@article{nokey,

title = {An Interdisciplinary Toolbox for Researching the AI-Act},

author = {Metiko\v{s}, L.},

url = {https://verfassungsblog.de/an-interdisciplinary-toolbox-for-researching-the-ai-act/},

doi = {10.17176/20230908-062850-0},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-09-08},

journal = {Verfassungsblog},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Column: De procedurele wending van de DSA: het recht op menselijke tussenkomst in content moderation},

author = {Metiko\v{s}, L.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/de-procedurele-wending-van-de-dsa/},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-08-08},

journal = {Mediaforum},

issue = {Studenteneditie},

pages = {22},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Defining the ‘media’ in Europe: pitfalls of the proposed European Media Freedom Act},

author = {Seipp, T. and Fahy, R. and Drunen, M. van},

doi = {10.1080/17577632.2023.2240998},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-07-31},

journal = {Journal of Media Law},

abstract = {This comment examines the definition of ‘media’ under the recently-proposed European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), and highlights its potential flaws, while pointing to possible considerations for future improvement. Notably, the narrow service-based approach to defining ‘media’ under Article 2 EMFA appears to be in conflict with the functional approach to defining media under European and international human rights law. Additionally, a lack of transparency and safeguards regarding how the criteria of ‘editorial independence’ is to be assessed, especially under Article 17 EMFA, is problematic. The risk that such decisions are made based on commercial and/or political considerations rather than established standards of media freedom must be avoided, especially when platforms are to assess editorial independence.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Using Terms and Conditions to apply Fundamental Rights to Content Moderation},

author = {Quintais, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R.},

doi = {10.1017/glj.2023.53},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-07-11},

journal = {German Law Journal},

abstract = {Large online platforms provide an unprecedented means for exercising freedom of expression online and wield enormous power over public participation in the online democratic space. However, it is increasingly clear that their systems, where (automated) content moderation decisions are taken based on a platformʼs terms and conditions (T\&Cs), are fundamentally broken. Content moderation systems have been said to undermine freedom of expression, especially where important public interest speech ends up suppressed, such as speech by minority and marginalized groups. Indeed, these content moderation systems have been criticized for their overly vague rules of operation, inconsistent enforcement, and an overdependence on automation. Therefore, in order to better protect freedom of expression online, international human rights bodies and civil society organizations have argued that platforms “should incorporate directly” principles of fundamental rights law into their T\&Cs. Under EU law, and apart from a rule in the Terrorist Content Regulation, platforms had until recently no explicit obligation to incorporate fundamental rights into their T\&Cs. However, an important provision in the Digital Services Act (DSA) will change this. Crucially, Article 14 DSA lays down new rules on how platforms can enforce their T\&Cs, including that platforms must have “due regard” to the “fundamental rights” of users under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In this article, we critically examine the topic of enforceability of fundamental rights via T\&Cs through the prism of Article 14 DSA. We ask whether this provision requires platforms to apply EU fundamental rights law and to what extent this may curb the power of Big Tech over online speech. We conclude that Article 14 will make it possible, in principle, to establish the indirect horizontal effect of fundamental rights in the relationship between online platforms and their users. But in order for the application and enforcement of T\&Cs to take due regard of fundamental rights, Article 14 must be operationalized within the framework of the international and European fundamental rights standards. If this is possible Article 14 may fulfil its revolutionary potential.



},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Expert perspectives on GDPR compliance in the context of smart homes and vulnerable persons},

author = {Piasecki, S.},

doi = {10.1080/13600834.2023.2231326},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-07-11},

journal = {Information \& Communications Technology Law},

abstract = {This article introduces information gathered through 21 semi-structured interviews conducted with UK, EU and international professionals in the field of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) compliance and technology design, with a focus on the smart home context and vulnerable people using smart products. Those discussions gave various insights and perspectives into how the two communities (lawyers and technologists) view intricate practical data protection challenges in this specific setting. The variety of interviewees allowed to compare different approaches to data protection compliance topics. Answers to the following questions were provided: when organisations develop and/or deploy smart devices that use personal data, do they take into consideration the needs of vulnerable groups of people to comply with the GDPR? What are the underlying issues linked to the practical data protection law challenges faced by organisations working on smart devices used by vulnerable persons? How do experts perceive data protection law-related problems in this context?},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Annotatie Hof van Justitie van de EU 28 april 2022 (Meta Platforms Ireland / Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverb\"{a}nde)},

