Freedom of expression

@article{QuintaisJutte2021,

title = {The Pelham Chronicles: Sampling, Copyright and Fundamental Rights},

author = {Quintais, J. and Jutte, B.J.},

url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3775599},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpab040},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-02-18},

journal = {Journal of Intellectual Property Law \& Practice},

volume = {16},

number = {3},

pages = {213-225},

abstract = {On 29 July 2019 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) rendered its long-awaited judgment in Pelham. This judgement was published together, but not jointly, with those on Spiegel Online and Funke Medien. A bit less than a year later, on 30 April 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof or BGH), which had referred the cases to Luxembourg, rendered its judgments in all three cases. There are obvious parallels between these judgments, and their combined relevance for the interpretation of European copyright law in the light of EU fundamental rights cannot be understated.



This article focuses on Pelham, or the “Metall auf Metall” saga, as it is known in Germany. It analyses the relevant aspects and impact of Pelham in EU copyright law and examines how the BGH implemented the guidance provided by the CJEU. Where relevant, we draw the parallels to Funke Medien and Spiegel Online. Pelham gave the Court the opportunity to define the scope of the related right of reproduction of phonogram producers in art. 2(c) of Directive 2001/29/EC (InfoSoc Directive). The question whether such right enjoys the same scope of protection as the reproduction right for authorial works had made its way through the German courts for a remarkable two decades. This saga included a constitutional complaint, which in 2016 answered the question in the affirmative. The BGH’s preliminary reference to the CJEU was particularly important because on the back of the reproduction question it sought to clarify issues with fundamental rights implications, in particular the scope of the quotation right or defence and its application to musical creativity in the form of sampling.



This article proceeds as follows. After this introduction, we briefly revisit the Pelham saga in its journey through the German and European courts, providing he context to the underlying legal issues (2). We then turn to the interpretation of the scope of the reproduction and distribution rights for phonograms (3) before examining the CJEU’s assessment of the systematic nature of exceptions and limitations (E\&Ls) (4). We then discuss the wider implications of Pelham on the role of fundamental right in copyright law (5). We conclude with some doctrinal and practical observations on the wider implications of the “Metall auf Metall”-saga (6). },

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Close

On 29 July 2019 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) rendered its long-awaited judgment in Pelham. This judgement was published together, but not jointly, with those on Spiegel Online and Funke Medien. A bit less than a year later, on 30 April 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof or BGH), which had referred the cases to Luxembourg, rendered its judgments in all three cases. There are obvious parallels between these judgments, and their combined relevance for the interpretation of European copyright law in the light of EU fundamental rights cannot be understated.

This article focuses on Pelham, or the “Metall auf Metall” saga, as it is known in Germany. It analyses the relevant aspects and impact of Pelham in EU copyright law and examines how the BGH implemented the guidance provided by the CJEU. Where relevant, we draw the parallels to Funke Medien and Spiegel Online. Pelham gave the Court the opportunity to define the scope of the related right of reproduction of phonogram producers in art. 2(c) of Directive 2001/29/EC (InfoSoc Directive). The question whether such right enjoys the same scope of protection as the reproduction right for authorial works had made its way through the German courts for a remarkable two decades. This saga included a constitutional complaint, which in 2016 answered the question in the affirmative. The BGH’s preliminary reference to the CJEU was particularly important because on the back of the reproduction question it sought to clarify issues with fundamental rights implications, in particular the scope of the quotation right or defence and its application to musical creativity in the form of sampling.

This article proceeds as follows. After this introduction, we briefly revisit the Pelham saga in its journey through the German and European courts, providing he context to the underlying legal issues (2). We then turn to the interpretation of the scope of the reproduction and distribution rights for phonograms (3) before examining the CJEU’s assessment of the systematic nature of exceptions and limitations (E&Ls) (4). We then discuss the wider implications of Pelham on the role of fundamental right in copyright law (5). We conclude with some doctrinal and practical observations on the wider implications of the “Metall auf Metall”-saga (6).

Close

Senftleben, M.; Angelopoulos, C.

The Odyssey of the Prohibition on General Monitoring Obligations on the Way to the Digital Services Act: Between Article 15 of the E-Commerce Directive and Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market Technical Report

2020, (Amsterdam: Institute for Information Law & Cambridge: Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law).

