should we trust these technological trust mediators? The conclusion is that at best, it is impossible to establish the trustworthiness of trust mediators, and that at worst, we have no reason to trust them.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } This article considers the impact of digital technologies on the interpersonal and institutional logics of trust production. It introduces the new theoretical concept of technology-mediated trust to analyze the role of complex techno-social assemblages in trust production and distrust management. The first part of the article argues that globalization and digitalization have unleashed a crisis of trust, as traditional institutional and interpersonal logics are not attuned to deal with the risks introduced by the prevalence of digital technologies. In the second part, the article describes how digital intermediation has transformed the traditional logics of interpersonal and institutional trust formation and created new trust-mediating services. Finally, the article asks as follows: why should we trust these technological trust mediators? The conclusion is that at best, it is impossible to establish the trustworthiness of trust mediators, and that at worst, we have no reason to trust them. |
| Bernstein, A., Helberger, N., Schulz, W., Vreese, C.H. de Challenging rabbit holes: towards more diversity in news recommendation systems LSE Media Blog, 2020. @article{Helberger2020e, title = {Challenging rabbit holes: towards more diversity in news recommendation systems}, author = {Helberger, N. and Bernstein, A. and Schulz, W. and Vreese, C.H. de}, url = {https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/medialse/2020/07/02/challenging-rabbit-holes-towards-more-diversity-in-news-recommendation-systems/}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-16}, journal = {LSE Media Blog}, abstract = {Access to diverse sources of news and information is more important than ever in this time of global crisis, yet far too often, people can find themselves diving into ‘rabbit holes’ of information and opinion that are hard to escape. Here, the following authors provide an in depth assessment of how algorithmic recommendation systems for news can play a more constructive role in a diverse media landscape.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Access to diverse sources of news and information is more important than ever in this time of global crisis, yet far too often, people can find themselves diving into ‘rabbit holes’ of information and opinion that are hard to escape. Here, the following authors provide an in depth assessment of how algorithmic recommendation systems for news can play a more constructive role in a diverse media landscape. |
| Helberger, N. Digital Journalism, 2020. @article{Helberger2020d, title = {The Political Power of Platforms: How Current Attempts to Regulate Misinformation Amplify Opinion Power}, author = {Helberger, N.}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1773888}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-07-14}, journal = {Digital Journalism}, abstract = {This contribution critically reviews the ongoing policy initiatives in Europe to impose greater societal responsibility on social media platforms. I discuss the current regulatory approach of treating social platforms as mere 'intermediaries' of the speech of others and propose a different perspective. Instead of perceiving platforms as intermediaries and facilitators of the speech of others, I view social media platforms as active political actors in their own right, and wielders of considerable opinion power. I will explain how taking the perspective of opinion power throws a very different, and rather alarming light on the recent regulatory initiatives.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } This contribution critically reviews the ongoing policy initiatives in Europe to impose greater societal responsibility on social media platforms. I discuss the current regulatory approach of treating social platforms as mere 'intermediaries' of the speech of others and propose a different perspective. Instead of perceiving platforms as intermediaries and facilitators of the speech of others, I view social media platforms as active political actors in their own right, and wielders of considerable opinion power. I will explain how taking the perspective of opinion power throws a very different, and rather alarming light on the recent regulatory initiatives. |
| Keller, P. Hungary’s fast tracked implementation of Article 5 CDSM directive in response to the pandemic Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020. @article{Keller2020c, title = {Hungary’s fast tracked implementation of Article 5 CDSM directive in response to the pandemic}, author = {Keller, P.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/06/23/hungarys-fast-tracked-implementation-of-article-5-cdsm-directive-in-response-to-the-pandemic/?doing_wp_cron=1593173611.1108019351959228515625}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-06-26}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Ausloos, J. Technologiereuzen moeten zeggen hoe ze ons gedrag bepalen en zo dwingen we dat af 2020, (Opinie). @article{Ausloos2020c, title = {Technologiereuzen moeten zeggen hoe ze ons gedrag bepalen en zo dwingen we dat af}, author = {Ausloos, J.}, url = {https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2020/06/25/de-macht-van-technologiereuzen-en-hoe-ze-aan-banden-te-leggen/}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-06-25}, abstract = {Vandaag verschijnt een rapport met aanbevelingen voor de Europese Commissie. Dat zet uiteen hoe onlineplatformen verplicht kunnen worden om aan bepaalde transparantie-eisen te voldoen. Jef Ausloos is hoofdauteur van het rapport en bepleit waarom zo'n kader nodig is. "Transparantie is van cruciaal belang om donkere kantjes in kaart te brengen, zodat we collectief kunnen bepalen waar en hoe we de groeiende macht van onlineplatformen moeten inperken."}, note = {Opinie}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Vandaag verschijnt een rapport met aanbevelingen voor de Europese Commissie. Dat zet uiteen hoe onlineplatformen verplicht kunnen worden om aan bepaalde transparantie-eisen te voldoen. Jef Ausloos is hoofdauteur van het rapport en bepleit waarom zo'n kader nodig is. "Transparantie is van cruciaal belang om donkere kantjes in kaart te brengen, zodat we collectief kunnen bepalen waar en hoe we de groeiende macht van onlineplatformen moeten inperken." |
| Ausloos, J., Leerssen, P., Thije, P. ten Operationalizing Research Access in Platform Governance: What to learn from other industries? 2020. @techreport{Ausloos2020b, title = {Operationalizing Research Access in Platform Governance: What to learn from other industries?}, author = {Ausloos, J. and Leerssen, P. and Thije, P. ten}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/GoverningPlatforms_IViR_study_June2020-AlgorithmWatch-2020-06-24.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-06-25}, abstract = {A new study published by AlgorithmWatch, in cooperation with the European Policy Centre and the University of Amsterdam’s Institute for Information Law, shows that the GDPR needn’t stand in the way of meaningful research access to platform data; looks to health and environmental sectors for best practices in privacy-respecting data sharing frameworks.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } A new study published by AlgorithmWatch, in cooperation with the European Policy Centre and the University of Amsterdam’s Institute for Information Law, shows that the GDPR needn’t stand in the way of meaningful research access to platform data; looks to health and environmental sectors for best practices in privacy-respecting data sharing frameworks. |
| Dommering, E. Annotatie bij EHRM 24 januari 2019 (Catt / Verenigd Koninkrijk) Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (24), pp. 3185-3187, 2020, (nr. 192). @article{Dommering2020g, title = {Annotatie bij EHRM 24 januari 2019 (Catt / Verenigd Koninkrijk)}, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2020_192.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-06-18}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, number = {24}, pages = {3185-3187}, abstract = {Ten onrechte opneming van een vredesactivist in een databank tegen binnenlands terrorisme. Databank dienst een legitiem doel, maar voortdurend bewaren disproportioneel.}, note = {nr. 192}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Ten onrechte opneming van een vredesactivist in een databank tegen binnenlands terrorisme. Databank dienst een legitiem doel, maar voortdurend bewaren disproportioneel. |
| Eskens, S., Helberger, N., Möller, J., Monzer, C. User Perspectives on the News Personalisation Process: Agency, Trust and Utility as Building Blocks Digital Journalism, 2020. @article{Monzer2020, title = {User Perspectives on the News Personalisation Process: Agency, Trust and Utility as Building Blocks}, author = {Monzer, C. and M\"{o}ller, J. and Helberger, N. and Eskens, S.}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21670811.2020.1773291}, doi = {10.1080/21670811.2020.1773291}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-06-16}, journal = {Digital Journalism}, abstract = {With the increasing use of algorithms in news distribution, commentators warn about its possible impacts on the changing relationship between the news media and news readers. To understand the meaning of news personalisation strategies to users, we investigated how they currently experience news personalisation, perceive their role in the personalisation process, and envision increasing the utility of personalised news by giving users more agency and fostering trust. We conducted four focus groups with online news readers in Germany. For the analysis, grounded theory techniques were suitable due to their applicability in reconstructing user perspectives through their own experiences. We found that (1) users fail to distinguish between news personalisation and commercial targeting, which may negatively bias their perception; (2) there is a contradiction in how users perceive themselves as active participants in the process, but lack the means to exercise agency; (3) user concerns extend beyond privacy to what information they receive and their right to personal autonomy\textemdasha solution requires offering users the ability to dynamically adjust their “news interest profiles”; (4) while news personalisation strategies afford new opportunities for introducing reciprocity in the media-audience relationship, negotiating competing logics of journalistic, personal and algorithmic curation remains a challenge.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } With the increasing use of algorithms in news distribution, commentators warn about its possible impacts on the changing relationship between the news media and news readers. To understand the meaning of news personalisation strategies to users, we investigated how they currently experience news personalisation, perceive their role in the personalisation process, and envision increasing the utility of personalised news by giving users more agency and fostering trust. We conducted four focus groups with online news readers in Germany. For the analysis, grounded theory techniques were suitable due to their applicability in reconstructing user perspectives through their own experiences. We found that (1) users fail to distinguish between news personalisation and commercial targeting, which may negatively bias their perception; (2) there is a contradiction in how users perceive themselves as active participants in the process, but lack the means to exercise agency; (3) user concerns extend beyond privacy to what information they receive and their right to personal autonomy—a solution requires offering users the ability to dynamically adjust their “news interest profiles”; (4) while news personalisation strategies afford new opportunities for introducing reciprocity in the media-audience relationship, negotiating competing logics of journalistic, personal and algorithmic curation remains a challenge. |
| Arnbak, A., Geursen, W,W,, Yakovleva, S. Tijdschrift Mededingingsrecht in de Praktijk, (2), pp. 30-37, 2020. @article{Yakovleva2020b, title = {Drie mogelijke boetes van mededingings-, consumenten- en persoonsgegevensautoriteiten voor hetzelfde datagebruik}, author = {Yakovleva, S. and Geursen, W,W, and Arnbak, A.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/MP_2020_164.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-06-09}, journal = {Tijdschrift Mededingingsrecht in de Praktijk}, number = {2}, pages = {30-37}, abstract = {Door de toename van datagebruik door ondernemingen is er sprake van convergentie tussen het mededingings-, consumenten- en gegevensbeschermingsrecht. Er kan dan parallelle handhaving plaatsvinden ten aanzien van \'{e}\'{e}n en dezelfde handeling door dezelfde onderneming door drie verschillende autoriteiten. Dat noemen wij caleidoscopische handhaving. Dat heeft volgens ons verschillende keerzijden, waaronder het risico op overhandhaving door drie afzonderlijke procedures van drie afzonderlijke autoriteiten en mogelijk drie boetes. Wij onderzoeken in dit artikel waarom het ne-bis-in-idem-beginsel niet van toepassing is en het beginsel van eendaadse samenloop evenmin (net als in de recente Marine Harvest gun-jumping zaak), waardoor proportionaliteit overblijft.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Door de toename van datagebruik door ondernemingen is er sprake van convergentie tussen het mededingings-, consumenten- en gegevensbeschermingsrecht. Er kan dan parallelle handhaving plaatsvinden ten aanzien van één en dezelfde handeling door dezelfde onderneming door drie verschillende autoriteiten. Dat noemen wij caleidoscopische handhaving. Dat heeft volgens ons verschillende keerzijden, waaronder het risico op overhandhaving door drie afzonderlijke procedures van drie afzonderlijke autoriteiten en mogelijk drie boetes. Wij onderzoeken in dit artikel waarom het ne-bis-in-idem-beginsel niet van toepassing is en het beginsel van eendaadse samenloop evenmin (net als in de recente Marine Harvest gun-jumping zaak), waardoor proportionaliteit overblijft. |
| Harkai, I., Katzenbach, C., Magalhães, J.C., Mezei, P., Quintais, J., Riis, T., Schwemer, S. Webinar on Public and Regulatory Framework of Online Intermediaries 2020. @online{Quintais2020c, title = {Webinar on Public and Regulatory Framework of Online Intermediaries}, author = {Quintais, J. and Mezei, P. and Harkai, I. and Katzenbach, C. and Magalh\~{a}es, J.C. and Schwemer, S. and Riis, T. }, url = {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9RccSMBSjE&t=5s https://www.recreating.eu/public-and-regulatory-framework-of-online-intermediaries-workshop/ https://zenodo.org/record/3833714#.XseaZGgzbIW}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-05-22}, abstract = {Recording of the reCreating Europe Online Workshop on Public and Private Regulatory Framework of Online Intermediaries organized on 5 May 2020. Slides and report of the event also available at the links below.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {online} } Recording of the reCreating Europe Online Workshop on Public and Private Regulatory Framework of Online Intermediaries organized on 5 May 2020. Slides and report of the event also available at the links below. |
| Ferrari, V. The regulation of crypto-assets in the EU – investment and payment tokens under the radar Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 2020. @article{Ferrari2020, title = {The regulation of crypto-assets in the EU \textendash investment and payment tokens under the radar}, author = {Ferrari, V.}, url = {https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1023263X20911538}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X20911538}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-05-21}, journal = {Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law}, abstract = {Based on the guidelines issued by the European Securities and Market Authority and by the European Banking Authority, the article deals with the legal qualification of blockchain-based crypto-assets under EU law. Focusing on crypto-assets that function as a) investment instruments (that is, investment tokens) and as b) electronic money (that is, payment tokens), the work outlines shortages and drawbacks in the applicability and enforcement of existing EU legal frameworks regulating investment activities and payment services. With such analysis, the article seeks to inform the ongoing debate within European institutions on the need of regulatory intervention in this area, and it points out pressing questions to be tackled by further research.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Based on the guidelines issued by the European Securities and Market Authority and by the European Banking Authority, the article deals with the legal qualification of blockchain-based crypto-assets under EU law. Focusing on crypto-assets that function as a) investment instruments (that is, investment tokens) and as b) electronic money (that is, payment tokens), the work outlines shortages and drawbacks in the applicability and enforcement of existing EU legal frameworks regulating investment activities and payment services. With such analysis, the article seeks to inform the ongoing debate within European institutions on the need of regulatory intervention in this area, and it points out pressing questions to be tackled by further research. |
| van Eijk, N. Handboek Consumentenrecht, red. E.H. Hondius & V. Mak, Chapter 16, pp. 391-402, Uitgeverij Paris, 5e druk, 2020, ISBN: 9789462512108. @inbook{vanEijk2020, title = {Telecommunicatierecht}, author = {van Eijk, N.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Handboek_Consumentenrecht_NvE.pdf}, isbn = {9789462512108}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-05-19}, urldate = {2020-05-18}, booktitle = {Handboek Consumentenrecht, red. E.H. Hondius & V. Mak}, pages = {391-402}, publisher = {Uitgeverij Paris}, edition = {5e druk}, chapter = {16}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {inbook} } |
| Appelman, N., Fahy, R., Helberger, N., Leerssen, P., McGonagle, T., van Eijk, N., van Hoboken, J. 2020, (A report for the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, Amsterdam, December 2019). @techreport{vanHoboken2020c, title = {The legal framework on the dissemination of disinformation through Internet services and the regulation of political advertising}, author = {van Hoboken, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R. and Leerssen, P. and McGonagle, T. and van Eijk, N. and Helberger, N.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Report_Disinformation_Dec2019-1.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-05-14}, abstract = {The study, commissioned by the Dutch government, focusses on the legal framework governing the dissemination of disinformation, in particular through Internet services. The study provides an extensive overview of relevant European and Dutch legal norms relating to the spread of online disinformation, and recommendations are given on how to improve this framework. Additionally, the study includes an analysis of the relevant legal framework in 6 different countries (U.K., U.S., France, Germany, Sweden and Canada). The report makes clear how the freedom of expression runs as a central theme through the legal framework, both forming the outer limit for possible regulation and a legal basis to create new regulation (e.g. protecting pluralism). The legal framework governing disinformation online is shown to be very broad, encompassing different levels of regulation, shifting depending on the context and already regulating many different types of disinformation. Further, oversight seems to be fragmented with many different supervisory authorities involved but limited cooperation. Based on this analysis, the report offers several recommendations, such as on the use of disinformation not as a legal term but a policy term, on negotiating the tensions on the different policy levels, on the regulation of internet intermediaries including transparency obligations and on increased cooperation between the relevant supervisory authorities. Previously, the interim report focussing on political advertising was published in late 2019. Both these studies have been carried out in the context of the research initiative on the Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam, focussing on questions related to AI and public values, data governance and online platforms.}, note = {A report for the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, Amsterdam, December 2019}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } The study, commissioned by the Dutch government, focusses on the legal framework governing the dissemination of disinformation, in particular through Internet services. The study provides an extensive overview of relevant European and Dutch legal norms relating to the spread of online disinformation, and recommendations are given on how to improve this framework. Additionally, the study includes an analysis of the relevant legal framework in 6 different countries (U.K., U.S., France, Germany, Sweden and Canada). The report makes clear how the freedom of expression runs as a central theme through the legal framework, both forming the outer limit for possible regulation and a legal basis to create new regulation (e.g. protecting pluralism). The legal framework governing disinformation online is shown to be very broad, encompassing different levels of regulation, shifting depending on the context and already regulating many different types of disinformation. Further, oversight seems to be fragmented with many different supervisory authorities involved but limited cooperation. Based on this analysis, the report offers several recommendations, such as on the use of disinformation not as a legal term but a policy term, on negotiating the tensions on the different policy levels, on the regulation of internet intermediaries including transparency obligations and on increased cooperation between the relevant supervisory authorities. Previously, the interim report focussing on political advertising was published in late 2019. Both these studies have been carried out in the context of the research initiative on the Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam, focussing on questions related to AI and public values, data governance and online platforms. |
| Appelman, N., Fahy, R., Helberger, N., Leerssen, P., McGonagle, T., van Eijk, N., van Hoboken, J. 2020, (Rapport voor het ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, Amsterdam, december 2019). @techreport{vanHoboken2020b, title = {Het juridisch kader voor de verspreiding van desinformatie via internetdiensten en de regulering van politieke advertenties}, author = {van Hoboken, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R. and Leerssen, P. and McGonagle, T. and van Eijk, N. and Helberger, N.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Rapport_desinformatie_december2019.pdf https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Kamerbrief_desinformatie.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-05-14}, abstract = {Het onderzoek, uitgevoerd in opdracht van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, analyseert het juridisch kader van toepassing op de verspreiding van desinformatie via online diensten. Het rapport biedt een uitgebreid overzicht van de relevante Europese en Nederlandse normen en doet aanbevelingen voor de verbetering van dit juridisch kader. Het onderzoek bevat daarnaast ook een analyse van het relevant wettelijke kader in de V.S., het V.K, Frankrijk, Duitsland, Canada en Zweden. Het rapport maakt duidelijk hoe de vrijheid van meningsuiting als rode draad door het wettelijke kader loopt. Dit fundamentele recht vormt zowel de buitenste grens voor regulering als een basis voor nieuwe maatregelen, bijvoorbeeld voor de bescherming van pluralisme. Het wettelijk kader van toepassing op desinformatie blijkt zeer breed, bevat verschillende reguleringsniveaus, verschuift afhankelijk van de specifieke context en omvat vele al bestaande normen voor de regulering van specifieke typen desinformatie. Verder blijkt het toezicht op dit wettelijk kader vrij gefragmenteerd te zijn. Op basis van deze analyse komt het rapport tot aan aantal aanbevelingen. De aanbevelingen hebben onder andere betrekking op het gebruik van de term desinformatie als beleidsterm, het omgaan met de spanningen op de verschillende beleidsniveaus, de regulering van internettussenpersonen door middel van transparantie verplichtingen en de samenwerking tussen de verschillende toezichthouders. Voorafgaand aan deze eindrapportage is in eind 2019 het interim-rapport gepubliceerd. Dit rapport focuste op de relatie tussen desinformatie en online politieke advertenties. Beide studies zijn onderdeel van het onderzoeksproject ‘Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam’ dat zich buigt over vraagstukken gerelateerd aan kunstmatige intelligentie en publieke waarden, data governance, en online platforms. }, note = {Rapport voor het ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, Amsterdam, december 2019}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } Het onderzoek, uitgevoerd in opdracht van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, analyseert het juridisch kader van toepassing op de verspreiding van desinformatie via online diensten. Het rapport biedt een uitgebreid overzicht van de relevante Europese en Nederlandse normen en doet aanbevelingen voor de verbetering van dit juridisch kader. Het onderzoek bevat daarnaast ook een analyse van het relevant wettelijke kader in de V.S., het V.K, Frankrijk, Duitsland, Canada en Zweden. Het rapport maakt duidelijk hoe de vrijheid van meningsuiting als rode draad door het wettelijke kader loopt. Dit fundamentele recht vormt zowel de buitenste grens voor regulering als een basis voor nieuwe maatregelen, bijvoorbeeld voor de bescherming van pluralisme. Het wettelijk kader van toepassing op desinformatie blijkt zeer breed, bevat verschillende reguleringsniveaus, verschuift afhankelijk van de specifieke context en omvat vele al bestaande normen voor de regulering van specifieke typen desinformatie. Verder blijkt het toezicht op dit wettelijk kader vrij gefragmenteerd te zijn. Op basis van deze analyse komt het rapport tot aan aantal aanbevelingen. De aanbevelingen hebben onder andere betrekking op het gebruik van de term desinformatie als beleidsterm, het omgaan met de spanningen op de verschillende beleidsniveaus, de regulering van internettussenpersonen door middel van transparantie verplichtingen en de samenwerking tussen de verschillende toezichthouders. Voorafgaand aan deze eindrapportage is in eind 2019 het interim-rapport gepubliceerd. Dit rapport focuste op de relatie tussen desinformatie en online politieke advertenties. Beide studies zijn onderdeel van het onderzoeksproject ‘Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam’ dat zich buigt over vraagstukken gerelateerd aan kunstmatige intelligentie en publieke waarden, data governance, en online platforms. |
| Senftleben, M. Flexibility Grave – Partial Reproduction Focus and Closed System Fetishism in CJEU, Pelham IIC, 51 (6), pp. 751-769, 2020. @article{Senftleben2020c, title = {Flexibility Grave \textendash Partial Reproduction Focus and Closed System Fetishism in CJEU, Pelham}, author = {Senftleben, M.}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-020-00940-z}, doi = {10.1007/s40319-020-00940-z}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-05-12}, journal = {IIC}, volume = {51}, number = {6}, pages = {751-769}, abstract = {In the ongoing discussion about the impact of fundamental rights on EU copyright law, the Pelham judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has received much attention. However, the decision also raises important legal-doctrinal issues. The CJEU employs the harmonized right of reproduction as a vehicle to regulate adaptations of pre-existing source material. Moreover, the Court insists on a balancing of interests within the EU matrix of exclusive rights and limitations. The closed list of limitations in EU copyright law, however, can hardly be expected to offer sufficient breathing space for adaptation scenarios. As the Information Society Directive did not harmonize the right of adaptation, there was no need to include indispensable free adaptation rules that have evolved at the national level, such as the German “free use” doctrine. Instead of embracing national rules of equity and fairness to fill the gap, the CJEU is reluctant to borrow from the legal traditions of EU Member States and misses an important opportunity to provide guidance for the regulation of adaptations outside the sound sampling arena. After an introduction to the German “Metall auf Metall” saga that led to the Pelham decision, the following analysis sheds light on these developments in EU copyright law and discusses problems arising from the approach taken by the CJEU.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } In the ongoing discussion about the impact of fundamental rights on EU copyright law, the Pelham judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has received much attention. However, the decision also raises important legal-doctrinal issues. The CJEU employs the harmonized right of reproduction as a vehicle to regulate adaptations of pre-existing source material. Moreover, the Court insists on a balancing of interests within the EU matrix of exclusive rights and limitations. The closed list of limitations in EU copyright law, however, can hardly be expected to offer sufficient breathing space for adaptation scenarios. As the Information Society Directive did not harmonize the right of adaptation, there was no need to include indispensable free adaptation rules that have evolved at the national level, such as the German “free use” doctrine. Instead of embracing national rules of equity and fairness to fill the gap, the CJEU is reluctant to borrow from the legal traditions of EU Member States and misses an important opportunity to provide guidance for the regulation of adaptations outside the sound sampling arena. After an introduction to the German “Metall auf Metall” saga that led to the Pelham decision, the following analysis sheds light on these developments in EU copyright law and discusses problems arising from the approach taken by the CJEU. |
| McGonagle, T., Voorhoof, D. Freedom of Expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights 2020, (IRIS Themes - Volume III (5th edition), European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg). @book{Voorhoof2020, title = {Freedom of Expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights}, author = {Voorhoof, D. and McGonagle, T.}, url = {https://rm.coe.int/iris-themes-vol-iii-ed-2020-en-2/16809e45e7}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-05-08}, abstract = {This e-book provides valuable insights into the European Court of Human Rights’ extensive case-law on freedom of expression and media and journalistic freedoms. The first four editions of the e-book (2013, 2015, 2016 and 2017) have proved hugely successful. The new fifth edition summarises over 315 judgments or decisions by the Court and provides hyperlinks to the full text of each of the summarised judgments or decisions (via HUDOC, the Court's online case-law database). For an optimal navigational experience, one should download the e-book and read the technical tips on p. 3.}, note = {IRIS Themes - Volume III (5th edition), European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {book} } This e-book provides valuable insights into the European Court of Human Rights’ extensive case-law on freedom of expression and media and journalistic freedoms. The first four editions of the e-book (2013, 2015, 2016 and 2017) have proved hugely successful. The new fifth edition summarises over 315 judgments or decisions by the Court and provides hyperlinks to the full text of each of the summarised judgments or decisions (via HUDOC, the Court's online case-law database). For an optimal navigational experience, one should download the e-book and read the technical tips on p. 3. |
| Dreier, T., Derclaye E., Geiger, C., Griffiths, J., Hilty, R., Hugenholtz, P., Metzger, A., Riis, T., Rognstad, O.A., Senftleben, M., Strowel, A.M., Synodinou, T., Xalabarder, R. 2020. @article{Metzger2020, title = {Selected Aspects of Implementing Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market into National Law \textendash Comment of the European Copyright Society}, author = {Metzger, A. and Senftleben, M. and Derclaye E. and Dreier, T. and Geiger, C. and Griffiths, J. and Hilty, R. and Hugenholtz, P. and Riis, T. and Rognstad, O.A. and Strowel, A.M. and Synodinou, T. and Xalabarder, R.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3589323}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-05-07}, abstract = {The national implementation of Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSMD) poses particular challenges. Article 17 is one of the most complex \textendash and most controversial \textendash provisions of the new legislative package which EU Member States must transpose into national law by 7 June 2021. Seeking to contribute to the debate on implementation options, the European Copyright Society addresses several core aspects of Article 17 that may play an important role in the national implementation process. It deals with the concept of online content-sharing service providers (OCSSPs) before embarking on a discussion of the licensing and content moderation duties which OCSSPs must fulfil in accordance with Article 17(1) and (4). The analysis also focuses on the copyright limitations mentioned in Article 17(7) that support the creation and dissemination of transformative user-generated content (UGC). It also discusses the appropriate configuration of complaint and redress mechanisms set forth in Article 17(9) that seek to reduce the risk of unjustified content removals. Finally, the European Copyright Society addresses the possibility of implementing direct remuneration claims for authors and performers, and explores the private international law aspect of applicable law \textendash an impact factor that is often overlooked in the debate.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } The national implementation of Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSMD) poses particular challenges. Article 17 is one of the most complex – and most controversial – provisions of the new legislative package which EU Member States must transpose into national law by 7 June 2021. Seeking to contribute to the debate on implementation options, the European Copyright Society addresses several core aspects of Article 17 that may play an important role in the national implementation process. It deals with the concept of online content-sharing service providers (OCSSPs) before embarking on a discussion of the licensing and content moderation duties which OCSSPs must fulfil in accordance with Article 17(1) and (4). The analysis also focuses on the copyright limitations mentioned in Article 17(7) that support the creation and dissemination of transformative user-generated content (UGC). It also discusses the appropriate configuration of complaint and redress mechanisms set forth in Article 17(9) that seek to reduce the risk of unjustified content removals. Finally, the European Copyright Society addresses the possibility of implementing direct remuneration claims for authors and performers, and explores the private international law aspect of applicable law – an impact factor that is often overlooked in the debate. |
| Appelman, N., Bodó, B., Schwichow, H. von Money talks? The impact of corporate funding on information law research 2020, (Amsterdam: IViR, Berlin: European Hub of the NoC). @techreport{Bod\'{o}2020, title = {Money talks? The impact of corporate funding on information law research}, author = {Bod\'{o}, B. and Schwichow, H. von and Appelman, N.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/money-talks-summary-report-final.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-05-07}, abstract = {Corporate funding is a contentious issue in information law and policy research. In the fall of 2019, the Institute of Information Law at the University of Amsterdam, and the European Hub of the Network of Centers invited academic research institutions, as well as junior and senior scholars to reflect on the issues around corporate influence on research through money, data, infrastructure, access. The discussion arrived at a number of important conclusions: - The discussion on funding must include data, infrastructure deals, and other forms of indirect funding - Sometimes corporate funding is the only way to get access to critical resources - Transparency is a must, but not a silver bullet to deal with funding - It is difficult to set up universal a priori norms of which type of funding is acceptable in which situations, - Academia may need new institutional solutions to review funding, and manage the potential risks of funders taking over the agenda, research bias, and reputational harms - Public funding bodies are part of the problem as much of the solution. The rapid, but consequential shifts in the digital landscape in terms of technological innovation, dominant economic actors, power relations, social, political structures, transform the environment of academic research which aims to address the legal and policy issues around those changes. More and more issues, such as content moderation, intermediary liability, digital advertising, algorithmic discrimination, the accountability of AI systems are framed as regulatory dilemmas. As a result, legal research is both in growing demand, and has gained visibility, and significance. As the future rules of the information society are shaping up in the discussions led, or at least prominently shaped by information law research, the temptation to influence it also increases. Research institutions must acknowledge the shifting landscape and the growing stakes. Challenges at that scale require more than individual integrity: there is a need for institutional solutions that on the one hand can actively assess, and mitigate the potential harms in each individual case, and on the other hand, is able to actively shape the funding landscape, and the norms around funding.}, note = {Amsterdam: IViR, Berlin: European Hub of the NoC}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } Corporate funding is a contentious issue in information law and policy research. In the fall of 2019, the Institute of Information Law at the University of Amsterdam, and the European Hub of the Network of Centers invited academic research institutions, as well as junior and senior scholars to reflect on the issues around corporate influence on research through money, data, infrastructure, access. The discussion arrived at a number of important conclusions: - The discussion on funding must include data, infrastructure deals, and other forms of indirect funding - Sometimes corporate funding is the only way to get access to critical resources - Transparency is a must, but not a silver bullet to deal with funding - It is difficult to set up universal a priori norms of which type of funding is acceptable in which situations, - Academia may need new institutional solutions to review funding, and manage the potential risks of funders taking over the agenda, research bias, and reputational harms - Public funding bodies are part of the problem as much of the solution. The rapid, but consequential shifts in the digital landscape in terms of technological innovation, dominant economic actors, power relations, social, political structures, transform the environment of academic research which aims to address the legal and policy issues around those changes. More and more issues, such as content moderation, intermediary liability, digital advertising, algorithmic discrimination, the accountability of AI systems are framed as regulatory dilemmas. As a result, legal research is both in growing demand, and has gained visibility, and significance. As the future rules of the information society are shaping up in the discussions led, or at least prominently shaped by information law research, the temptation to influence it also increases. Research institutions must acknowledge the shifting landscape and the growing stakes. Challenges at that scale require more than individual integrity: there is a need for institutional solutions that on the one hand can actively assess, and mitigate the potential harms in each individual case, and on the other hand, is able to actively shape the funding landscape, and the norms around funding. |
| Helberger, N. 2020. @article{Helberger2020c, title = {Statement Prof. Dr. Natali Helberger bij Rondetafelgesprek over de Corona-app in de Tweede Kamer op 22 April 2020}, author = {Helberger, N.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Statement_Covid_App_Expertsronde_TK.pdf https://www.tweedekamer.nl/debat_en_vergadering/commissievergaderingen/details?id=2020A01700}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-04-22}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Flynn, S., Geiger, C., Quintais, J. Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020. @article{Flynn2020c, title = {Implementing User Rights for Research in the Field of Artificial Intelligence: A Call for Action at International Level}, author = {Flynn, S. and Geiger, C. and Quintais, J.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/04/21/implementing-user-rights-for-research-in-the-field-of-artificial-intelligence-a-call-for-action-at-international-level/ http://infojustice.org/archives/42260}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-04-21}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, abstract = {A version of this post was also published on the InfoJustice website: http://infojustice.org/archives/42260}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } A version of this post was also published on the InfoJustice website: http://infojustice.org/archives/42260 |
| Carroll, M., Flynn, S., Geiger, C., Guibault, L., Margoni, T., Quintais, J., Sag, M. European Intellectual Property Review, 2020 (7), Forthcoming. @article{Flynn2020b, title = {Implementing User Rights for Research in the Field of Artificial Intelligence: A Call for International Action}, author = {Flynn, S. and Geiger, C. and Quintais, J. and Margoni, T. and Sag, M. and Guibault, L. and Carroll, M.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3578819}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-04-21}, journal = {European Intellectual Property Review}, volume = {2020}, number = {7}, abstract = {Last year, before the onset of a global pandemic highlighted the critical and urgent need for technology-enabled scientific research, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) launched an inquiry into issues at the intersection of intellectual property (IP) and artificial intelligence (AI). We contributed comments to that inquiry, with a focus on the application of copyright to the use of text and data mining (TDM) technology. This article describes some of the most salient points of our submission and concludes by stressing the need for international leadership on this important topic. WIPO could help fill the current gap on international leadership, including by providing guidance on the diverse mechanisms that countries may use to authorize TDM research and serving as a forum for the adoption of rules permitting cross-border TDM projects.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {forthcoming}, tppubtype = {article} } Last year, before the onset of a global pandemic highlighted the critical and urgent need for technology-enabled scientific research, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) launched an inquiry into issues at the intersection of intellectual property (IP) and artificial intelligence (AI). We contributed comments to that inquiry, with a focus on the application of copyright to the use of text and data mining (TDM) technology. This article describes some of the most salient points of our submission and concludes by stressing the need for international leadership on this important topic. WIPO could help fill the current gap on international leadership, including by providing guidance on the diverse mechanisms that countries may use to authorize TDM research and serving as a forum for the adoption of rules permitting cross-border TDM projects. |
| Senftleben, M. 2020, (Chapter in T. Mylly/J. Griffiths (eds.), The Transformation of Global Intellectual Property Protection, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020, forthcoming.). @inbook{Senftleben2020b, title = {From Flexible Balancing Tool to Quasi-Constitutional Straitjacket - How the EU Cultivates the Constraining Function of the Three-Step Test}, author = {Senftleben, M.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3576019}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-04-16}, abstract = {In the international intellectual property (IP) arena, the so-called “three-step test” regulates the room for the adoption of limitations and exceptions (L&Es) to exclusive rights across different fields of IP. Given the openness of the individual test criteria, it is tempting for proponents of strong IP protection to strive for the fixation of the meaning of the three-step test at the constraining end of the spectrum of possible interpretations. As the three-step test lies at the core of legislative initiatives to balance exclusive rights and user freedoms, the cultivation of the test’s constraining function and the suppression of the test’s enabling function has the potential to transform the three-step test into a bulwark against limitations of IP protection. The EU is at the forefront of a constraining use and interpretation of the three-step test in the field of copyright law. The configuration of the legal framework in the EU is worrisome because it obliges judges to apply the three-step test as an additional control instrument. It is not sufficient that an individual use falls within the scope of a statutory copyright limitation that explicitly permits this type of use without prior authorization. In addition, judges applying the three-step test also examine whether the specific form of use at issue complies with each individual criterion of the three-step test. Hence, the test serves as an instrument to further restrict L&Es that have already been defined precisely in statutory law. Not surprisingly, decisions from courts in the EU have a tendency of shedding light on the constraining aspect of the three-step test and, therefore, reinforcing the hegemony of copyright holders in the IP arena. The hypothesis underlying the following examination, therefore, is that the EU approach to the three-step test is one-sided in the sense that it only demonstrates the potential of the test to set additional limits to L&Es. The analysis focuses on this transformation of a flexible international balancing tool into a powerful confirmation and fortification of IP protection. For this purpose, the two facets of the international three-step test \textendash its enabling and constraining function \textendash are explored before embarking on a discussion of case law that evolved under the one-sided EU approach. Analyzing repercussions on international lawmaking, it will become apparent that the EU approach already impacted the further development of international L&Es. Certain features of the Marrakesh Treaty clearly reflect the restrictive EU approach.}, note = {Chapter in T. Mylly/J. Griffiths (eds.), The Transformation of Global Intellectual Property Protection, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2020, forthcoming.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {inbook} } In the international intellectual property (IP) arena, the so-called “three-step test” regulates the room for the adoption of limitations and exceptions (L&Es) to exclusive rights across different fields of IP. Given the openness of the individual test criteria, it is tempting for proponents of strong IP protection to strive for the fixation of the meaning of the three-step test at the constraining end of the spectrum of possible interpretations. As the three-step test lies at the core of legislative initiatives to balance exclusive rights and user freedoms, the cultivation of the test’s constraining function and the suppression of the test’s enabling function has the potential to transform the three-step test into a bulwark against limitations of IP protection. The EU is at the forefront of a constraining use and interpretation of the three-step test in the field of copyright law. The configuration of the legal framework in the EU is worrisome because it obliges judges to apply the three-step test as an additional control instrument. It is not sufficient that an individual use falls within the scope of a statutory copyright limitation that explicitly permits this type of use without prior authorization. In addition, judges applying the three-step test also examine whether the specific form of use at issue complies with each individual criterion of the three-step test. Hence, the test serves as an instrument to further restrict L&Es that have already been defined precisely in statutory law. Not surprisingly, decisions from courts in the EU have a tendency of shedding light on the constraining aspect of the three-step test and, therefore, reinforcing the hegemony of copyright holders in the IP arena. The hypothesis underlying the following examination, therefore, is that the EU approach to the three-step test is one-sided in the sense that it only demonstrates the potential of the test to set additional limits to L&Es. The analysis focuses on this transformation of a flexible international balancing tool into a powerful confirmation and fortification of IP protection. For this purpose, the two facets of the international three-step test – its enabling and constraining function – are explored before embarking on a discussion of case law that evolved under the one-sided EU approach. Analyzing repercussions on international lawmaking, it will become apparent that the EU approach already impacted the further development of international L&Es. Certain features of the Marrakesh Treaty clearly reflect the restrictive EU approach. |
| McGonagle, T. Infographic: ‘The Council of Europe and the safety of journalists’ 2020. @article{McGonagle2020e, title = {Infographic: ‘The Council of Europe and the safety of journalists’}, author = {McGonagle, T.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/CM-Rec20164-Infographic-version-9-April-2020.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-04-09}, abstract = {The infographic, ‘The Council of Europe and the safety of journalists’, visualizes and condenses the detailed information in Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4 Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4 to member States on the protection of journalism and the safety of journalists and other media actors. The infographic also signposts, and hyperlinks to, the Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other valuable Council of Europe resources, including the European Court of Human Rights’ three judgments to date which cite the Recommendation. The infographic, which was first created in 2019, has been updated in April 2020 to mark the fourth anniversary of the adoption of Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4 and the fifth anniversary of the launch of the Council of Europe Platform.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } The infographic, ‘The Council of Europe and the safety of journalists’, visualizes and condenses the detailed information in Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4 Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4 to member States on the protection of journalism and the safety of journalists and other media actors. The infographic also signposts, and hyperlinks to, the Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other valuable Council of Europe resources, including the European Court of Human Rights’ three judgments to date which cite the Recommendation. The infographic, which was first created in 2019, has been updated in April 2020 to mark the fourth anniversary of the adoption of Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4 and the fifth anniversary of the launch of the Council of Europe Platform. |
| Senftleben, M. Florida International University Law Review, 14 , Forthcoming. @article{Senftleben2020, title = {Institutionalized Algorithmic Enforcement - The Pros and Cons of the EU Approach to UGC Platform Liability}, author = {Senftleben, M.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3565175}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-04-09}, journal = {Florida International University Law Review}, volume = {14}, abstract = {Algorithmic copyright enforcement \textendash the use of automated filtering tools to detect infringing content before it appears on the internet \textendash has a deep impact on the freedom of users to upload and share information. Instead of presuming that user-generated content ("UGC") does not amount to infringement unless copyright owners take action and provide proof, the default position of automated filtering systems is that every upload is suspicious and that copyright owners are entitled to ex ante control over the sharing of information online. If platform providers voluntarily introduce algorithmic enforcement measures, this may be seen as a private decision following from the freedom of companies to run their business as they wish. If, however, copyright legislation institutionalizes algorithmic enforcement and imposes a legal obligation on platform providers to employ automated filtering tools, the law itself transforms copyright into a censorship and filtering instrument. Nonetheless, the new EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (“DSM Directive”) follows this path and requires the employment of automated filtering tools to ensure that unauthorized protected content does not populate UGC platforms. The new EU rules on UGC licensing and screening will inevitably lead to the adoption of algorithmic enforcement measures in practice. Without automated content control, UGC platforms will be unable to escape liability for infringing user uploads. To provide a complete picture, however, it is important to also shed light on counterbalances which may distinguish this new, institutionalized form of algorithmic enforcement from known content filtering tools that have evolved as voluntary measures in the private sector. The DSM Directive underlines the necessity to safeguard user freedoms that support transformative, creative remixes and mash-ups of pre-existing content. This feature of the new legislation may offer important incentives to develop algorithmic tools that go beyond the mere identification of unauthorized takings from protected works. It has the potential to encourage content assessment mechanisms that factor the degree of transformative effort and user creativity into the equation. As a result, more balanced content filtering tools may emerge in the EU. Against this background, the analysis shows that the new EU legislation not only escalates the use of algorithmic enforcement measures that already commenced in the private sector years ago. If rightly implemented, it may also add an important nuance to existing content identification tools and alleviate the problems arising from reliance on automated filtering mechanisms.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {forthcoming}, tppubtype = {article} } Algorithmic copyright enforcement – the use of automated filtering tools to detect infringing content before it appears on the internet – has a deep impact on the freedom of users to upload and share information. Instead of presuming that user-generated content ("UGC") does not amount to infringement unless copyright owners take action and provide proof, the default position of automated filtering systems is that every upload is suspicious and that copyright owners are entitled to ex ante control over the sharing of information online. If platform providers voluntarily introduce algorithmic enforcement measures, this may be seen as a private decision following from the freedom of companies to run their business as they wish. If, however, copyright legislation institutionalizes algorithmic enforcement and imposes a legal obligation on platform providers to employ automated filtering tools, the law itself transforms copyright into a censorship and filtering instrument. Nonetheless, the new EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (“DSM Directive”) follows this path and requires the employment of automated filtering tools to ensure that unauthorized protected content does not populate UGC platforms. The new EU rules on UGC licensing and screening will inevitably lead to the adoption of algorithmic enforcement measures in practice. Without automated content control, UGC platforms will be unable to escape liability for infringing user uploads. To provide a complete picture, however, it is important to also shed light on counterbalances which may distinguish this new, institutionalized form of algorithmic enforcement from known content filtering tools that have evolved as voluntary measures in the private sector. The DSM Directive underlines the necessity to safeguard user freedoms that support transformative, creative remixes and mash-ups of pre-existing content. This feature of the new legislation may offer important incentives to develop algorithmic tools that go beyond the mere identification of unauthorized takings from protected works. It has the potential to encourage content assessment mechanisms that factor the degree of transformative effort and user creativity into the equation. As a result, more balanced content filtering tools may emerge in the EU. Against this background, the analysis shows that the new EU legislation not only escalates the use of algorithmic enforcement measures that already commenced in the private sector years ago. If rightly implemented, it may also add an important nuance to existing content identification tools and alleviate the problems arising from reliance on automated filtering mechanisms. |
| Dommering, E. Annotatie bij HvJ EU 1 oktober 2019 (Planet 49) Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (13/14), pp. 1671-1673, 2020, (nr. 98). @article{Dommering2020f, title = {Annotatie bij HvJ EU 1 oktober 2019 (Planet 49)}, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2020_98.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-04-07}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, number = {13/14}, pages = {1671-1673}, note = {nr. 98}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Dommering, E. Annotatie bij HvJ EU 29 juli 2019 (Fashion ID) Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (13/14), pp. 1659-1661, 2020, (nr. 97). @article{Dommering2020e, title = {Annotatie bij HvJ EU 29 juli 2019 (Fashion ID)}, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_2020_97.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-04-07}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, number = {13/14}, pages = {1659-1661}, note = {nr. 97}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Bernstein, A., Helberger, N., Schulz, W., Vreese, C.H. de, Zweig, K.A. Diversity, Fairness, and Data-Driven Personalization in (News) Recommender System Dagstuhl Reports, 9 (11), pp. 117-124, 2020, (Report from Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop 19482). @article{Bernstein2020, title = {Diversity, Fairness, and Data-Driven Personalization in (News) Recommender System}, author = {Bernstein, A. and Vreese, C.H. de and Helberger, N. and Schulz, W. and Zweig, K.A.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/dagrep_v009_i011_p117_19482.pdf}, doi = {10.4230/DagRep.9.11.117}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-04-02}, journal = {Dagstuhl Reports}, volume = {9}, number = {11}, pages = {117-124}, abstract = {As people increasingly rely on online media and recommender systems to consume information, engage in debates and form their political opinions, the design goals of online media and news recommenders have wide implications for the political and social processes that take place online and offline. Current recommender systems have been observed to promote personalization and more effective forms of informing, but also to narrow the user’s exposure to diverse content. Concerns about echo-chambers and filter bubbles highlight the importance of design metrics that can successfully strike a balance between accurate recommendations that respond to individual information needs and preferences, while at the same time addressing concerns about missing out important information, context and the broader cultural and political diversity in the news, as well as fairness. A broader, more sophisticated vision of the future of personalized recommenders needs to be formed\textendasha vision that can only be developed as the result of a collaborative effort by different areas of academic research (media studies, computer science, law and legal philosophy, communication science, political philosophy, and democratic theory). The proposed workshop will set first steps to develop such a much needed vision on the role of recommender systems on the democratic role of the media and define the guidelines as well as a manifesto for future research and long-term goals for the emerging topic of fairness, diversity, and personalization in recommender systems.}, note = {Report from Dagstuhl Perspectives Workshop 19482}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } As people increasingly rely on online media and recommender systems to consume information, engage in debates and form their political opinions, the design goals of online media and news recommenders have wide implications for the political and social processes that take place online and offline. Current recommender systems have been observed to promote personalization and more effective forms of informing, but also to narrow the user’s exposure to diverse content. Concerns about echo-chambers and filter bubbles highlight the importance of design metrics that can successfully strike a balance between accurate recommendations that respond to individual information needs and preferences, while at the same time addressing concerns about missing out important information, context and the broader cultural and political diversity in the news, as well as fairness. A broader, more sophisticated vision of the future of personalized recommenders needs to be formed–a vision that can only be developed as the result of a collaborative effort by different areas of academic research (media studies, computer science, law and legal philosophy, communication science, political philosophy, and democratic theory). The proposed workshop will set first steps to develop such a much needed vision on the role of recommender systems on the democratic role of the media and define the guidelines as well as a manifesto for future research and long-term goals for the emerging topic of fairness, diversity, and personalization in recommender systems. |
| Irion, K., Yakovleva, S. Pitching trade against privacy: reconciling EU governance of personal data flows with external trade International Data Privacy Law, 2020. @article{Irion2020bb, title = {Pitching trade against privacy: reconciling EU governance of personal data flows with external trade}, author = {Irion, K. and Yakovleva, S. }, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipaa003}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-04-01}, journal = {International Data Privacy Law}, abstract = {This article positions EU’s external governance of personal data flows against the backdrop of the international controversy on digital trade versus strict privacy laws. Now that the EU has defined its position on horizontal provisions on cross-border data flows and personal data protection, it is both timely and essential to reassess its strategy on the international transfers of personal data in the purview of its future trade agreements. For its own normative approach and regulatory autonomy, the EU has a pivotal role to play in shaping the interface between trade and privacy before the ‘free trade leviathan’ can restrict the policy choices not only of individual states but also of the EU itself. Our contribution aims to break through the present compartmentalization of privacy scholarship and trade lawyers because it situates personal data flows in both disciplines.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } This article positions EU’s external governance of personal data flows against the backdrop of the international controversy on digital trade versus strict privacy laws. Now that the EU has defined its position on horizontal provisions on cross-border data flows and personal data protection, it is both timely and essential to reassess its strategy on the international transfers of personal data in the purview of its future trade agreements. For its own normative approach and regulatory autonomy, the EU has a pivotal role to play in shaping the interface between trade and privacy before the ‘free trade leviathan’ can restrict the policy choices not only of individual states but also of the EU itself. Our contribution aims to break through the present compartmentalization of privacy scholarship and trade lawyers because it situates personal data flows in both disciplines. |
| Poort, J., Power, L., Zimin, A., Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. Rien ne va plus: Reclame en onlinekansspelen SEW, (3), pp. 116-126, 2020. @article{Borgesius2020b, title = {Rien ne va plus: Reclame en onlinekansspelen}, author = {Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. and Zimin, A. and Power, L. and Poort, J.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/SEW_2020_3_auteursversie.pdf https://www-uitgeverijparis-nl.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/nl/reader/206589/1001465434}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-03-31}, journal = {SEW}, number = {3}, pages = {116-126}, abstract = {Binnenkort zijn onlinekansspelen toegestaan in Nederland. Na de opening van de markt is te verwachten dat aanbieders van onlinekansspelen intensief reclame gaan maken. Dit artikel bespreekt de juridische context van kansspelreclame, wat voor beperkingen aan reclame mogelijk zijn, en wat de verwachte effecten zijn op met name kansspelverslaving.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Binnenkort zijn onlinekansspelen toegestaan in Nederland. Na de opening van de markt is te verwachten dat aanbieders van onlinekansspelen intensief reclame gaan maken. Dit artikel bespreekt de juridische context van kansspelreclame, wat voor beperkingen aan reclame mogelijk zijn, en wat de verwachte effecten zijn op met name kansspelverslaving. |
| Bouchè, G. Belgian court asks CJEU whether seeding is communicating to the public Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020. @article{Bouch\`{e}2020b, title = {Belgian court asks CJEU whether seeding is communicating to the public}, author = {Bouch\`{e}, G.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/03/30/belgian-court-asks-cjeu-whether-seeding-is-communicating-to-the-public/}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-03-30}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Helberger, N., Makhortykh, M., Poort, J. Four tales of sci-fi and information law Internet Policy Review, 9 (1), 2020, (Editorial). @article{Helberger2020b, title = {Four tales of sci-fi and information law}, author = {Helberger, N. and Poort, J. and Makhortykh, M.}, url = {https://policyreview.info/node/1457/pdf}, doi = {10.14763/2020.1.1457}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-03-30}, journal = {Internet Policy Review}, volume = {9}, number = {1}, abstract = {Feel like living in a dystopia? Take a deep breath, get a strong coffee, and let us challenge your ideas of where reality ends, and sci-fi begins…}, note = {Editorial}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Feel like living in a dystopia? Take a deep breath, get a strong coffee, and let us challenge your ideas of where reality ends, and sci-fi begins… |
| Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. Strengthening legal protection against discrimination by algorithms and artificial intelligence The International Journal of Human Rights, 2020. @article{Borgesius2020, title = {Strengthening legal protection against discrimination by algorithms and artificial intelligence}, author = {Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.}, url = {https://doi-org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/10.1080/13642987.2020.1743976}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-03-29}, journal = {The International Journal of Human Rights}, abstract = {Algorithmic decision-making and other types of artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to predict who will commit crime, who will be a good employee, who will default on a loan, etc. However, algorithmic decision-making can also threaten human rights, such as the right to non-discrimination. The paper evaluates current legal protection in Europe against discriminatory algorithmic decisions. The paper shows that non-discrimination law, in particular through the concept of indirect discrimination, prohibits many types of algorithmic discrimination. Data protection law could also help to defend people against discrimination. Proper enforcement of non-discrimination law and data protection law could help to protect people. However, the paper shows that both legal instruments have severe weaknesses when applied to artificial intelligence. The paper suggests how enforcement of current rules can be improved. The paper also explores whether additional rules are needed. The paper argues for sector-specific \textendash rather than general \textendash rules, and outlines an approach to regulate algorithmic decision-making.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Algorithmic decision-making and other types of artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to predict who will commit crime, who will be a good employee, who will default on a loan, etc. However, algorithmic decision-making can also threaten human rights, such as the right to non-discrimination. The paper evaluates current legal protection in Europe against discriminatory algorithmic decisions. The paper shows that non-discrimination law, in particular through the concept of indirect discrimination, prohibits many types of algorithmic discrimination. Data protection law could also help to defend people against discrimination. Proper enforcement of non-discrimination law and data protection law could help to protect people. However, the paper shows that both legal instruments have severe weaknesses when applied to artificial intelligence. The paper suggests how enforcement of current rules can be improved. The paper also explores whether additional rules are needed. The paper argues for sector-specific – rather than general – rules, and outlines an approach to regulate algorithmic decision-making. |
| Stapel, S. Stichting Brein versus Safe Harbour: The Ongoing Battle Between Intermediaries and Right Holders Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020. @article{Stapel2020b, title = {Stichting Brein versus Safe Harbour: The Ongoing Battle Between Intermediaries and Right Holders}, author = {Stapel, S.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/03/27/stichting-brein-versus-safe-harbour-the-ongoing-battle-between-intermediaries-and-right-holders/}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-03-27}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Stapel, S. Preliminary ruling to the CJEU on geographical boundaries of UCD novelty assessment Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 15 (4), pp. 240-241, 2020, (Current Intelligence). @article{Stapel2020, title = {Preliminary ruling to the CJEU on geographical boundaries of UCD novelty assessment}, author = {Stapel, S.}, url = {https://doi-org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/10.1093/jiplp/jpaa032}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpaa032}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-03-24}, journal = {Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice}, volume = {15}, number = {4}, pages = {240-241}, abstract = {Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Company v PMS International Group Plc [2019] EWHC 2419 (IPEC), High Court of England and Wales, 17 September 2019. The High Court of Justice of England and Wales has sought guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as regards whether the disclosure of a design outside the Community can still qualify for protection within the Community.}, note = {Current Intelligence}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Company v PMS International Group Plc [2019] EWHC 2419 (IPEC), High Court of England and Wales, 17 September 2019. The High Court of Justice of England and Wales has sought guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as regards whether the disclosure of a design outside the Community can still qualify for protection within the Community. |
| Giannopoulou, A. Algorithmic systems: the consent is in the detail? Internet Policy Review, 9 (1), 2020. @article{Giannopoulou2020, title = {Algorithmic systems: the consent is in the detail?}, author = {Giannopoulou, A.}, url = {https://policyreview.info/node/1452/pdf}, doi = {10.14763/2020.1.1452}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-03-24}, journal = {Internet Policy Review}, volume = {9}, number = {1}, abstract = {Applications of algorithmically informed decisions are becoming entrenched in society, with data processing being their main process and ingredient. While these applications are progressively gaining momentum, established data protection and privacy rules have struggled to incorporate the particularities of data-intensive information societies. It is a truism to point out the resulting misalignment between algorithmic processing of personal data and the data protection regulatory frameworks that strive for meaningful control over personal data. However, the challenges to the (traditional) role and concept of consent are particularly manifest. This article examines the transformation of consent models in order to assess how the concept and the applied models of consent can be reconciled in order to correspond not only to the current regulatory landscapes but also to the exponential growth of algorithmic processing technologies. This particularly pressing area of safeguarding a basic aspect of individual control over personal data in the algorithmic era is interlinked with practical implementations of consent in the technology used and with adopted interpretations of the concept of consent, the scope of application of personal data, as well as the obligations enshrined in them. What makes consent effective as a data protection tool and how can we maintain its previous glory within the current technological challenges?}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Applications of algorithmically informed decisions are becoming entrenched in society, with data processing being their main process and ingredient. While these applications are progressively gaining momentum, established data protection and privacy rules have struggled to incorporate the particularities of data-intensive information societies. It is a truism to point out the resulting misalignment between algorithmic processing of personal data and the data protection regulatory frameworks that strive for meaningful control over personal data. However, the challenges to the (traditional) role and concept of consent are particularly manifest. This article examines the transformation of consent models in order to assess how the concept and the applied models of consent can be reconciled in order to correspond not only to the current regulatory landscapes but also to the exponential growth of algorithmic processing technologies. This particularly pressing area of safeguarding a basic aspect of individual control over personal data in the algorithmic era is interlinked with practical implementations of consent in the technology used and with adopted interpretations of the concept of consent, the scope of application of personal data, as well as the obligations enshrined in them. What makes consent effective as a data protection tool and how can we maintain its previous glory within the current technological challenges? |
| Eskens, S. JASIST, 2020. @article{Eskens2020, title = {The personal information sphere: An integral approach to privacy and related information and communication rights}, author = {Eskens, S.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/jasist_2020.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24354}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-03-20}, journal = {JASIST}, abstract = {Data protection laws, including the European Union General Data Protection Regulation, regulate aspects of online personalization. However, the data protection lens is too narrow to analyze personalization. To define conditions for personalization, we should understand data protection in its larger fundamental rights context, starting with the closely connected right to privacy. If the right to privacy is considered along with other European fundamental rights that protect information and communication flows, namely, communications confidentiality; the right to receive information; and freedom of expression, opinion, and thought, these rights are observed to enable what I call a “personal information sphere” for each person. This notion highlights how privacy interferences affect other fundamental rights. The personal information sphere is grounded in European case law and is thus not just an academic affair. The essence of the personal information sphere is control, yet with a different meaning than mere control as guaranteed by data protection law. The personal information sphere is about people controlling how they situate themselves in information and communication networks. It follows that, to respect privacy and related rights, online personalization providers should actively involve users in the personalization process and enable them to use personalization for personal goals.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Data protection laws, including the European Union General Data Protection Regulation, regulate aspects of online personalization. However, the data protection lens is too narrow to analyze personalization. To define conditions for personalization, we should understand data protection in its larger fundamental rights context, starting with the closely connected right to privacy. If the right to privacy is considered along with other European fundamental rights that protect information and communication flows, namely, communications confidentiality; the right to receive information; and freedom of expression, opinion, and thought, these rights are observed to enable what I call a “personal information sphere” for each person. This notion highlights how privacy interferences affect other fundamental rights. The personal information sphere is grounded in European case law and is thus not just an academic affair. The essence of the personal information sphere is control, yet with a different meaning than mere control as guaranteed by data protection law. The personal information sphere is about people controlling how they situate themselves in information and communication networks. It follows that, to respect privacy and related rights, online personalization providers should actively involve users in the personalization process and enable them to use personalization for personal goals. |
| Korthals Altes, W. Rechter en uitingsvrijheid – een actueel thema Mediaforum, (1), pp. 1, 2020, (Opinie). @article{Altes2020, title = {Rechter en uitingsvrijheid \textendash een actueel thema}, author = {Korthals Altes, W.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Opinie_Mediaforum_2020_1-1.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-03-13}, journal = {Mediaforum}, number = {1}, pages = {1}, note = {Opinie}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| McGonagle, T. Much ado about judges: perspectieven van het EHRM Mediaforum, (1), pp. 2-6, 2020. @article{McGonagle2020d, title = {Much ado about judges: perspectieven van het EHRM}, author = {McGonagle, T.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Mediaforum_2020_1.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-03-13}, journal = {Mediaforum}, number = {1}, pages = {2-6}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Bastian, M., Drunen, M. van, Eskens, S., Helberger, N., Möller, J. Implications of AI-driven tools in the media for freedom of expression 2020, (Council of Europe, September 2019). @techreport{Helberger2020, title = {Implications of AI-driven tools in the media for freedom of expression}, author = {Helberger, N. and Eskens, S. and Drunen, M. van and Bastian, M. and M\"{o}ller, J.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/AI-and-Freedom-of-Expression.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-03-05}, publisher = {Council of Europe, September 2019}, abstract = {Background Paper to the Ministerial Conference "Artificial Intelligence - Intelligent Politics: Challenges and opportunities for media and democracy, Cyprus, 28-29 May 2020."}, note = {Council of Europe, September 2019}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } Background Paper to the Ministerial Conference "Artificial Intelligence - Intelligent Politics: Challenges and opportunities for media and democracy, Cyprus, 28-29 May 2020." |
| Dommering, E. Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 5 november 2019 en Hoge Raad 3 december 2019 Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, (10), pp. 1368-1369, 2020. @article{Dommering2020d, title = {Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 5 november 2019 en Hoge Raad 3 december 2019}, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Annotatie_NJ_20120_72.pdf}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-03-03}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, number = {10}, pages = {1368-1369}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } |
| Behrens, C., Brouwer, E., van Eechoud, M., Witteman, J. Toegang tot data uit apparaten: Praktijk, marktfalen en publieke belangen 2020, ISBN: 9789067339742, (SEO-rapport nr. 2019-29). @techreport{Witteman2020, title = {Toegang tot data uit apparaten: Praktijk, marktfalen en publieke belangen}, author = {Witteman, J. and van Eechoud, M. and Behrens, C. and Brouwer, E.}, isbn = {9789067339742}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-02-27}, abstract = {This research is commissioned by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate. In collaboration with IVIR, SEO Economic Research investigated practices of data sharing in business-to-business data sharing, and the legal instruments used. The project focusses in sectors where devices (sensors, machines, devices) generate data that has added value when shared. The central question is whether there are market failures that prevent datasharing, and which (non-economic) public interests play a role in this. From an economic perspective, market failure results in non-optimal outcomes. Non-economic public interests relate to social values such as sustainability or justice.}, note = {SEO-rapport nr. 2019-29}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {techreport} } This research is commissioned by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate. In collaboration with IVIR, SEO Economic Research investigated practices of data sharing in business-to-business data sharing, and the legal instruments used. The project focusses in sectors where devices (sensors, machines, devices) generate data that has added value when shared. The central question is whether there are market failures that prevent datasharing, and which (non-economic) public interests play a role in this. From an economic perspective, market failure results in non-optimal outcomes. Non-economic public interests relate to social values such as sustainability or justice. |
| Yakovleva, S. Privacy Protection(ism): The Latest Wave of Trade Constraints on Regulatory Autonomy University of Miami Law Review, 74 (2), pp. 416-519, 2020. @article{Yakovleva2020, title = {Privacy Protection(ism): The Latest Wave of Trade Constraints on Regulatory Autonomy}, author = {Yakovleva, S.}, url = {https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol74/iss2/5/}, year = {2020}, date = {2020-02-27}, journal = {University of Miami Law Review}, volume = {74}, number = {2}, pages = {416-519}, abstract = {Countries spend billions of dollars each year to strengthen their discursive power to shape international policy debates. They do so because in public policy conversations labels and narratives matter enormously. The “digital protectionism” label has been used in the last decade as a tool to gain the policy upper hand in digital trade policy debates about cross-border flows of personal and other data. Using the Foucauldian framework of discourse analysis, this Article brings a unique perspective on this topic. The Article makes two central arguments. First, the Article argues that the term “protectionism” is not endowed with an inherent meaning but is socially constructed by the power of discourse used in international negotiations, and in the interpretation and application of international trade policy and rules. In other words, there are as many definitions of “(digital) protectionism” as there are discourses. The U.S. and E.U. “digital trade” discourses illustrate this point. Using the same term, those trading partners advance utterly different discourses and agendas: an economic discourse with economic efficiency as the main benchmark (United States), and a more multidisciplinary discourse where both economic efficiency and protection of fundamental rights are equally important (European Union). Second, based on a detailed evaluation of the economic “digital trade” discourse, the Article contends that the coining of the term “digital protectionism” to refer to domestic information governance policies not yet fully covered by trade law disciplines is not a logical step to respond to objectively changing circumstances, but rather a product of that discourse, which is coming to dominate U.S.-led international trade negotiations. The Article demonstrates how this redefinition of “protectionism” has already resulted in the adoption of international trade rules in recent trade agreements further restricting domestic autonomy to protect the rights to privacy and the protection of personal data. The Article suggests that the distinction between privacy and personal data protection and protectionism is a moral question, not a question of economic efficiency. Therefore, when a policy conversation, such as the one on cross-border data flows, involves noneconomic spill-over effects to individual rights, such conversation should not be confined within the straightjacket of trade economics, but rather placed in a broader normative perspective. Finally, the Article argues that, in conducting recently restarted multilateral negotiations on electronic commerce at the World Trade Organization, countries should rethink the goals of international trade for the twenty-first century. Such goals should determine and define the discourse, not the other way around. The discussion should not be about what “protectionism” means but about how far domestic regimes are willing to let trade rules interfere in their autonomy to protect their societal, cultural, and political values.}, keywords = {}, pubstate = {published}, tppubtype = {article} } Countries spend billions of dollars each year to strengthen their discursive power to shape international policy debates. They do so because in public policy conversations labels and narratives matter enormously. The “digital protectionism” label has been used in the last decade as a tool to gain the policy upper hand in digital trade policy debates about cross-border flows of personal and other data. Using the Foucauldian framework of discourse analysis, this Article brings a unique perspective on this topic. The Article makes two central arguments. First, the Article argues that the term “protectionism” is not endowed with an inherent meaning but is socially constructed by the power of discourse used in international negotiations, and in the interpretation and application of international trade policy and rules. In other words, there are as many definitions of “(digital) protectionism” as there are discourses. The U.S. and E.U. “digital trade” discourses illustrate this point. Using the same term, those trading partners advance utterly different discourses and agendas: an economic discourse with economic efficiency as the main benchmark (United States), and a more multidisciplinary discourse where both economic efficiency and protection of fundamental rights are equally important (European Union). Second, based on a detailed evaluation of the economic “digital trade” discourse, the Article contends that the coining of the term “digital protectionism” to refer to domestic information governance policies not yet fully covered by trade law disciplines is not a logical step to respond to objectively changing circumstances, but rather a product of that discourse, which is coming to dominate U.S.-led international trade negotiations. The Article demonstrates how this redefinition of “protectionism” has already resulted in the adoption of international trade rules in recent trade agreements further restricting domestic autonomy to protect the rights to privacy and the protection of personal data. The Article suggests that the distinction between privacy and personal data protection and protectionism is a moral question, not a question of economic efficiency. Therefore, when a policy conversation, such as the one on cross-border data flows, involves noneconomic spill-over effects to individual rights, such conversation should not be confined within the straightjacket of trade economics, but rather placed in a broader normative perspective. Finally, the Article argues that, in conducting recently restarted multilateral negotiations on electronic commerce at the World Trade Organization, countries should rethink the goals of international trade for the twenty-first century. Such goals should determine and define the discourse, not the other way around. The discussion should not be about what “protectionism” means but about how far domestic regimes are willing to let trade rules interfere in their autonomy to protect their societal, cultural, and political values. |