Publications - Pagina 7 van 271

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.

Links

RIS

TY  - GEN
AU  - Metikoš, L.
AU  - Domselaar, I. van
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-12-30
T1  - Procedural Justice and Judicial AI: Substantiating Explainability Rights with the Values of Contestation
JO  - Journal of Human-Technology Relations
VL  - 3
IS  - 1
SP  - 1-34
DO  - https://doi.org/10.59490/jhtr.2025.3.8163
AB  - 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.
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

article{nokey,
	title = {Procedural Justice and Judicial AI: Substantiating Explainability Rights with the Values of Contestation},
	author = {Metikoš, L. and Domselaar, I. van},
	url = {https://journals.open.tudelft.nl/jhtr/article/view/8163/6486},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.59490/jhtr.2025.3.8163},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-12-30},
	journal = {Journal of Human-Technology Relations},
	volume = {3},
	issue = {1},
	pages = {1-34},
	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.},
}

Save .bib

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

Izyumenko, E.

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2026

Links

https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/copyright-blog/vpns-copyright-territoriality-and-why-borders-still-matter-online-ag-rantos-opinion-in-anne-frank-fonds-c-78824/

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.

Links

https://www.commonsdb.org/blog/commonsdb-feasibility-study-part-2-from-design-to-deployment/

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

EU copyright law roundup – fourth trimester of 2025 external link

Trapova, A. & Quintais, J.

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2026

Links

https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/copyright-blog/eu-copyright-law-roundup-fourth-trimester-of-2025/

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

Izyumenko, E.

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.

Links

https://eulawlive.com/op-ed-geo-blocking-isnt-perfect-and-thats-okay-ag-rantos-on-vpns-and-copyright-borders-in-anne-frank-fonds-c-788-24/

RIS

TY  - BLOG
AU  - Izyumenko, E.
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026-01-19
T1  - 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)”
JO  - EU Law Live
AB  - 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.
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Online publication{nokey,
	title = {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)”},
	author = {Izyumenko, E.},
	url = {https://eulawlive.com/op-ed-geo-blocking-isnt-perfect-and-thats-okay-ag-rantos-on-vpns-and-copyright-borders-in-anne-frank-fonds-c-788-24/},
	year = {2026},
	date = {2026-01-19},
	journal = {EU Law Live},
	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.},
}

Save .bib

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

Irion, K., Leerssen, P. & Metikoš, L.

2026

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.

Links

bedrijfsgeheim, belangenafweging, Inzagerecht, log files, transparentie

RIS

TY  - GEN
AU  - Irion, K.
AU  - Leerssen, P.
AU  - Metikoš, L.
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026-01-13
T1  - Het inzagerecht ex art. 15 AVG en het beroep op gerechtvaardigde belangen, met name de bescherming van bedrijfsgeheimen en platformbeveiligingssystemen
UR  - https://www.ivir.nl/nl/publications/het-inzagerecht-ex-art-15-avg-en-het-beroep-op-gerechtvaardigde-belangen-met-name-de-bescherming-van-bedrijfsgeheimen-en-platformbeveiligingssystemen/expert-opinie-het-inzagerecht-ex-art-15-avg-k-irion-p-leerssen-l-metikos/
AB  - 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.
K1  - bedrijfsgeheim
K1  - belangenafweging
K1  - Inzagerecht
K1  - log files
K1  - transparentie
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

article{nokey,
	title = {Het inzagerecht ex art. 15 AVG en het beroep op gerechtvaardigde belangen, met name de bescherming van bedrijfsgeheimen en platformbeveiligingssystemen},
	author = {Irion, K. and Leerssen, P. and Metikoš, L.},
	year = {2026},
	date = {2026-01-13},
	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.},
	keywords = {bedrijfsgeheim, belangenafweging, Inzagerecht, log files, transparentie},
}

Save .bib

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

Hugenholtz, P.B.

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.

Links

Annotatie_AM_2026

Copyright

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

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

Szkalej, K.

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.

Links

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5967014

Copyright, music industry, recommender systems

RIS

TY  - UNPD
AU  - Szkalej, K.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-12-23
T1  - Music Recommender Systems And the Copyright Blind Spot: Conceptualising the Right to Be Heard
SP  - 15
AB  - 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.
K1  - Copyright
K1  - music industry
K1  - recommender systems
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Working paper{nokey,
	title = {Music Recommender Systems And the Copyright Blind Spot: Conceptualising the Right to Be Heard},
	author = {Szkalej, K.},
	url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5967014},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-12-23},
	pages = {15},
	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.},
	keywords = {Copyright, music industry, recommender systems},
}

Save .bib

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

Fahy, R., Trogrlić, G. & van Hoboken, J.

2025

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.

Links

https://wikimedia.brussels/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/D2.4-Critical-Legal-Analysis.pdf

disinformation, elections, Online platforms, Regulation

RIS

TY  - RPRT
AU  - Fahy, R.
AU  - Trogrlić, G.
AU  - van Hoboken, J.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-10-31
T1  - Evaluation Report D2.4: Critical legal analysis of the application of European election disinformation regulation to community-governed platforms
AB  - 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.
K1  - disinformation
K1  - elections
K1  - Online platforms
K1  - Regulation
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Report{nokey,
	title = {Evaluation Report D2.4: Critical legal analysis of the application of European election disinformation regulation to community-governed platforms},
	author = {Fahy, R. and Trogrlić, G. and van Hoboken, J.},
	url = {https://wikimedia.brussels/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/D2.4-Critical-Legal-Analysis.pdf},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-10-31},
	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.},
	keywords = {disinformation, elections, Online platforms, Regulation},
}

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.

Links

https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/copyright-blog/the-interface-of-rights-to-access-public-sector-information-and-copyright-opinion-of-the-european-copyright-society/

access, Copyright, public sector information

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Top Keywords

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Links

RIS

Bibtex