The Harmonized Law of Streaming in the Eu – A Copyright and Related Rights Perspective download

Copyright Law and Streaming: A Comparative Law Analysis of Lawful and Unlawful Streaming Services, Brill/Nijhoff, 2025, pp: 95-134

Abstract

EU law does not contain a distinct set of rules seeking to regulate various types of streaming services. Instead, the harmonized rules governing streaming services follow from individual pieces of EU legislation – ranging from rules on online broadcasting to a specific liability regime for platforms allowing users to upload and share content – and decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’). The following analysis, first, provides an overview of the exclusive rights that must be taken into account in streaming scenarios. This discussion also addresses the exemption of temporary acts of copying that may cover the reception of streaming content by users (section 2). Rights clearance questions occupy centre stage in sections 3 (general services, such as Netflix) and 4 (platforms for user-generated content (‘UGC’), such as YouTube). Section 5 raises the issue of content filtering obligations in the specific legal regime for on-demand streaming of content uploaded by users. Section 6 takes a closer look at copyright limitations that may become relevant in streaming cases, including private copying rules and the exemption of quotations, parodies and pastiches. Section 7 explains the remarkable extension of the concept of ‘communication to the public’ to the provision of streaming equipment for illegal content and infrastructures for illegal file-sharing. It also examines the legal framework for website blocking. In section 8, the results of the analysis will be summarized.

Copyright

Bibtex

Towards a European Research Freedom Act: A Reform Agenda for Research Exceptions in the EU Copyright Acquis external link

IIC, 2025

Abstract

This article explores the impact of EU copyright law on the use of protected knowledge resources in scientific research contexts. Surveying the current copyright/research interface, it becomes apparent that the existing legal framework fails to offer adequate balancing tools for the reconciliation of divergent interests of copyright holders and researchers. The analysis identifies structural deficiencies, such as fragmented and overly restrictive research exceptions, opaque lawful access provisions, outdated non-commercial use requirements, legal uncertainty arising from the three-step test in the EU copyright acquis, obstacles posed by the protection of paywalls and other technological measures, and exposure to contracts that override statutory research freedoms. Empirical data confirm that access barriers, use restrictions and the absence of harmonised rules for transnational research collaborations impede the work of researchers. Against this background, we advance proposals for legislative reform, in particular the introduction of a mandatory, open-ended research exemption that offers reliable breathing space for scientific research across EU Member States, the clarification of lawful access criteria, a more flexible approach to public-private partnerships, and additional rules that support modern research methods, such as text and data mining.

Copyright, open science, research exceptions, right to research, technological protection measures, text and data mining, three-step test

Bibtex

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie 4 oktober 2024 (Maximilian Schrems / Meta Platforms Ireland) download

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, iss. : 15, num: 111, pp: 2065-2067, 2025

Abstract

Verzoek om een prejudiciële beslissing krachtens artikel 267 VWEU, ingediend door het Oberste Gerichtshof (hoogste federale rechter in burgerlijke en strafzaken, Oostenrijk) bij beslissing van 23 juni 2021. Bescherming van natuurlijke personen in verband met de verwerking van persoonsgegevens. Online sociale netwerken. Algemene gebruiksvoorwaarden in verband met overeenkomsten tussen een digitaal platform en een gebruiker. Gepersonaliseerde reclame. Beginsel van doelbinding. Beginsel van minimale gegevensverwerking. Verwerking van bijzondere categorieën van persoonsgegevens. Gegevens betreffende de seksuele geaardheid. Gegevens die door de betrokkene openbaar zijn gemaakt.

Bibtex

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 4 oktober 2024 (Koninklijke Nederlandse Lawn Tennisbond / Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens) download

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, iss. : 15, num: 110, pp: 2053-2054, 2025

Abstract

Verzoek om een prejudiciële beslissing ingediend door de Rechtbank Amsterdam (Nederland) bij beslissing van 22 september 2022. Bescherming van natuurlijke personen in verband met de verwerking van persoonsgegevens. Rechtmatigheid van de verwerking. Verwerking die noodzakelijk is voor de behartiging van de gerechtvaardigde belangen van de verwerkingsverantwoordelijke of van een derde. Begrip ‘gerechtvaardigd belang’. Commercieel belang. Sportbond. Mededeling tegen betaling van de persoonsgegevens van de leden van een sportbond aan sponsoren zonder de toestemming van die leden.

Bibtex

Access to Justice and LLMs external link

The Digital Constitutionalist, 2025

Abstract

The legal system can be a fortress. While anyone can freely read their country’s laws, much more is needed to grasp the complexity of the legal system. Lawyers train for years to gain the skills to engage with the law. Yet, LLM-based chatbots provide billions of people now with access to this, often almost esoteric, type of knowledge. Though far from perfect, LLMs have nevertheless produced a societal revolution in the provision of legal services and access to justice for years to come.

Bibtex

Do AI models dream of dolphins in lake Balaton? external link

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2025

ai, Copyright

Bibtex

A new liability paradigm for online platforms in EU copyright law download

Governance of Digital Single Market Actors, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2025, ISBN: 9781839101472

Abstract

This chapter explores the transformative impact of art. 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive on the liability of online content-sharing platforms and its potential impact on users’ rights and freedoms. The analysis traces the evolution of EU copyright law to delineate the legal framework for primary and secondary liability of such platforms leading up to the introduction of art. 17. It then examines the new regime, explaining how it reflects a departure from prior rules and constitutes a novel liability paradigm tailored for online content-sharing platforms. The chapter contends that this shift, in line with the Digital Services Act's (DSA) “enhanced responsibility” approach, entails important trade-offs. It presents challenges to legal certainty, given the complexity of art. 17 and its potential overlaps with the DSA. Moreover, the legal design of art. 17 and the DSA may lead to privatised algorithmic content moderation, outsourcing fundamental rights balancing to platforms and users, risking users’ freedom of expression. The Court of Justice's ruling in Case C-401/19 Poland v Parliament and Council is discussed as illustrative of this shift, to the extent it affirms art. 17's liability design without sufficiently addressing associated fundamental rights risks.

Copyright, liability, Online platforms

Bibtex

A Unitary Title for Copyright download

Q: Bundel ter nagedachtenis aan prof. mr. Antoon Quaedvlieg, deLex, 2025, Amsterdam, ISBN: 9789086921065

Auteursrecht

Bibtex

Nieuwheid in het Auteursrecht download

Q: Bundel ter nagedachtenis aan prof. mr. Antoon Quaedvlieg, deLex, 2025, Amsterdam, ISBN: 9789086921065

Auteursrecht

Bibtex

Procedural Justice and Judicial AI; Substantiating Explainability Rights with the Values of Contestation external link

Metikoš, L. & Domselaar, I. van
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 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.

ai, digital justice, Transparency

Bibtex