Publicaties
Top Keywords
- Annotaties (57)
- Art. 10 EVRM (25)
- Auteursrecht (518)
- Bescherming van communicatie (20)
- Consumentenrecht (22)
- Content moderation (22)
- Databankenrecht (25)
- Digital Services Act (DSA) (32)
- EU (19)
- EU law (26)
- Freedom of expression (46)
- Fundamental rights (18)
- GDPR (22)
- Grondrechten (421)
- Industriële eigendom (38)
- Informatierecht (37)
- Intellectual property (29)
- Intellectuele eigendom (425)
- Internet (24)
- Journalistiek (33)
- Kluwer Information Law Series (43)
- Kronieken (18)
- Media law (28)
- Mediarecht (378)
- Mensenrechten (18)
- Merkenrecht (21)
- Naburige rechten (20)
- Omroeprecht (28)
- Online platforms (20)
- Overheidsinformatie (53)
- Personal data (35)
- Persrecht (41)
- Platforms (24)
- Privacy (326)
- Regulering (20)
- Technologie en recht (75)
- Telecommunicatierecht (127)
- Text and Data Mining (TDM) (20)
- Transparency (19)
- Vrijheid van meningsuiting (198)
Procedural Justice and Judicial AI; Substantiating Explainability Rights with the Values of Contestation external link
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 AI for 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 actual behavior or merely provide a plausible approximation, and should more interpretable systems be used, even at the cost of accuracy? These questions are not strictly legal or technical in nature, but also rely on normative considerations. The practical operationalization of explainability will therefore differ between different valuations of litigant contestation of judicial AI.
Artificial intelligence, digital justice, Transparency
RIS
Bibtex
Korte loopbaanbeschrijving van Prof. Egbert Dommering download
Export Controls as Innovation Marketing? Sociotechnical Imaginaries in the Ringfencing of Quantum Technologies external link
Abstract
Why are a host of states, such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands, imposing export controls on quantum computers with technical specifications (e.g. 2000 qubits) that are not yet realisable? No full-fledged ‘useful’ quantum technology (QT) exists yet; instead, the regulatory object of export controls is the network of technological artefacts (equipment, prototype, proof-of-concepts), people and labs (the ‘assemblage’ of quantum innovation) endeavouring to make quantum a reality. Thus, export controls serve mainly as atool of knowledge regulation over critical knowledge and R&D exchanges taking place to realise the quantum ambition. This article contends that it is not the material reality of quantum innovation –which is still mired in major engineering challenges –that informs export control efforts surrounding QT, but rather the ‘sociotechnical imaginary’ of quantum that serves as the ‘muse’ for law-and policy-makers. Quantum imaginaries are pivotal to understanding the rationales of QT export controls and the narratives in which they are entrenched. It is not necessarily the ‘2000 qubits’ in and of themselves, their technical (non-)feasibility or (non-)realisability, but rather the imaginaries told and believed about their technological possibilities and power thatare decisive in the ringfencing performed by export controls on QT.
quantum technologies
RIS
Bibtex
New Book Explores Collective Management of Copyright in the Digital Age external link
Copyright Liability and Generative AI: What’s the Way Forward? download
Abstract
The intersection of copyright liability and generative AI has become one of the most complex and debated issues in the field of copyright law. AI systems have advanced significantly to allow the creation of fantastic new content but they are also capable of producing outputs that evoke, adapt, or recreate content that is protected by copyright law, sparking several infringement proceedings against AI companies, particularly in the US. With this rapid evolution comes the need to re-examine existing legal frameworks and theories. In this contribution, I would like to focus on liability challenges at the output stage of AI content generation and share some insights from Sweden to finally ponder about possible paths forward.
Links
Artificial intelligence, Copyright, Generative AI, liability
RIS
Bibtex
Dun & Bradstreet en het recht op een uitleg; kunnen papieren tijgers bijten? Annotatie bij het arrest van het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie op 27 februari 2025 download
Abstract
Het arrest van 27 februari 2025 van het Hof van Justitie van de EU (HvJ EU) in de zaak Dun & Bradstreet, draagt bij aan het steeds verder ontwikkelende recht op een uitleg. Dit samengestelde recht biedt betrokkenen die onderworpen worden aan geautomatiseerde besluitvorming, de mogelijkheid om inzicht te krijgen in hoe een bepaald besluit tot stand is gekomen. Met deze informatie zouden betrokkenen zulke besluiten beter kunnen aanvechten. Het Dun & Bradstreet-arrest verheldert het recht op een uitleg door toe te lichten wat voor informatie verstrekt moet worden aan betrokkenen, alsook hoe verschillende belangen hierbij moeten worden afgewogen.
RIS
Bibtex
Online Behavioural Advertising, Consumer Empowerment and Fair Competition: Are the DSA Transparency Obligations the Right Answer? download
Balancing Intellectual Property Protection with the Human Right to a Healthy Environment: Internal and External Reconciliation Approaches external link
Abstract
This contribution examines the practical ways in which the human right to a healthy environment (HR2HE) can influence the development and interpretation of intellectual property (IP) laws. It focuses on two potential approaches to reconciling this human right with IP: (1) the so-called “internal” reconciliation approach, which essentially uses the HR2HE as an interpretive tool to recalibrate IP law’s own internal rules and mechanisms in a more sustainability-friendly direction, and (2) the “external” reconciliation approach, which views the HR2HE as an independent defence against IP infringement actions that can be invoked in courts to challenge allegations of IP infringement.