author = {Dommering, E.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/annotatie_nj_2023_194/},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-07-11},

journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie},

number = {194},

issue = {21},

pages = {3621-3623},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {EU copyright law round up \textendash second trimester of 2023},

author = {Trapova, A. and Quintais, J.},

url = {https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2023/06/30/eu-copyright-law-round-up-second-trimester-of-2023/},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-06-30},

journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Media Concentration Law: Gaps and Promises in the Digital Age},

author = {Seipp, T.},

doi = {10.17645/mac.v11i2.6393},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-06-30},

urldate = {2023-06-30},

journal = {Media and Communication},

volume = {11},

issue = {2},

pages = {392-405},

abstract = {Power concentrations are increasing in today’s media landscape. Reasons for this include increasing structural and technological dependences on digital platform companies, as well as shifts in opinion power and control over news production, distribution, and consumption. Digital opinion power and platformised media markets have prompted the need for a re-evaluation of the current approach. This article critically revisits and analyses media concentration rules. To this end, I employ a normative conceptual framework that examines ”opinion power in the platform world” at three distinct levels (individual citizen, institutional newsroom, and media ecosystem). At each level, I identify the existing legal tools and gaps in controlling power and concentration in the digital age. Based on that, I offer a unifying theoretical framework for a “digital media concentration law,” along with core concepts and guiding principles. I highlight policy goals and fields that are outside the traditional scope yet are relevant for addressing issues relating to the digital age. Additionally, the emerging European Union regulatory framework\textemdashspecifically the Digital Services Act, the Digital Markets Act, and the European Media Freedom Act\textemdashreflects an evolving approach regarding platforms and media concentration. On a final note, the analysis draws from the mapping and evaluation results of a Europe-wide study on media pluralism and diversity online, which examined (national) media concentration rules.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Opinie: Internetproletari\"{e}rs aller landen verenigt u!},

author = {Dommering, E.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/opinie_dommering_mediaforum-2023-3/},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-06-30},

journal = {Mediaforum},

issue = {3},

pages = {85},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Beyond financial regulation of crypto-asset wallet software: In search of secondary liability},

author = {Barbereau, T. and Bod\'{o}, B.},

url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364923000390},

doi = {10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105829},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-06-22},

urldate = {2023-06-22},

journal = {Computer Law \& Security Review},

volume = {49},

number = {105829},

abstract = {Since Bitcoin, the blockchain space considerably evolved. One crucial piece of software to interact with blockchains and hold private-public key pairs to distinct crypto-assets and securities are wallets. Wallet software can be offered by liable third-parties (‘custodians’) who hold certain rights over assets and transactions. As parties subject to financial regulation, they are to uphold Anti-money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorist (AML/CFT) standards by undertaking Know-Your-Customer (KYC) checks on users of their services.

In juxtaposition, wallet software can also be issued without the involvement of a liable third-party. As no KYC is performed and users have full ‘freedom to act’, such ‘non-custodial’ wallet software is popular in criminal undertakings. They are required to interact with peer-to-peer applications and organisations running on blockchains whose benefits are not the subject of this paper. To date, financial regulation fails to adequately address such wallet software because it presumes the existence of a registered, liable entity offering said software. As illustrated in the case of Tornado Cash, financial regulation fails to trace chains of secondary liability. Alas, the considered solution is a systematic surveillance of all transactions.

Against this backdrop, this paper sets forth an alternative approach rooted in copyright law. Concepts that pertain to secondary liability prove of value to develop a flexible, principles-based approach to the regulation of non-custodial wallet software that accounts for both, infringing and non-infringing uses.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Leg het me nog \'{e}\'{e}n keer uit: het recht op een uitleg na Uber en Ola. Annotatie bij Hof Amsterdam, 4 april 2023},

author = {Metiko\v{s}, L.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/pi_2023/},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-06-15},

journal = {Privacy \& Informatie},

issue = {3},

pages = {114-116},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Improving Data Access for Researchers in the Digital Services Act},

