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

The interface of rights to access public sector information and copyright: Opinion of the European Copyright Society external link

van Eechoud, M., Griffiths, J., Husovec, M. & Sganga, C.
Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2026

access, Copyright, public sector information

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

LAION Round 2: Machine-Readable but Still Not Actionable — The Lack of Progress on TDM Opt-Outs – Part 2 external link

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2025

Artificial intelligence, Copyright, Text and Data Mining (TDM)

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

LAION Round 2: Machine-Readable but Still Not Actionable — The Lack of Progress on TDM Opt-Outs – Part 1 external link

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2025

Artificial intelligence, Copyright, Text and Data Mining (TDM)

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Business-to-government datadelen via een derde. Onderzoek naar een generiek juridisch-technisch data governance raamwerk download

working paper, 2025

Abstract

Bedrijven bezitten gegevens die een (lokale) overheid kunnen helpen een meer accuraat en evidence-based beleid te vormen en uit te voeren. Bestaat er een werkwijze waarop een gemeente toegang kan verkrijgen tot gegevens die bedrijven bezitten, en kunnen gemeenten die vervolgens op verantwoorde wijze verwerken zonder de rechten, belangen en het vertrouwen van de betrokken bedrijven, consumenten en burgers te beperken of te schaden? Op dit moment vindt business-to-government gegevensdeling (‘B2G’) op beperkte schaal plaats, en voor zover het al gebeurt, geschiedt het veelal op ad hoc basis. Een dergelijke onsystematische toegang tot gegevens is problematisch omdat deze een meer georganiseerde en voorspelbare ondersteuning van accuraat, evidence-based beleid kan belemmeren. De EU-wetgever heeft wetgeving aangenomen (Data Act) om B2G een kader te bieden, maar dat biedt nog niet de gewenste duidelijkheid – noch voor gemeenten, noch voor bedrijven. Bedrijven zijn terughoudend met het delen van gegevens, omdat met gegevens economische, technische, politieke en juridische risico’s gemoeid zijn. Deze en andere hindernissen zouden deels mogelijk kunnen worden overkomen door het delen van de gegevens te laten verlopen via een derde partij die erop gericht is de gegevensdeling tussen bedrijven en de gemeente op een juridisch correcte wijze en daarmee betrouwbare manier te (laten) delen. Deze derde, die we ‘data intermediary’ noemen mag, teneinde een dergelijke dienst aan bedrijven als de gemeente te kunnen bieden, deze gegevens alleen delen volgens een toegankelijk, transparant en handhaafbaar en specifiek op de situatie gericht juridisch data governance regime. De onlangs in werking getreden EU-Data Governanceverordening (‘DGA’) biedt data intermediaries enkele normen, maar nog geen sluitend data governance regime. Omdat er geen sluitende regelgeving is voor een dergelijk data govenance regime voor B2G via een data intermediary (B2G3P) dat de rechten en belangen van alle belanghebbenden, met name van hen die hun gegevens beschikbaar stellen, op juridische wijze reguleert, onderzoek ik in deze paper of een generiek data governance raamwerk ontwikkeld kan worden, dat juridische, organisatorische en technische voorwaarden die aan een dergelijk raamwerk moeten worden gesteld, op adequate wijze waar kan maken. We concluderen voorlopig het volgende: i. een geschikt generiek juridisch data governance raamwerk dient de juridische, organisatorische en technische (‘socio-technische’) aard van gegevensdeling tussen bedrijven, lokale overheden en de data intermediary op passende wijze te reguleren; ii. dat de EU-wetgeving enkele grondlijnen maar geen sluitend kader voor een generiek juridisch data governance raamwerk biedt; iii. dat bestaande wetgeving op coherente en consistente wijze moet worden toegepast maar dat dit rechtsonzekerheid met zich meebrengt voor lokale overheden; en iv. dat bij het ontwikkelen van een generiek juridisch data governance raamwerk een effectieve mix van juridische, organisatorische en technische (‘socio-technische’) aspecten moet worden geadresseerd en dat daarvoor passende socio-technische mechanismen moeten worden ontworpen.

