The European Court of Human Rights and Intellectual Property: Still Waiting for the New Innovation Frontier? external link

GRUR International, 2026

Abstract

This article explores the influence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on intellectual property (IP) law through human rights methodologies. While Professor Laurence Helfer, in his seminal article published in 2008, identified the ECtHR as an emerging innovation frontier in Europe, the extent to which this prediction has come to fruition might seem debatable. Notably, the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), rather than that of the ECtHR, has largely dominated discussions on the intersection of IP and human rights in Europe. As such, this article seeks to analyse the ECtHR’s contribution to – and its actual impact on – the human rights-based adjudication of IP issues. After a short introduction (I), it begins by examining the possible reasons behind the relative obscurity of ECtHR decisions in the European IP law discourse (II). It then focuses on the Strasbourg Court’s contribution to the development of human rights-based IP adjudication, demonstrating that, despite the limited engagement of IP community with the ECtHR, its jurisprudence has played, and continues to play, a pivotal role in shaping European IP law norms (III). This influence is assessed by first exploring the ECtHR-developed approaches to resolving conflicts between IP protection and freedom of expression (III.1), followed by an examination of the Court’s recognition of IP rights as an integral part of the broader human right to property – an area that has seen considerable expansion, particularly in recent years (III.2). Based on this analysis, the article concludes that we are certainly not waiting anymore for the ECtHR to become a new innovation frontier – it has already become one, having formed itself as a significant, albeit often underappreciated, force in the European IP legal landscape, operating quietly but far more meaningfully than is commonly recognised (IV).

Freedom of expression, Human rights, Intellectual property

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Procedural Justice and Judicial AI: Substantiating Explainability Rights with the Values of Contestation external link

Metikoš, L. & Domselaar, I. van
Journal of Human-Technology Relations, vol. 3, iss. : 1, pp: 1-34, 2025

Abstract

The advent of opaque assistive AI in courtrooms has raised concerns about the contestability of these systems, and their impact on procedural justice. The right to an explanation under the GDPR and the AI Act could address the inscrutability of judicial AIfor litigants. To substantiate this right in the domain of justice, we examine utilitarian, rights-based (including dignitarian and Dworkinian approaches), and relational theories of procedural justice. These theories reveal diverse perspectives on contestation, which can help shape explainability rights in the context of judicial AI. These theories respectively highlight different values of litigant contestation; it has instrumental value in error correction, and intrinsic value in respecting litigants’ dignity, either as rational autonomous agents or as socio-relational beings. These insights help us answer three central and practical questions on how the right to an explanation should be operationalized to enable litigant contestation: should explanations be general or specific, to what extent do explanations need to be faithful to the system’s internal behavior or merely provide a plausible approximation, and should more interpretable systems be used, even at the cost of accuracy? These questions are notstrictly legal or technical in nature, but also rely on normative considerations. Finally, this paper also evaluateswhat theory of procedural justice could best safeguard contestation effectively in the age of judicial AI.Thereto, itprovides the first building blocks of an AI-responsive theory of procedural justice.

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

VPNs, Copyright Territoriality, and Why Borders Still Matter Online: AG Rantos’ Opinion in Anne Frank Fonds (C-788/24) external link

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2026

Copyright, territoriality

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

CommonsDB feasibility study, part 2 external link

McCarthy, D., Keller, P., Quintais, J., Szkalej, K. & Posth, S.
pp: 49, 2026

Abstract

Today, part 2 of the CommonsDB Feasibility Study has been published. Building on the initial analysis presented in part 1, the second part of the study assesses the feasibility of the approach in light of real-world developments. Since May 2025, the team has moved the prototype into active testing, deployed public APIs, and launched the CommonsDB Explorer. Part 2 of the study evaluates the technical, legal, and operational performance of the system as it handles live data from our project partners. It offers a detailed look at how we are solving the challenge of creating a trustworthy, decentralized registry for Public Domain and openly licensed works.

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

EU copyright law roundup – fourth trimester of 2025 external link

Trapova, A. & Quintais, J.
Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2026

Copyright

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Op-Ed: “Geo-Blocking Isn’t Perfect – and That’s Okay: AG Rantos on VPNs and Copyright Borders in Anne Frank Fonds (C-788/24)” external link

EU Law Live, 2026

Abstract

Digital accessibility continues to test the territorial logic of EU copyright law. In his Opinion of 15 January 2026 in Anne Frank Fonds (C-788/24), Advocate General Rantos considers a question that is simple in formulation yet significant in consequence: whether online availability amounts to an unlawful communication to the public in a Member State where copyright still subsists, even though access is geo-blocked but can be bypassed using a VPN. His answer is a calibrated ‘no – but.’ He rejects the idea that online communications must be aimed at a specific national public to fall within EU copyright law. At the same time, he draws a firm line: effective geo-blocking precludes a communication to the public in the blocked State, even if circumvention is technically possible. The Opinion thus seeks to preserve the territorial fabric of EU copyright without allowing the most restrictive national regimes to project their effects across borders.

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Het inzagerecht ex art. 15 AVG en het beroep op gerechtvaardigde belangen, met name de bescherming van bedrijfsgeheimen en platformbeveiligingssystemen download

Abstract

Wij, onderzoekers verbonden aan het Instituut voor Informatierecht aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam, delen in dit stuk onze juridische expertise met betrekking tot het geschil tussen Twitter International Unlimited Company, of ‘TIUC’, (appellant) en dhr. Danny Mekić (geïntimeerde). Als specialisten in het informatierecht, delen wij inzichten uit ons onderzoek naar gegevensbescherming, bedrijfsgeheimen en platformregulering. Deze bijdrage leveren wij pro bono en zonder enig persoonlijk belang te hebben in de uitkomst van de zaak. Onze beweegreden voor het schrijven van deze opinie, is dat wij deze zaak van groot belang achten voor de rechtsontwikkeling van het inzagerecht, het recht op een uitleg en meer in het algemeen voor de verhouding tussen platformtransparantieregels en diens beperkingsgronden.

bedrijfsgeheim, belangenafweging, Inzagerecht, log files, transparentie

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Annotatie bij HvJEU 24 oktober 2024 (Kwantum Nederland en Kwantum België) download

Auteurs & Media, 2026

Abstract

Dit is een belangrijk arrest over de verhouding tussen het unierecht en het internationale auteursrecht. Volgens het Europese Hof van Justitie geldt de door Richtlijn 2001/29/EG (de ‘InfoSoc-richtlijn’) geharmoniseerde auteursrechtelijke bescherming voor alle werken ongeacht hun land van oorsprong en mogen de lidstaten van de Unie de reciprociteitsregel van art. 2 lid 7 van de Berner Conventie (‘BC’) daarom niet toepassen om werken van toegepaste kunst afkomstig uit de Verenigde Staten auteursrechtelijke bescherming te ontzeggen.

Copyright

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Music Recommender Systems And the Copyright Blind Spot: Conceptualising the Right to Be Heard external link

pp: 15, 2025

Abstract

Digital music platforms project an image of unprecedented abundance, linguistic diversity, and borderless circulation, yet the infrastructures that organise musical discovery increasingly shape who is heard and who remains silent. This paper argues that while EU copyright law effectively secures lawful availability, rights management, and remuneration, it remains structurally indifferent to the allocation of cultural attention. As musical discovery is now mediated primarily through algorithmic recommender systems, visibility has ceased to be a by-product of access and has become a function of metadata, optimisation, and design. The resulting condition of being represented but not heard exposes a doctrinal blind spot in the European copyright acquis and raises broader constitutional concerns relating to artistic freedom, freedom of expression, and cultural participation. Against this backdrop the paper conceptualises a right to be heard as a relational and infrastructural dimension of cultural participation and explores whether prominence-based regulatory approach, inspired by the AVMS Directive, could offer a proportionate response to algorithmically mediated cultural exclusion in the internal market that is compatible with the freedom to conduct a business.

Copyright, music industry, recommender systems

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Evaluation Report D2.4: Critical legal analysis of the application of European election disinformation regulation to community-governed platforms external link

Abstract

The latest deliverable of the DEM-Debate project authored by the University of Amsterdam explores how the new EU legal framework on election disinformation applies to Wikipedia. The legal analysis evaluates, through critical lenses, the impact of the new rules on the functioning of community-governed platforms in addressing disinformation related to the 2024 European Parliament elections, drawing some preliminary conclusions on how to inform policy making: Wikipedia editorial rules together with its patrolling system are good examples from which future legislation on election disinformation can draw inspiration. The report starts by accounting for the latest developments in the application of the EU disinformation legal framework, including two rulings of the European Court of Human Rights and the stance adopted by the American administration and legislative bodies towards the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). Then, it details the findings of the critical analysis of the EU legal framework.

disinformation, elections, Online platforms, Regulation

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib