Publications - Page 13 of 266

Panel at CPDP.ai 2025: “Future Digital Infrastructures for Climate Change: A Solution That Brings Along Its Own Challenges?” external link

van Hoboken, J., Radwan, G., Hamann, H., Monjoux, E. & Zeybek, B.

2025

Abstract

This panel investigates the digitalisation - climate action relationship and discusses the response of law and policy to it. Digitalisation is touted as the solution for environmental challenges. The EU policy considers digital infrastructures integral to achieve the European Green Deal’s net-zero goals ("twin transition"). But these create new risks and dependencies as they implicate power dynamics at the intersection of digital economy, geopolitics, security. This panel investigates some of these frictions focusing on two technologies: foundation models and digital twins. For example, foundation models can provide novel climate insights, but they can also transfer bias in context and training data into climate solutions and cement market logics into sustainability efforts. Digital Earth applications (e.g. DestinE), bringing together sensing and computing, can change environmental decision making processes and can have potential uses for disaster prevention, migration management and security. How could the law take account of these dynamics going forward?

RIS

TY  - SLIDE
AU  - van Hoboken, J.
AU  - Radwan, G.
AU  - Hamann, H.
AU  - Monjoux, E.
AU  - Zeybek, B.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-05-22
T1  - Panel at CPDP.ai 2025: “Future Digital Infrastructures for Climate Change: A Solution That Brings Along Its Own Challenges?”
UR  - https://youtu.be/YWQi2fWIZ8E?si=N7s7fOy2xdpxGZSH
AB  - This panel investigates the digitalisation - climate action relationship and discusses the response of law and policy to it. Digitalisation is touted as the solution for environmental challenges. The EU policy considers digital infrastructures integral to achieve the European Green Deal’s net-zero goals (\"twin transition\"). But these create new risks and dependencies as they implicate power dynamics at the intersection of digital economy, geopolitics, security. This panel investigates some of these frictions focusing on two technologies: foundation models and digital twins. For example, foundation models can provide novel climate insights, but they can also transfer bias in context and training data into climate solutions and cement market logics into sustainability efforts. Digital Earth applications (e.g. DestinE), bringing together sensing and computing, can change environmental decision making processes and can have potential uses for disaster prevention, migration management and security. How could the law take account of these dynamics going forward?
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Presentation{nokey,
	title = {Panel at CPDP.ai 2025: “Future Digital Infrastructures for Climate Change: A Solution That Brings Along Its Own Challenges?”},
	author = {van Hoboken, J. and Radwan, G. and Hamann, H. and Monjoux, E. and Zeybek, B.},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-05-22},
	abstract = {This panel investigates the digitalisation - climate action relationship and discusses the response of law and policy to it. Digitalisation is touted as the solution for environmental challenges. The EU policy considers digital infrastructures integral to achieve the European Green Deal’s net-zero goals (\"twin transition\"). But these create new risks and dependencies as they implicate power dynamics at the intersection of digital economy, geopolitics, security. This panel investigates some of these frictions focusing on two technologies: foundation models and digital twins. For example, foundation models can provide novel climate insights, but they can also transfer bias in context and training data into climate solutions and cement market logics into sustainability efforts. Digital Earth applications (e.g. DestinE), bringing together sensing and computing, can change environmental decision making processes and can have potential uses for disaster prevention, migration management and security. How could the law take account of these dynamics going forward?},
}

Save .bib

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

Quintais, J.

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.

Links

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839101489.00015

Copyright, liability, Online platforms

RIS

TY  - CHAP
AU  - Quintais, J.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-05-01
T1  - A new liability paradigm for online platforms in EU copyright law
UR  - https://www.ivir.nl/publications/a-new-liability-paradigm-for-online-platforms-in-eu-copyright-law/9781839101489-chapter7/
DO  - https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839101489.00015
AB  - 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.
K1  - Copyright
K1  - liability
K1  - Online platforms
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Chapter{nokey,
	title = {A new liability paradigm for online platforms in EU copyright law},
	author = {Quintais, J.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839101489.00015},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-05-01},
	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.},
	keywords = {Copyright, liability, Online platforms},
}

Save .bib

A Unitary Title for Copyright download

van Eechoud, M.

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

Auteursrecht

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Nieuwheid in het Auteursrecht download

Hugenholtz, P.B.

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

Auteursrecht

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

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.

Artificial intelligence, digital justice, Transparency

RIS

TY  - UNPD
AU  - Metikoš, L.
AU  - Domselaar, I. van
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-05-05
T1  - Procedural Justice and Judicial AI; Substantiating Explainability Rights with the Values of Contestation
UR  - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5242905
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 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.
K1  - Artificial intelligence
K1  - digital justice
K1  - Transparency
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Working paper{nokey,
	title = {Procedural Justice and Judicial AI; Substantiating Explainability Rights with the Values of Contestation},
	author = {Metikoš, L. and Domselaar, I. van},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-05-05},
	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.},
	keywords = {Artificial intelligence, digital justice, Transparency},
}

Save .bib

Korte loopbaanbeschrijving van Prof. Egbert Dommering download

Dommering, E.

2025

RIS
Bibtex

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Export Controls as Innovation Marketing? Sociotechnical Imaginaries in the Ringfencing of Quantum Technologies external link

Nguyen, A.

Law, Technology and Humans, vol. 7, iss. : 1, pp: 68-83, 2025

Abstract

Why are a host of states, such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands, imposing export controls on quantum computers with technical specifications (e.g. 2000 qubits) that are not yet realisable? No full-fledged ‘useful’ quantum technology (QT) exists yet; instead, the regulatory object of export controls is the network of technological artefacts (equipment, prototype, proof-of-concepts), people and labs (the ‘assemblage’ of quantum innovation) endeavouring to make quantum a reality. Thus, export controls serve mainly as atool of knowledge regulation over critical knowledge and R&D exchanges taking place to realise the quantum ambition. This article contends that it is not the material reality of quantum innovation –which is still mired in major engineering challenges –that informs export control efforts surrounding QT, but rather the ‘sociotechnical imaginary’ of quantum that serves as the ‘muse’ for law-and policy-makers. Quantum imaginaries are pivotal to understanding the rationales of QT export controls and the narratives in which they are entrenched. It is not necessarily the ‘2000 qubits’ in and of themselves, their technical (non-)feasibility or (non-)realisability, but rather the imaginaries told and believed about their technological possibilities and power thatare decisive in the ringfencing performed by export controls on QT.

Links

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.3777

quantum technologies

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Nguyen, A.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-04-29
T1  - Export Controls as Innovation Marketing? Sociotechnical Imaginaries in the Ringfencing of Quantum Technologies
JO  - Law, Technology and Humans
VL  - 7
IS  - 1
SP  - 68-83
UR  - https://lthj.qut.edu.au/article/view/3777
DO  - https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.3777
AB  - Why are a  host of states, such as  the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands, imposing export  controls  on quantum computers  with technical  specifications (e.g. 2000 qubits)  that are not yet realisable?  No full-fledged ‘useful’ quantum technology (QT) exists yet; instead, the regulatory  object  of export controls is the network  of  technological  artefacts (equipment, prototype, proof-of-concepts), people  and labs (the ‘assemblage’ of quantum innovation) endeavouring to make quantum a reality. Thus, export controls serve mainly as atool of knowledge regulation over critical  knowledge and R&D  exchanges taking place  to realise  the quantum ambition. This article contends that it is not the material reality of quantum innovation –which is still mired in major engineering challenges –that informs export control efforts surrounding QT, but rather the ‘sociotechnical imaginary’ of quantum that serves as the ‘muse’ for law-and policy-makers. Quantum imaginaries are pivotal to understanding the rationales of QT export controls and the narratives in which they are entrenched. It is not necessarily the ‘2000 qubits’ in and of themselves, their technical (non-)feasibility or (non-)realisability, but rather the imaginaries told and believed about their technological possibilities and power thatare decisive in the ringfencing performed by export controls on QT.
K1  - quantum technologies
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Export Controls as Innovation Marketing? Sociotechnical Imaginaries in the Ringfencing of Quantum Technologies},
	author = {Nguyen, A.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.3777},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-04-29},
	journal = {Law, Technology and Humans},
	volume = {7},
	issue = {1},
	pages = {68-83},
	abstract = {Why are a  host of states, such as  the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands, imposing export  controls  on quantum computers  with technical  specifications (e.g. 2000 qubits)  that are not yet realisable?  No full-fledged ‘useful’ quantum technology (QT) exists yet; instead, the regulatory  object  of export controls is the network  of  technological  artefacts (equipment, prototype, proof-of-concepts), people  and labs (the ‘assemblage’ of quantum innovation) endeavouring to make quantum a reality. Thus, export controls serve mainly as atool of knowledge regulation over critical  knowledge and R&D  exchanges taking place  to realise  the quantum ambition. This article contends that it is not the material reality of quantum innovation –which is still mired in major engineering challenges –that informs export control efforts surrounding QT, but rather the ‘sociotechnical imaginary’ of quantum that serves as the ‘muse’ for law-and policy-makers. Quantum imaginaries are pivotal to understanding the rationales of QT export controls and the narratives in which they are entrenched. It is not necessarily the ‘2000 qubits’ in and of themselves, their technical (non-)feasibility or (non-)realisability, but rather the imaginaries told and believed about their technological possibilities and power thatare decisive in the ringfencing performed by export controls on QT.},
	keywords = {quantum technologies},
}

Save .bib

New Book Explores Collective Management of Copyright in the Digital Age external link

Gervais, D.J. & Quintais, J.

collective management, Copyright

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Copyright Liability and Generative AI: What’s the Way Forward? download

Szkalej, K.

Nordic Intellectual Property Law Review, iss. : 1, pp: 92-115, 2025

Abstract

The intersection of copyright liability and generative AI has become one of the most complex and debated issues in the field of copyright law. AI systems have advanced significantly to allow the creation of fantastic new content but they are also capable of producing outputs that evoke, adapt, or recreate content that is protected by copyright law, sparking several infringement proceedings against AI companies, particularly in the US. With this rapid evolution comes the need to re-examine existing legal frameworks and theories. In this contribution, I would like to focus on liability challenges at the output stage of AI content generation and share some insights from Sweden to finally ponder about possible paths forward.

Artificial intelligence, Copyright, Generative AI, liability

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Szkalej, K.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-04-29
T1  - Copyright Liability and Generative AI: What’s the Way Forward?
JO  - Nordic Intellectual Property Law Review
IS  - 1
SP  - 92-115
UR  - https://www.ivir.nl/publications/copyright-liability-and-generative-ai-whats-the-way-forward/nir2025nr1_15/
AB  - The intersection of copyright liability and generative AI has become one of the most complex and debated issues in the field of copyright law. AI systems have advanced significantly to allow the creation of fantastic new content but they are also capable of producing outputs that evoke, adapt, or recreate content that is protected by copyright law, sparking several infringement proceedings against AI companies, particularly in the US. With this rapid evolution comes the need to re-examine existing legal frameworks and theories. In this contribution, I would like to focus on liability challenges at the output stage of AI content generation and share some insights from Sweden to finally ponder about possible paths forward.
K1  - Artificial intelligence
K1  - Copyright
K1  - Generative AI
K1  - liability
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Copyright Liability and Generative AI: What’s the Way Forward?},
	author = {Szkalej, K.},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-04-29},
	journal = {Nordic Intellectual Property Law Review},
	issue = {1},
	pages = {92-115},
	abstract = {The intersection of copyright liability and generative AI has become one of the most complex and debated issues in the field of copyright law. AI systems have advanced significantly to allow the creation of fantastic new content but they are also capable of producing outputs that evoke, adapt, or recreate content that is protected by copyright law, sparking several infringement proceedings against AI companies, particularly in the US. With this rapid evolution comes the need to re-examine existing legal frameworks and theories. In this contribution, I would like to focus on liability challenges at the output stage of AI content generation and share some insights from Sweden to finally ponder about possible paths forward.},
	keywords = {Artificial intelligence, Copyright, Generative AI, liability},
}

Save .bib

Dun & Bradstreet en het recht op een uitleg; kunnen papieren tijgers bijten? Annotatie bij het arrest van het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie op 27 februari 2025 download

Metikoš, L.

Privacy & Informatie, iss. : 2, num: 15, pp: 82-85, 2025

Abstract

Het arrest van 27 februari 2025 van het Hof van Justitie van de EU (HvJ EU) in de zaak Dun & Bradstreet, draagt bij aan het steeds verder ontwikkelende recht op een uitleg. Dit samengestelde recht biedt betrokkenen die onderworpen worden aan geautomatiseerde besluitvorming, de mogelijkheid om inzicht te krijgen in hoe een bepaald besluit tot stand is gekomen. Met deze informatie zouden betrokkenen zulke besluiten beter kunnen aanvechten. Het Dun & Bradstreet-arrest verheldert het recht op een uitleg door toe te lichten wat voor informatie verstrekt moet worden aan betrokkenen, alsook hoe verschillende belangen hierbij moeten worden afgewogen.

RIS

TY  - CASE
AU  - Metikoš, L.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-04-29
T1  - Dun & Bradstreet en het recht op een uitleg; kunnen papieren tijgers bijten? Annotatie bij het arrest van het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie op 27 februari 2025
JO  - Privacy & Informatie
IS  - 2
NV  - 15
SP  - 82-85
UR  - https://www.ivir.nl/publications/dun-kunnen-papieren-tijgers-bijten-annotatie-bij-het-arrest-van-het-hof-van-justitie-van-de-europese-unie-op-27-februari-2025/annotatie_privacy_informatie_2025_2/
AB  - Het arrest van 27 februari 2025 van het Hof van Justitie van de EU (HvJ EU) in de zaak Dun & Bradstreet, draagt bij aan het steeds verder ontwikkelende recht op een uitleg. Dit samengestelde recht biedt betrokkenen die onderworpen worden aan geautomatiseerde besluitvorming, de mogelijkheid om inzicht te krijgen in hoe een bepaald besluit tot stand is gekomen. Met deze informatie zouden betrokkenen zulke besluiten beter kunnen aanvechten. Het Dun & Bradstreet-arrest verheldert het recht op een uitleg door toe te lichten wat voor informatie verstrekt moet worden aan betrokkenen, alsook hoe verschillende belangen hierbij moeten worden afgewogen.
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Case note{nokey,
	title = {Dun & Bradstreet en het recht op een uitleg; kunnen papieren tijgers bijten? Annotatie bij het arrest van het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie op 27 februari 2025},
	author = {Metikoš, L.},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-04-29},
	journal = {Privacy & Informatie},
	issue = {2},
	number = {15},
	pages = {82-85},
	abstract = {Het arrest van 27 februari 2025 van het Hof van Justitie van de EU (HvJ EU) in de zaak Dun & Bradstreet, draagt bij aan het steeds verder ontwikkelende recht op een uitleg. Dit samengestelde recht biedt betrokkenen die onderworpen worden aan geautomatiseerde besluitvorming, de mogelijkheid om inzicht te krijgen in hoe een bepaald besluit tot stand is gekomen. Met deze informatie zouden betrokkenen zulke besluiten beter kunnen aanvechten. Het Dun & Bradstreet-arrest verheldert het recht op een uitleg door toe te lichten wat voor informatie verstrekt moet worden aan betrokkenen, alsook hoe verschillende belangen hierbij moeten worden afgewogen.},
}

Save .bib

Top Keywords

Abstract

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

RIS

Bibtex

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

RIS

Bibtex

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

RIS

Bibtex