Publicaties
Top Keywords
- Annotaties (57)
- Art. 10 EVRM (26)
- Auteursrecht (518)
- Bescherming van communicatie (20)
- Consumentenrecht (22)
- Content moderation (22)
- Databankenrecht (25)
- Digital Services Act (DSA) (31)
- EU (19)
- EU law (25)
- Freedom of expression (50)
- Fundamental rights (21)
- GDPR (22)
- Grondrechten (421)
- Industriële eigendom (38)
- Informatierecht (37)
- Intellectual property (31)
- Intellectuele eigendom (425)
- Internet (24)
- Journalistiek (33)
- Kluwer Information Law Series (43)
- Kronieken (18)
- Media law (37)
- Mediarecht (378)
- Mensenrechten (18)
- Merkenrecht (21)
- Naburige rechten (20)
- Omroeprecht (28)
- Online platforms (20)
- Overheidsinformatie (53)
- Personal data (35)
- Persrecht (41)
- Platforms (24)
- Privacy (327)
- Regulering (20)
- Technologie en recht (75)
- Telecommunicatierecht (127)
- Text and Data Mining (TDM) (21)
- Transparency (19)
- Vrijheid van meningsuiting (198)
Artificiële Intelligentie: waar is de werkelijkheid gebleven? download
Abstract
Er is veel ophef ontstaan over de (te) snelle toepassing van AI in de samenleving. Dit artikel onderzoekt wat AI (in het bijzonder ChatGPT) is. Vervolgens laat het zien waar de invoering van AI al direct wringt in de gebieden van het auteursrecht, de privacy, vrijheid van meningsuiting, openbare besluitvorming en mededingingsrecht. Daarna wordt stilgestaan bij de vraag of de AI-verordening van de EU daar het antwoord op zal zijn. De conclusie is dat dat maar zeer ten dele zo is. Bescherming zal dus moeten komen van normen uit de deelgebieden. Het artikel formuleert tot slot vier beginselen die in ieder deelgebied een AI ‘metakader’ kunnen vormen waarmee een AI-product moet worden beoordeeld.
Links
Artificial intelligence
RIS
Bibtex
Generative AI and copyright: Convergence of opt-outs? external link
Public interest content on audiovisual platforms: access and findability download
Opinie: De DSA en desinformatie: meer dan censuur alleen download
Generative AI and Author Remuneration
Abstract
With the evolution of generative AI systems, machine-made productions in the literary and artistic field have reached a level of refinement that allows them to replace human creations. The increasing sophistication of AI systems will inevitably disrupt the market for human literary and artistic works. Generative AI systems provide literary and artistic output much faster and cheaper. It is therefore foreseeable that human authors will be exposed to substitution effects. They may lose income as they are replaced by machines in sectors ranging from journalism and writing to music and visual arts. Considering this trend, the question arises whether it is advisable to take measures to compensate human authors for the reduction in their market share and income. Copyright law could serve as a tool to introduce an AI levy system and ensure the payment of equitable remuneration. In combination with mandatory collective rights management, the new revenue stream could be used to finance social and cultural funds that improve the working and living conditions of flesh-and-blood authors.
Links
collective rights management, Copyright, Freedom of expression, Text and Data Mining (TDM), three-step test
RIS
Bibtex
Herberekening reserveprijzen download
Reciprociteit bij bescherming vormgeving na RAAP: Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 31 maart 2023 (Kwantum / Vitra) download
Inaugural lecture: The Lure of Open Data download
Facilitating #dialogue or #buildingsupport? An Exploration of the International Criminal Court’s Use of 280 Characters
Abstract
This systematic study of the International Criminal Court (ICC)’s stakeholder communication on Twitter brings attention to the largely unexamined phenomenon of the ICC’s active presence on social media. It answers the following research question: ‘To what extent has the ICC used Twitter to facilitate dialogue and exchange with its stakeholders as opposed to one-way information provision?’ Literary research and the descriptive analysis of 1,712 tweets and retweets published by @IntlCrimCourt between November 2017 and June 2019 reveal that the ICC primarily used Twitter to provide information and build support among its most powerful stakeholders. Notwithstanding its stated commitment to two-way stakeholder communication, the ICC made little to no effort to solicit feedback or generate dialogue on Twitter. These findings reveal the opportunities and limitations of Twitter as a mechanism to communicate with stakeholders and highlight the difficult position the ICC finds itself in as an international judicial institution dependent on state support.