author = {Dergacheva, D. and Katzenbach, C. and Schwemer, S. and Quintais, J.},

url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4465846},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-06-01},

abstract = {Joint submission in response to the Call for Evidence on the Delegated Regulation on data access provided for in the Digital Services Act (DSA). Article 40 DSA is a crucial provision to operationalize the regulation’s risk mitigation provisions vis-a-vis very large online platforms (VLOPs) and very large search engines (VLOSEs). In essence, Article 40 DSA enables data access to Digital Services Coordinators (DSCs) or the Commission, “vetted researchers” and other researchers, provided certain conditions are met. Our submission is predominantly concerned with the data access for vetted researchers and researchers in relation to VLOPs.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Niet Bern maar Brussel: assimilatie en reciprociteit tussen RAAP en VITRA},

author = {van Eechoud, M.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/auteursrecht_2023_2/},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-05-23},

journal = {Auteursrecht},

issue = {2},

pages = {67-76},

abstract = {De vraag hoe traditionele reciprociteitsbepalingen uit het internationale auteursrecht uitgelegd moeten worden in het licht van EU recht treedt bij vlagen op de voorgrond. Nadat het HvJ EU met het RAAP/PPI-arrest een golf van onrust door het muzieklandschap veroorzaakte, krijgt het binnenkort de gelegenheid om zich uit te spreken over reciprociteit bij vormgeving. De Hoge Raad gaat in het geschil Kwantum/Vitra Collections prejudici\"{e}le vragen stellen. Mogen lidstaten artikel 2(7) van de Berner Conventie op eigen houtje toepassen, of is het deels of geheel aan de EU om te bepalen of werken van toegepaste kunst van buiten de EU gelijke behandeling verdienen? Deze bijdrage beziet die vraag vanuit het perspectief van intellectuele eigendom als fundamenteel recht, de uitdijende bevoegdheid van de EU en in het licht van aankomende wijzigingen in het Europese modellenrecht.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {The right to encryption: Privacy as preventing unlawful access},

author = {van Daalen, O.},

url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364923000146},

doi = {10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105804},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-05-23},

journal = {Computer Law \& Security Review},

volume = {49},

abstract = {Encryption technologies are a fundamental building block of modern digital infrastructure, but plans to curb these technologies continue to spring up. Even in the European Union, where their application is by now firmly embedded in legislation, lawmakers are again calling for measures which would impact these technologies. One of the most important arguments in this debate are human rights, most notably the rights to privacy and to freedom of expression. And although some authors have in the past explored how encryption technologies support human rights, this connection is not yet firmly grounded in an analysis of European human rights case law. This contribution aims to fill this gap, developing a framework for assessing restrictions of encryption technologies under the rights to privacy and freedom of expression as protected under the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention) and the Charter of Fundamental rights in the European Union (the Charter). In the first section, the relevant function of encryption technologies, restricting access to information (called confidentiality), is discussed. In the second section, an overview of some governmental policies and practices impacting these technologies is provided. This continues with a discussion of the case law on the rights to privacy, data protection and freedom of expression, arguing that these rights are not only about ensuring lawful access by governments to protected information, but also about preventing unlawful access by others. And because encryption technologies are an important technology to reduce the risk of this unlawful access, it is then proposed that this risk is central to the assessment of governance measures in the field of encryption technologies. The article concludes by recommending that states perform an in-depth assessement of this when proposing new measures, and that courts when reviewing them also place the risk of unlawful access central to the analysis of interference and proportionality.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Generative AI, Copyright and the AI Act},

author = {Quintais, J.},

url = {https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2023/05/09/generative-ai-copyright-and-the-ai-act/},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-05-09},

journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},

abstract = {Generative AI is one of the hot topics in copyright law today. In the EU, a crucial legal issue is whether using in-copyright works to train generative AI models is copyright infringement or falls under existing text and data mining (TDM) exceptions in the Copyright in Digital Single Market (CDSM) Directive. In particular, Article 4 CDSM Directive contains a so-called “commercial” TDM exception, which provides an “opt-out” mechanism for rights holders. This opt-out can be exercised for instance via technological tools but relies significantly on the public availability of training datasets. This has led to increasing calls for transparency requirements. In response to these calls, the European Parliament is considering adding to its compromise version of the AI Act two specific obligations with copyright implications on providers of generative AI models: on (1) transparency and disclosure; and (2) on safeguards for AI-generated content moderation. There is room for improvement on both. 