Abstract | Links | BibTeX

@techreport{Senftleben2020e,

title = {The Odyssey of the Prohibition on General Monitoring Obligations on the Way to the Digital Services Act: Between Article 15 of the E-Commerce Directive and Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market},

author = {Senftleben, M. and Angelopoulos, C.},

url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3717022},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-10-29},

abstract = {EU law provides explicitly that intermediaries may not be obliged to monitor their service in a general manner in order to detect and prevent the illegal activity of their users. However, a misunderstanding of the difference between monitoring specific content and monitoring FOR specific content is a recurrent theme in the debate on intermediary liability and a central driver of the controversy surrounding it. Rightly understood, a prohibited general monitoring obligation arises whenever content \textendash no matter how specifically it is defined \textendash must be identified among the totality of the content on a platform. The moment platform content must be screened in its entirety, the monitoring obligation acquires an excessive, general nature. Against this background, a content moderation duty can only be deemed permissible if it is specific in respect of both the protected subject matter and potential infringers.



This requirement of 'double specificity' is of particular importance because it prevents encroachments upon fundamental rights. The jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union has shed light on the anchorage of the general monitoring ban in primary EU law, in particular the right to the protection of personal data, the freedom of expression and information, the freedom to conduct a business, and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market. Due to their higher rank in the norm hierarchy, these legal guarantees constitute common ground for the application of the general monitoring prohibition in secondary EU legislation, namely Article 15(1) of the E-Commerce Directive ('ECD') and Article 17(8) of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market ('CDSMD').



With regard to the Digital Services Act (‘DSA’), this result of the analysis implies that any further manifestation of the general monitoring ban in the DSA would have to be construed and applied \textendash in the light of applicable CJEU case law \textendash as a safeguard against encroachments upon the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms. If the final text of the DSA does not contain a reiteration of the prohibition of general monitoring obligations known from Article 15(1) ECD and Article 17(8) CDSMD, the regulation of internet service provider liability, duties of care and injunctions would still have to avoid inroads into the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms and observe the principle of proportionality. The double specificity requirement plays a central role in this respect.},

note = {Amsterdam: Institute for Information Law \& Cambridge: Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {techreport}

}

Close

EU law provides explicitly that intermediaries may not be obliged to monitor their service in a general manner in order to detect and prevent the illegal activity of their users. However, a misunderstanding of the difference between monitoring specific content and monitoring FOR specific content is a recurrent theme in the debate on intermediary liability and a central driver of the controversy surrounding it. Rightly understood, a prohibited general monitoring obligation arises whenever content – no matter how specifically it is defined – must be identified among the totality of the content on a platform. The moment platform content must be screened in its entirety, the monitoring obligation acquires an excessive, general nature. Against this background, a content moderation duty can only be deemed permissible if it is specific in respect of both the protected subject matter and potential infringers.

This requirement of 'double specificity' is of particular importance because it prevents encroachments upon fundamental rights. The jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union has shed light on the anchorage of the general monitoring ban in primary EU law, in particular the right to the protection of personal data, the freedom of expression and information, the freedom to conduct a business, and the free movement of goods and services in the internal market. Due to their higher rank in the norm hierarchy, these legal guarantees constitute common ground for the application of the general monitoring prohibition in secondary EU legislation, namely Article 15(1) of the E-Commerce Directive ('ECD') and Article 17(8) of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market ('CDSMD').

With regard to the Digital Services Act (‘DSA’), this result of the analysis implies that any further manifestation of the general monitoring ban in the DSA would have to be construed and applied – in the light of applicable CJEU case law – as a safeguard against encroachments upon the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms. If the final text of the DSA does not contain a reiteration of the prohibition of general monitoring obligations known from Article 15(1) ECD and Article 17(8) CDSMD, the regulation of internet service provider liability, duties of care and injunctions would still have to avoid inroads into the aforementioned fundamental rights and freedoms and observe the principle of proportionality. The double specificity requirement plays a central role in this respect.

Close

Senftleben, M.

Institutionalized Algorithmic Enforcement - The Pros and Cons of the EU Approach to UGC Platform Liability Journal Article

In: Florida International University Law Review, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 299-328, 2020.

Abstract | Links | BibTeX

@article{Senftleben2020,

title = {Institutionalized Algorithmic Enforcement - The Pros and Cons of the EU Approach to UGC Platform Liability},

author = {Senftleben, M.},

url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3565175

https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/lawreview/vol14/iss2/11/},

doi = {10.25148/lawrev.14.2.11},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-10-20},

journal = {Florida International University Law Review},

volume = {14},

number = {2},

pages = {299-328},

abstract = {Algorithmic copyright enforcement \textendash the use of automated filtering tools to detect infringing content before it appears on the internet \textendash has a deep impact on the freedom of users to upload and share information. Instead of presuming that user-generated content ("UGC") does not amount to infringement unless copyright owners take action and provide proof, the default position of automated filtering systems is that every upload is suspicious and that copyright owners are entitled to ex ante control over the sharing of information online. If platform providers voluntarily introduce algorithmic enforcement measures, this may be seen as a private decision following from the freedom of companies to run their business as they wish. If, however, copyright legislation institutionalizes algorithmic enforcement and imposes a legal obligation on platform providers to employ automated filtering tools, the law itself transforms copyright into a censorship and filtering instrument. Nonetheless, the new EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (“DSM Directive”) follows this path and requires the employment of automated filtering tools to ensure that unauthorized protected content does not populate UGC platforms. The new EU rules on UGC licensing and screening will inevitably lead to the adoption of algorithmic enforcement measures in practice. Without automated content control, UGC platforms will be unable to escape liability for infringing user uploads.

To provide a complete picture, however, it is important to also shed light on counterbalances which may distinguish this new, institutionalized form of algorithmic enforcement from known content filtering tools that have evolved as voluntary measures in the private sector. The DSM Directive underlines the necessity to safeguard user freedoms that support transformative, creative remixes and mash-ups of pre-existing content. This feature of the new legislation may offer important incentives to develop algorithmic tools that go beyond the mere identification of unauthorized takings from protected works. It has the potential to encourage content assessment mechanisms that factor the degree of transformative effort and user creativity into the equation. As a result, more balanced content filtering tools may emerge in the EU. Against this background, the analysis shows that the new EU legislation not only escalates the use of algorithmic enforcement measures that already commenced in the private sector years ago. If rightly implemented, it may also add an important nuance to existing content identification tools and alleviate the problems arising from reliance on automated filtering mechanisms.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Close

Algorithmic copyright enforcement – the use of automated filtering tools to detect infringing content before it appears on the internet – has a deep impact on the freedom of users to upload and share information. Instead of presuming that user-generated content ("UGC") does not amount to infringement unless copyright owners take action and provide proof, the default position of automated filtering systems is that every upload is suspicious and that copyright owners are entitled to ex ante control over the sharing of information online. If platform providers voluntarily introduce algorithmic enforcement measures, this may be seen as a private decision following from the freedom of companies to run their business as they wish. If, however, copyright legislation institutionalizes algorithmic enforcement and imposes a legal obligation on platform providers to employ automated filtering tools, the law itself transforms copyright into a censorship and filtering instrument. Nonetheless, the new EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (“DSM Directive”) follows this path and requires the employment of automated filtering tools to ensure that unauthorized protected content does not populate UGC platforms. The new EU rules on UGC licensing and screening will inevitably lead to the adoption of algorithmic enforcement measures in practice. Without automated content control, UGC platforms will be unable to escape liability for infringing user uploads.
To provide a complete picture, however, it is important to also shed light on counterbalances which may distinguish this new, institutionalized form of algorithmic enforcement from known content filtering tools that have evolved as voluntary measures in the private sector. The DSM Directive underlines the necessity to safeguard user freedoms that support transformative, creative remixes and mash-ups of pre-existing content. This feature of the new legislation may offer important incentives to develop algorithmic tools that go beyond the mere identification of unauthorized takings from protected works. It has the potential to encourage content assessment mechanisms that factor the degree of transformative effort and user creativity into the equation. As a result, more balanced content filtering tools may emerge in the EU. Against this background, the analysis shows that the new EU legislation not only escalates the use of algorithmic enforcement measures that already commenced in the private sector years ago. If rightly implemented, it may also add an important nuance to existing content identification tools and alleviate the problems arising from reliance on automated filtering mechanisms.

Close

Hins, A.

Private censuur door sociale media, Annotatie bij Rb Amsterdam 9 september 2020 (X / Google Ireland & Google Netherlands) en Rb Amsterdam 13 oktober 2020 (Stichting Smart Exit, Stichting Viruswaarheid en Y / Facebook Ireland & Facebook Netherlands) Journal Article

In: Mediaforum, no. 6, pp. 226-227, 2020.

Abstract | Links | BibTeX

van Hoboken, J.; Appelman, N.; Fahy, R.; Leerssen, P.; McGonagle, T.; van Eijk, N.; Helberger, N.

Het juridisch kader voor de verspreiding van desinformatie via internetdiensten en de regulering van politieke advertenties Technical Report

2020, (Rapport voor het ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, Amsterdam, december 2019).

Abstract | Links | BibTeX

@techreport{vanHoboken2020b,

title = {Het juridisch kader voor de verspreiding van desinformatie via internetdiensten en de regulering van politieke advertenties},

author = {van Hoboken, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R. and Leerssen, P. and McGonagle, T. and van Eijk, N. and Helberger, N.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Rapport_desinformatie_december2019.pdf

https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Kamerbrief_desinformatie.pdf},

year = {2020},

date = {2020-05-14},

abstract = {Het onderzoek, uitgevoerd in opdracht van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, analyseert het juridisch kader van toepassing op de verspreiding van desinformatie via online diensten. Het rapport biedt een uitgebreid overzicht van de relevante Europese en Nederlandse normen en doet aanbevelingen voor de verbetering van dit juridisch kader. Het onderzoek bevat daarnaast ook een analyse van het relevant wettelijke kader in de V.S., het V.K, Frankrijk, Duitsland, Canada en Zweden.

Het rapport maakt duidelijk hoe de vrijheid van meningsuiting als rode draad door het wettelijke kader loopt. Dit fundamentele recht vormt zowel de buitenste grens voor regulering als een basis voor nieuwe maatregelen, bijvoorbeeld voor de bescherming van pluralisme. Het wettelijk kader van toepassing op desinformatie blijkt zeer breed, bevat verschillende reguleringsniveaus, verschuift afhankelijk van de specifieke context en omvat vele al bestaande normen voor de regulering van specifieke typen desinformatie. Verder blijkt het toezicht op dit wettelijk kader vrij gefragmenteerd te zijn. Op basis van deze analyse komt het rapport tot aan aantal aanbevelingen. De aanbevelingen hebben onder andere betrekking op het gebruik van de term desinformatie als beleidsterm, het omgaan met de spanningen op de verschillende beleidsniveaus, de regulering van internettussenpersonen door middel van transparantie verplichtingen en de samenwerking tussen de verschillende toezichthouders.

Voorafgaand aan deze eindrapportage is in eind 2019 het interim-rapport gepubliceerd. Dit rapport focuste op de relatie tussen desinformatie en online politieke advertenties. Beide studies zijn onderdeel van het onderzoeksproject ‘Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam’ dat zich buigt over vraagstukken gerelateerd aan kunstmatige intelligentie en publieke waarden, data governance, en online platforms. },

note = {Rapport voor het ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, Amsterdam, december 2019},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {techreport}

}

Close

van Hoboken, J.; Appelman, N.; Fahy, R.; Leerssen, P.; McGonagle, T.; van Eijk, N.; Helberger, N.

The legal framework on the dissemination of disinformation through Internet services and the regulation of political advertising Technical Report

2020, (A report for the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, Amsterdam, December 2019).

Abstract | Links | BibTeX

@techreport{vanHoboken2020c,

title = {The legal framework on the dissemination of disinformation through Internet services and the regulation of political advertising},

author = {van Hoboken, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R. and Leerssen, P. and McGonagle, T. and van Eijk, N. and Helberger, N.},

url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Report_Disinformation_Dec2019-1.pdf},

year = {2020},

date = {2020-05-14},

abstract = {The study, commissioned by the Dutch government, focusses on the legal framework governing the dissemination of disinformation, in particular through Internet services. The study provides an extensive overview of relevant European and Dutch legal norms relating to the spread of online disinformation, and recommendations are given on how to improve this framework. Additionally, the study includes an analysis of the relevant legal framework in 6 different countries (U.K., U.S., France, Germany, Sweden and Canada).

The report makes clear how the freedom of expression runs as a central theme through the legal framework, both forming the outer limit for possible regulation and a legal basis to create new regulation (e.g. protecting pluralism). The legal framework governing disinformation online is shown to be very broad, encompassing different levels of regulation, shifting depending on the context and already regulating many different types of disinformation. Further, oversight seems to be fragmented with many different supervisory authorities involved but limited cooperation. Based on this analysis, the report offers several recommendations, such as on the use of disinformation not as a legal term but a policy term, on negotiating the tensions on the different policy levels, on the regulation of internet intermediaries including transparency obligations and on increased cooperation between the relevant supervisory authorities.

Previously, the interim report focussing on political advertising was published in late 2019. Both these studies have been carried out in the context of the research initiative on the Digital Transition of Decision-Making at the Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam, focussing on questions related to AI and public values, data governance and online platforms.},

note = {A report for the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, Amsterdam, December 2019},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {techreport}

}

Close

Voorhoof, D.; McGonagle, T.

Freedom of Expression, the Media and Journalists: Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights Book

2020, (IRIS Themes - Volume III (5th edition), European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg).

Abstract | Links | BibTeX

Metzger, A.; Senftleben, M.; Derclaye E.; Dreier, T.; Geiger, C.; Griffiths, J.; Hilty, R.; Hugenholtz, P.; Riis, T.; Rognstad, O.A.; Strowel, A.M.; Synodinou, T.; Xalabarder, R.

Selected Aspects of Implementing Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market into National Law – Comment of the European Copyright Society Journal Article

In: 2020.

Abstract | Links | BibTeX

@article{Metzger2020,

title = {Selected Aspects of Implementing Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market into National Law \textendash Comment of the European Copyright Society},

author = {Metzger, A. and Senftleben, M. and Derclaye E. and Dreier, T. and Geiger, C. and Griffiths, J. and Hilty, R. and Hugenholtz, P. and Riis, T. and Rognstad, O.A. and Strowel, A.M. and Synodinou, T. and Xalabarder, R.},

url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3589323},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-05-07},

abstract = {The national implementation of Article 17 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSMD) poses particular challenges. Article 17 is one of the most complex \textendash and most controversial \textendash provisions of the new legislative package which EU Member States must transpose into national law by 7 June 2021. Seeking to contribute to the debate on implementation options, the European Copyright Society addresses several core aspects of Article 17 that may play an important role in the national implementation process. It deals with the concept of online content-sharing service providers (OCSSPs) before embarking on a discussion of the licensing and content moderation duties which OCSSPs must fulfil in accordance with Article 17(1) and (4). The analysis also focuses on the copyright limitations mentioned in Article 17(7) that support the creation and dissemination of transformative user-generated content (UGC). It also discusses the appropriate configuration of complaint and redress mechanisms set forth in Article 17(9) that seek to reduce the risk of unjustified content removals. Finally, the European Copyright Society addresses the possibility of implementing direct remuneration claims for authors and performers, and explores the private international law aspect of applicable law \textendash an impact factor that is often overlooked in the debate.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Close

McGonagle, T.

Much ado about judges: perspectieven van het EHRM Journal Article

In: Mediaforum, no. 1, pp. 2-6, 2020.

Links | BibTeX

Korthals Altes, W.

Rechter en uitingsvrijheid – een actueel thema Journal Article

In: Mediaforum, no. 1, pp. 1, 2020, (Opinie).

Links | BibTeX

Helberger, N.; Eskens, S.; Drunen, M. van; Bastian, M.; Möller, J.

Implications of AI-driven tools in the media for freedom of expression Technical Report

2020, (Council of Europe, September 2019).

Abstract | Links | BibTeX

Dommering, E.

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 5 november 2019 en Hoge Raad 3 december 2019 Journal Article

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, no. 10, pp. 1368-1369, 2020.

Links | BibTeX

McGonagle, T.

The Council of Europe and Internet Intermediaries: A Case Study of Tentative Posturing Book Chapter

In: Chapter in: Human Rights in the Age of Platforms, ed. R.F. Jørgensen, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2019., pp. 227-253, 2020, ISBN: 9780262039055.

Links | BibTeX

McGonagle, T.

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 3 oktober 2019 (Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek) Journal Article

In: European Human Rights Cases Updates, 2020.

Links | BibTeX

McGonagle, T.

Szurovecz t. Hongarije (EHRM, nr. 15428/16) - Court underscores importance of direct news-gathering by journalists Journal Article

In: European Human Rights Cases, 2020.

Links | BibTeX

Fahy, R.; Voorhoof, D.

Journalist and editor’s conviction for incitement to religious hatred violated Article 10 Online

2020.

Links | BibTeX

Dobber, T.; Fahy, R.; Zuiderveen Borgesius, F.

The regulation of online political micro-targeting in Europe Journal Article

In: Internet Policy Review, vol. 8, no. 4, 2020.

Abstract | Links | BibTeX

Voorhoof, D.; Fahy, R.

Denying journalist access to asylum-seeker ‘reception centre’ in Hungary violated Article 10 ECHR Journal Article

In: Strasbourg Observers, 2019.

Links | BibTeX

Fahy, R.; Voorhoof, D.

ECtHR engages in dangerous "triple pirouette" to find criminal prosecution for media coverage of PKK statements did not violate Article 10 Journal Article

In: Strasbourg Observers, 2019.

Links | BibTeX

Dommering, E.

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 2 juli 2019 (nr. 348) Journal Article

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, no. 40, pp. 5658-5659, 2019.

Abstract | Links | BibTeX

Dommering, E.

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 2 juli 2019 (nr. 349) Journal Article

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, no. 40, pp. 5677, 2019.

Abstract | Links | BibTeX

Jütte, B.J.; Quintais, J.

Conference on Freedom of Expression and Copyright: Luxembourg, 7 November 2019 Journal Article

Links | BibTeX

Hins, A.

Book review of Aleksandra Kuczerawy, Intermediary Liability and Freedom of Expression in the EU Journal Article

In: Common Market Law Review, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 1154-1155, 2019.

BibTeX

Kostić, B.; McGonagle, T.

How Social are New and Social Media for National Minorities? Perspectives from the FCNM Journal Article

In: European Yearbook of Minority Issues, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 3-33, 2019.

Abstract | Links | BibTeX

Fahy, R.; Voorhoof, D.

Article 10 ECHR and Expressive Conduct Journal Article

In: Communications Law, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 62-73, 2019, (Pre-print).

Abstract | Links | BibTeX

Dommering, E.

Annotatie bij Hoge Raad 26 juni 2018 Journal Article

In: Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, no. 25, pp. 3503-3504, 2019.

Links | BibTeX

McGonagle, T.

Annotatie bij EHRM 10 januari 2019 (Khadija Ismayilova / Azerbeidzjan) Journal Article

In: European Human Rights Cases, vol. 2019, no. 5, pp. 257-260, 2019.

Links | BibTeX

McGonagle, T.

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 14 februari 2019 (Buivids) Journal Article

In: European Human Rights Cases, vol. 2019, no. 5, pp. 253-255, 2019.

Links | BibTeX

Jütte, B.; Quintais, J.

Advocate General Turns down the Music - Sampling Is Not a Fundamental Right under EU Copyright Law Journal Article

In: European Intellectual Property Review , vol. 41, no. 10, pp. 654-657, 2019.

Abstract | Links | BibTeX

van Hoboken, J.

The Proposed EU Terrorism Content Regulation: Analysis and Recommendations with Respect to Freedom of Expression Implications Journal Article

In: 2019.

Abstract | Links | BibTeX

Heller, B.; van Hoboken, J.

Freedom of Expression: A Comparative Summary of United States and European Law Journal Article

In: 2019.

Abstract | Links | BibTeX

Tworek, H.,; Leerssen, P.

An Analysis of Germany's NetzDG Law Journal Article

In: 2019, ( First working paper of the Transatlantic High Level Working Group on Content Moderation Online and Freedom of Expression).

Links | BibTeX

Til, G. van

Zelfregulering door online platforms: een waar wondermiddel tegen online desinformatie? Journal Article

In: Mediaforum, vol. 2019, no. 1, pp. 2-13, 2019.

Abstract | Links | BibTeX

McGonagle, T.

Annotatie bij EHRM 4 december 2018 (Magyar Jeti Zrt / Hongarije) Journal Article

In: European Human Rights Cases, vol. 2019, no. 3, pp. 170-174, 2019.

Links | BibTeX

Thije, P. ten

Online platforms and the advertising industry deliver EU Code of Practice on disinformation Journal Article

In: IRIS Newsletter , 2019.

Abstract | Links | BibTeX

Harambam, J.

De/politisering van de Waarheid: Complottheorieën, alternatieve feiten en nepnieuws in het tijdperk van de postwaarheid Journal Article

In: Sociologie, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 73-92, 2018, ISSN: 1875-7138.

Abstract | Links | BibTeX

Coche, E.

Privatised enforcement and the right to freedom of expression in a world confronted with terrorism propaganda online Journal Article

In: Internet Policy Review, vol. 2018, no. 4, 2018.

Abstract | Links | BibTeX