Een naburig deepfake-recht. Echt? download

Nederlands Juristenblad (NJB), iss. : 6, num: 299, pp: 442-450, 2026

Abstract

Deepfake porno, politieke manipulatie en misinformatie reclame hebben verstrekkende gevolgen voor privacy, democratie en vertrouwen in media en wetenschap. Najaar 2025 is een initiatiefwetsvoorstel gepresenteerd dat voorziet in de invoering van een naburig recht op deepfakes van personen. Het voorstel kent aan iedere natuurlijke persoon een exclusief en licentieerbaar recht toe op ‘zijn’ of ‘haar’ deepfakes. Daarmee wordt een in wezen privacyrechtelijke aanspraak gegoten in het jasje van het intellectuele eigendomsrecht. Deze benadering roept vragen op. Is aanvullende bescherming tegen deepfakes echt nodig, nu het bestaande recht reeds een uitgebreid arsenaal aan bescherming biedt? Past een dergelijk verhandelbaar recht binnen de systematiek van het Nederlandse en Europese recht? En draagt zo’n nieuw naburig recht bij aan de beteugeling van deepfakes of normaliseert en commercialiseert het juist het fenomeen dat het zegt te willen reguleren?

Auteursrecht, deepfake, wet op de naburige rechten

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Music streaming debates series part 2: streaming and GenAI discussions in canon external link

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2026

Abstract

Part 1 of this series gave a general overview of the copyright-related discussions regarding streaming services from the last year. In Part 2, we will gain a clearer picture of the expected challenges for fair remuneration and control over one’s artistry created by new GenAI music services. Also, the implications for “good old” streaming services will be examined. Some concrete legal solutions will be proposed, while also highlighting uncertainties that remain.

Artificial intelligence, Copyright, music, remuneration, streaming services

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Is Upcycling Always Green – and Should It Be? Reconsidering the Rationale for Accommodating Upcycling within IP Law and Leveraging the Potential of Quotation and ‘Due Cause’ external link

Abstract

Climate change has forced legal systems to question many of their long-standing assumptions, including the largely linear logic that continues to underpin intellectual property (IP) law. Existing scholarship has convincingly shown that copyright and trade mark laws often hinder circular practices such as repair and upcycling, prompting calls for greater flexibility or the ‘greenification’ of IP law. This article challenges a key premise of those proposals: that upcycling is inherently environmentally beneficial. The environmental value of upcycling is neither uniform nor self-evident, and in some contexts may be marginal or even adverse. This uncertainty raises a normative question: should accommodation of upcycling under IP law depend on demonstrated environmental benefit, or does upcycling embody a wider social value warranting protection irrespective of ecological impact? The article argues for the latter, developing a justificatory framework grounded not primarily in environmental sustainability, but in artistic freedom and cultural diversity. On this account, environmental benefits – where present – serve as reinforcing considerations rather than the foundation for legal reform. Building on this reframing, the article reassesses concerns about free-riding on IP holders’ rights and argues for a more calibrated balance between upcycling practices and the protection of legitimate IP interests. It then examines how this balance might be realised within existing EU IP law, focusing on the underexplored potential of the quotation exception in copyright law and the ‘due cause’ defence in trade mark law. By repositioning these defences within the sustainability discourse, the article seeks to broaden the tools available to courts and policymakers for aligning IP law with the social value of upcycling.

Copyright, Freedom of expression, Trademark law, upcycling

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

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