},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Outsourcing Human Rights Obligations and Concealing Human Rights Deficits: The Example of Monetizing User-Generated Content Under the CDSM Directive and the Digital Services Act},

author = {Senftleben, M. and Quintais, J. and Meiring, A.},

url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4421150},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-04-26},

abstract = {With the shift from the traditional safe harbor for hosting to statutory content filtering and licensing obligations, EU copyright law has substantially curtailed the freedom of users to upload and share their content creations. Seeking to avoid overbroad inroads into freedom of expression, EU law obliges online platforms and the creative industry to take into account human rights when coordinating their content filtering actions. Platforms must also establish complaint and redress procedures for users. The European Commission will initiate stakeholder dialogues to identify best practices. These “safety valves” in the legislative package, however, are mere fig leaves. Instead of safeguarding human rights, the EU legislator outsources human rights obligations to the platform industry. At the same time, the burden of policing content moderation systems is imposed on users who are unlikely to bring complaints in each individual case. The new legislative design in the EU will thus “conceal” human rights violations instead of bringing them to light. Nonetheless, the DSA rests on the same \textendash highly problematic \textendash approach.



Against this background, the paper discusses the weakening \textendash and potential loss \textendash of fundamental freedoms as a result of the departure from the traditional notice-and-takedown approach. Adding a new element to the ongoing debate on content licensing and filtering, the analysis will devote particular attention to the fact that EU law, for the most part, has left untouched the private power of platforms to determine the “house rules” governing the most popular copyright-owner reaction to detected matches between protected works and content uploads: the (algorithmic) monetization of that content. Addressing the “legal vacuum” in the field of content monetization, the analysis explores outsourcing and concealment risks in this unregulated space. Focusing on large-scale platforms for user-generated content, such as YouTube, Instagram and TikTok, two normative problems come to the fore: (1) the fact that rightholders, when opting for monetization, de facto monetize not only their own rights but also the creative input of users; (2) the fact that user creativity remains unremunerated as long as the monetization option is only available to rightholders. As a result of this configuration, the monetization mechanism disregards users’ right to (intellectual) property and discriminates against user creativity. Against this background, we discuss whether the DSA provisions that seek to ensure transparency of content moderation actions and terms and conditions offer useful sources of information that could empower users. Moreover, we raise the question whether the detailed regulation of platform actions in the DSA may resolve the described human rights dilemmas to some extent.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Annotatie bij Rechtbank Noord-Holland 28 december 2022 (Hendriks/Unibail Rodamco Nederland Winkels B.V.)},

author = {Hins, A.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/annotatie_mediaforum_2023_nr4/},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-04-25},

journal = {Mediaforum},

number = {4},

issue = {1},

pages = {49-51},

abstract = {De professionele nieuwsfotograaf Hendriks wil foto's maken in een groot winkelcentrum, maar krijgt daarvoor geen toestemming van de exploitant Unibail Rodamco. Hendriks vordert bij de rechtbank een verklaring voor recht dat het weigeren van de toestemming onrechtmatig is. De rechtbank wijst de vordering af omdat Hendriks nog wel foto's mag maken met niet-professionele apparatuur, zoals een mobiele telefoon. In de annotatie wordt ingegaan op de horizontale werking van artikel 10 EVRM en de botsing van diverse grondrechten: de vrijheid van nieuwsgaring, het recht op eigendom, de vrijheid van onderneming en het recht op privacy.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Shielding citizens? Understanding the impact of political advertisement transparency information},

author = {Dobber, T. and Kruikemeier, S. and Helberger, N. and Goodman, E.},

doi = {10.1177/14614448231157640},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-04-21},

journal = {New Media \& Society},

abstract = {Online targeted advertising leverages an information asymmetry between the advertiser and the recipient. Policymakers in the European Union and the United States aim to decrease this asymmetry by requiring information transparency information alongside political advertisements, in the hope of activating citizens’ persuasion knowledge. However, the proposed regulations all present different directions with regard to the required content of transparency information. Consequently, not all proposed interventions will be (equally) effective. Moreover, there is a chance that transparent information has additional consequences, such as increasing privacy concerns or decreasing advertising effectiveness. Using an online experiment (N = 1331), this study addresses these challenges and finds that two regulatory interventions (DSA and HAA) increase persuasion knowledge, while the chance of raising privacy concerns or lowering advertisement effectiveness is present but slim. Results suggest transparency information interventions have some promise, but at the same time underline the limitations of user-facing transparency interventions.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Export control of cybersurveillance items in the new dual-use regulation: The challenges of applying human rights logic to export control},

author = {van Daalen, O. and van Hoboken, J. and Rucz, M.},

doi = {10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105789},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-04-21},

journal = {Computer Law \& Security Review},

volume = {48},

abstract = {In 2021, the Recast Dual-Use Regulation entered into force. The regulation includes a heavily debated new provision on the export control of so-called cybersurveillance items. This provision departs from the traditional logic of export control rules in multiple ways. Most importantly, it positions human rights considerations as an important factor in the export control of a flexible range of technologies. This article explores the operation, implications and challenges of this new human rights-orientated approach to export control of digital surveillance technologies. Taking the definition of cybersurveillance items as a starting point of the analysis, the article draws on surveillance-related case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, to define the potential scope of application of the open-ended cybersurveillance concept of the Regulation. By exploring how this concept maps to technologies often connected with human rights infringements, such as facial recognition, location tracking and open-source intelligence, the article highlights the challenges of applying this new approach and underscores the need for its further development in practice.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 18 oktober 2022 (Chohan)},

author = {Dommering, E.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/annotatie_nj_2023_118/},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-04-20},

journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie},

number = {118},

issue = {12},

pages = {2088-2090},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {EU copyright law round up \textendash first trimester of 2023},

author = {Trapova, A. and Quintais, J.},

url = {https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2023/04/13/eu-copyright-law-round-up-first-trimester-of-2023/},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-04-13},

journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {An end to shadow banning? Transparency rights in the Digital Services Act between content moderation and curation},

author = {Leerssen, P.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/endtoshadowbanning/},

doi = {10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105790},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-04-11},

urldate = {2023-04-11},

journal = {Computer Law \& Security Review},

volume = {48},

abstract = {This paper offers a legal perspective on the phenomenon of shadow banning: content moderation sanctions which are undetectable to those affected. Drawing on recent social science research, it connects current concerns about shadow banning to novel visibility management techniques in content moderation, such as delisting and demotion. Conventional moderation techniques such as outright content removal or account suspension can be observed by those affected, but these new visibility often cannot. This lends newfound significance to the legal question of moderation transparency rights. The EU Digital Services Act (DSA) is analysed in this light, as the first major legislation to regulate transparency of visibility remedies. In effect, its due process framework prohibits shadow banning with only limited exceptions. In doing so, the DSA surfaces tensions between two competing models for content moderation: as rule-bound administration or as adversarial security conflict. I discuss possible interpretations and trade-offs for this regime, and then turn to a more fundamental problem: how to define visibility reduction as a category of content moderation actions. The concept of visibility reduction or ‘demotions’ is central to both the shadow banning imaginary and to the DSA's safeguards, but its meaning is far from straightforward. Responding to claims that demotion is entirely relative, and therefore not actionable as a category of content moderation sanctions, I show how visibility reduction can still be regulated when defined as ex post adjustments to engagement-based relevance scores. Still, regulating demotion in this way will not cover all exercises of ranking power, since it manifests not only in individual cases of moderation but also through structural acts of content curation; not just by reducing visibility, but by producing visibility.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 7 oktober 2022 (X / ROC-Nijmegen)},

author = {Dommering, E.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/annotatie_mediaforum_2023_1/},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-03-30},

journal = {Mediaforum},

number = {3},

issue = {1},

pages = {43-45},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 22 november 2022 (WM, Sovim SA / Luxembourg Business Registers)},

author = {Dommering, E.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/annotatie_nj_2023_62/},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-03-17},

journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie},

number = {62},

issue = {6},

pages = {1048-1051},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {How platforms govern users’ copyright-protected content: Exploring the power of private ordering and its implications},

author = {Quintais, J. and De Gregorio, G. and Magalh\~{a}es, J.C.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/computer_law_and_security_review_2023/},

doi = {10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105792},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-02-24},

journal = {Computer Law \& Security Review},

volume = {48},

abstract = {Online platforms provide primary points of access to information and other content in the digital age. They foster users’ ability to share ideas and opinions while offering opportunities for cultural and creative industries. In Europe, ownership and use of such expressions is partly governed by a complex web of legislation, sectoral self- and co-regulatory norms. To an important degree, it is also governed by private norms defined by contractual agreements and informal relationships between users and platforms. By adopting policies usually defined as Terms of Service and Community Guidelines, platforms almost unilaterally set use, moderation and enforcement rules, structures and practices (including through algorithmic systems) that govern the access and dissemination of protected content by their users. This private governance of essential means of access, dissemination and expression to (and through) creative content is hardly equitable, though. In fact, it is an expression of how platforms control what users \textendash including users-creators \textendash can say and disseminate online, and how they can monetise their content.



As platform power grows, EU law is adjusting by moving towards enhancing the responsibility of platforms for content they host. One crucial example of this is Article 17 of the new Copyright Directive (2019/790), which fundamentally changes the regime and liability of “online content-sharing service providers” (OCSSPs). This complex regime, complemented by rules in the Digital Services Act, sets out a new environment for OCSSPs to design and carry out content moderation, as well as to define their contractual relationship with users, including creators. The latter relationship is characterized by significant power imbalance in favour of platforms, calling into question whether the law can and should do more to protect users-creators.



This article addresses the power of large-scale platforms in EU law over their users’ copyright-protected content and its effects on the governance of that content, including on its exploitation and some of its implications for freedom of expression. Our analysis combines legal and empirical methods. We carry our doctrinal legal research to clarify the complex legal regime that governs platforms’ contractual obligations to users and content moderation activities, including the space available for private ordering, with a focus on EU law. From the empirical perspective, we conducted a thematic analysis of most versions of the Terms of Services published over time by the three largest social media platforms in number of users \textendash Facebook, Instagram and YouTube \textendash so as to identify and examine the rules these companies have established to regulate user-generated content, and the ways in which such provisions shifted in the past two decades. In so doing, we unveil how foundational this sort of regulation has always been to platforms’ functioning and how it contributes to defining a system of content exploitation.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Gebruikersrechten door de achterdeur. Nationale implementaties van artikel 17 DSM-richtlijn en de uitspraak van het HvJ EU in de zaak Polen/EU (C-401/19)},

author = {Keller, P.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/nl/auteursrecht_2023_1/},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-02-23},

journal = {Auteursrecht},

issue = {1},

pages = {12-17},

abstract = {Meer dan drie en een half jaar na de aanname van de richtlijn Auteursrecht in de eengemaakte digitale markt (CDSM), en anderhalf jaar na de deadline voor de implementatie, blijft het effect van de meest controversi\"{e}le bepaling ervan, artikel 17, grotendeels onduidelijk. Voor een buitenstaander is het nog steeds moeilijk om negatieve of positieve gevolgen te zien van de nieuwe aansprakelijkheidsregeling voor aanbieders van onlinediensten voor het delen van inhoud (OCSSPs), anders dan dat de overdreven beweringen dat artikel 17 ‘het einde van het internet zou betekenen of ‘de creatieve industrie zou redden’ onjuist zijn gebleken. In deze bijdrage wordt beschreven wat er met artikel 17 is gebeurd sinds het verstrijken van de implementatiedeadline. Wat weten we over nationale implementaties en de gevolgen daarvan voor platforms en hun gebruikers?},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Ongehoord Nederland! Underdog en waakhond.},

author = {Hins, A.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/nl/aa_wouter-hins-ongehoord-nederland-manuscript/

},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-02-23},

urldate = {2023-02-23},

journal = {Ars Aequi},

volume = {72},

pages = {114-117},

abstract = {Hoeveel ruimte moet er binnen de publieke omroep blijven voor een omroepvereniging met een radicaal andere visie op goede journalistiek? Enerzijds is het de taak van de Raad van Bestuur van de NPO ervoor te waken dat alle publieke media-instellingen betrouwbaar, zorgvuldig en professioneel handelen. Daar staat tegenover dat Nederland een lange traditie heeft van ideologisch geprofileerde omroepen die elk hun eigen visie op de waarheid mochten verkondigen.},

note = {Opinie},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {ChatGPT and the AI Act},

author = {Helberger, N. and Diakopoulos, N.},

url = {https://policyreview.info/essay/chatgpt-and-ai-act},

doi = {10.14763/2023.1.1682},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-02-16},

journal = {Internet Policy Review},

volume = {12},

issue = {1},

abstract = {It is not easy being a tech regulator these days. The European institutions are working hard towards finalising the AI Act in autumn, and then generative AI systems like ChatGPT come along! In this essay, we comment the European AI Act by arguing that its current risk-based approach is too limited for facing ChatGPT \& co.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Polen is plotseling de verdediger van de Europese grondwet. Een beschouwing over de zaak Polen/Europees Parlement: HvJ EU 22 april 2022, zaak C-401/19},

author = {Dommering, E.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/nl/auteursrecht_2022_4/},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-01-31},

urldate = {2023-01-31},

journal = {Auteursrecht},

volume = {2022},

issue = {4},

pages = {219-227},

abstract = {Dit artikel bevat een inleiding waarin de verandering in de communicatienetwerkomgeving wordt geschetst om te verduidelijken dat het systeem van de e-Commercerichtlijn niet goed meer past, maar waar toch nog dikwijls aan wordt gerefereerd (par. 1). Vervolgens wordt stilgestaan bij de constitutionele toetsing die het VEU introduceert (par. 2). Hiermee hangt samen dat een abstracte constitutionele toetsing aan de beperkingsclausules van het Handvest ingewikkeld is, een aspect dat in deze vorm in het auteursrecht nog niet eerder aan de orde is geweest (par. 3). Dat een dergelijke constitutionele

toetsing heel verschillend kan worden aangepakt, blijkt uit de conclusie van de A-G en het Hof, die daarom tegenover de aanpak van het Hof wordt gezet (par. 4 en 5). Het artikel rondt af met een analyse dat de inzet van de zaak is vrijheid van meningsuiting, maar dat het resultaat is meer overheidsinvloed op de filtertechnieken die censuur moeten voorkomen (par. 6).},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{Sax2023,

title = {Utilisme ‘on steroids’: effectief altru\"{i}sme, longtermism en uitlevering aan big tech},

author = {Sax, M.},

url = {https://www.nederlandseboekengids.com/20220125-marijn-sax/},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-01-25},

journal = {De Nederlandse Boekengids},

volume = {2023},

issue = {2},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {EU copyright law round up \textendash fourth trimester of 2022},

author = {Trapova, A. and Quintais, J.},

url = {https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2023/01/13/eu-copyright-law-round-up-fourth-trimester-of-2022/},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-01-13},

journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {Popularity-driven Metrics: Audience Analytics and Shifting Opinion Power to Digital Platforms},

author = {Dodds, T. and Vreese, C. de and Helberger, N. and Resendez, V. and Seipp, T.},

doi = {10.1080/1461670X.2023.2167104},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-01-06},

urldate = {2023-01-06},

journal = {Journalism Studies},

abstract = {As digital technologies have made their way into news production, allowing news organizations to measure audience behaviors and engagement in real-time, click-based and editorial goals have become increasingly intertwined. Ongoing developments in algorithmic technologies allow editors to bring their audience into the newsroom using specialized tools such as Chartbeat or Google Analytics. This article examines how these technologies have affected the composition of the audience and their power to influence news-making processes inside two Chilean newsrooms. Drawing on several months of newsroom ethnography, we identify how the pursuit of “clickable news” impacts editorial processes and journalistic priorities by changing the datafied audience opinion power behind news production. Shifts in opinion power, loss of control, and increased platform dependency may contribute to a concentrated media landscape. Our findings show that opinion power has shifted to a datafied version of the audience, raising new questions about platform dependency and editorial autonomy in media organizations. These results carry significant implications for understanding the chase for traffic in current multiplatform newsrooms and how this phenomenon impacts news production.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}