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

‘Must-carry’, special treatment and freedom of expression on online platforms: a European story external link

Kuczerawy, A. & Quintais, J.
European Law Open, pp: 1-34, 2025

Abstract

This paper examines the evolution and implications of ‘must-carry’ obligations in the regulation of online platforms, with a focus on Europe. These obligations, which restrict platforms’ discretion to remove or deprioritise certain content, represent a novel regulatory response to the growing power of platforms in shaping public discourse. The analysis traces developments at EU and national levels. At the EU level, it considers rejected must-carry proposals during the drafting of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the adoption of Article 18 of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), which grants privileges to recognised media service providers. At the national level, it examines Germany’s prohibition on content discrimination, the UK’s Online Safety Act, and Poland’s abandoned legislative proposal on freedom of expression online. Case law from courts in the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, and Poland further illustrates the emergence of judicially crafted duties resembling must-carry obligations. The paper argues that these measures are best understood as special treatment rules that privilege particular speakers, notably media organisations and politicians, by limiting platform autonomy in content moderation. While intended to safeguard pluralism and access to trustworthy information, such rules risk creating a two-tier system of expression in which established voices receive disproportionate protection while ordinary users remain vulnerable. Protections for politicians raise concerns about shielding powerful actors from justified moderation, whereas media privileges, though more defensible, remain limited in scope and potentially counterproductive, especially when exploited by outlets disseminating disinformation. The conclusion is that compelled inclusion and preferential treatment are unlikely to offer sustainable solutions to the structural imbalances between platforms, media providers, and politicians. More durable approaches should focus on strengthening journalism through financial and structural support, fostering innovation and local media, and prioritising user empowerment measures. Only systemic safeguards of this kind can effectively promote pluralism, accountability, and resilience in the digital public sphere.

Digital Services Act (DSA), European Media Freedom Act, Freedom of expression, must carry, platform regulation

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Author remuneration in the streaming age – exploitation rights and fair remuneration rules in the EU external link

Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, vol. 20, iss. : 12, pp: 807–824, 2025

Abstract

The shift from linear to on-demand consumption of copyright content on platforms like Spotify, Netflix and YouTube raises the question of whether authors and performers receive a fair share of streaming revenues. While industry rights holders have the opportunity to control access to protected content, it is often not the creators themselves who benefit from growing streaming revenue. The issue is global. In the EU, debates over the 2019 Copyright Directive led to harmonized rules on fair author remuneration. In 2023, the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries urged the World Intellectual Property Organization to analyse creators’ earnings from digital content. South Africa followed suit with its Copyright Amendment Bill in 2024. Together, these regional, international and national initiatives underscore the central role of remuneration in today’s copyright and streaming debates. This analysis focuses on the EU legal framework, which provides mechanisms to secure fair remuneration for authors and performers. These include rules for licensing agreements – such as contract adjustments, transparency obligations, revocation rights and jurisdiction norms – as well as a liability regime for user-generated content encouraging rights clearance. Mandatory collective licensing and remunerated copyright exceptions also help generate revenue for creators. Section I lays the groundwork for the discussion of these legal instruments. Section II reviews exclusive rights applicable to streaming. Section III describes the different legal mechanisms to ensure creators’ fair remuneration – from individual and mandatory collective licensing to remunerated copyright exceptions. Section IV explores producers’ bargaining power in streaming platform contexts, and Section V summarizes the results.

Copyright, EU, exploitation, remuneration, streaming services

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Fundamental Rights in Out-of-Court Dispute Settlement under the Digital Services Act external link

Ruschemeier, H. & Quintais, J.
2025

Abstract

This paper argues that certified out-of-court dispute settlement (ODS) bodies under Article 21 of the Digital Services Act (DSA) should apply a structured fundamental rights review to platform content moderation, operationalised through the concept of case salience. Situating ODS within the DSA's broader regulatory architecture-particularly Articles 14(4), 17, and 20-the paper contends that Article 21 provides the procedural complement to Article 14(4)'s substantive duty to enforce terms of service "diligently, objectively and proportionately, with due regard to fundamental rights." Rather than extending the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR) horizontally in a direct sense, ODS bodies give effect to Charter-conforming statutory obligations owed by platforms, interpreted in light of Article 52(1) CFR. Drawing on jurisprudence from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and national courts, the paper shows how freedom of expression and information interacts with countervailing rights-such as the freedom to conduct a business, privacy and data protection, and human dignity-in the context of online moderation. It proposes an intensity-of-review model: a deeper, meritsbased proportionality analysis for high-impact cases (e.g. political speech, account suspensions, issues of systemic relevance), and a lighter, procedural-sufficiency check for routine disputes. The paper emphasises that ODS remains non-judicial and operates without prejudice to Article 47 CFR and the availability of national court remedies. Over time, reasoned ODS decisions could evolve into a body of soft law, enhancing consistency and transparency in platform accountability. Ultimately, ODS bodies under the DSA represent a novel experiment in multi-actor rights protection. Their success will depend on whether they can reconcile accessibility, efficiency, and rights-based rigour, ensuring that content moderation in Europe evolves in line with the constitutional values of the Charter.

Content moderation, Digital Services Act (DSA), Fundamental rights

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib