Publications
Top Keywords
- Art. 10 EVRM (25)
- Art. 17 CDSM Directive (13)
- Artificial intelligence (72)
- Big data (12)
- Constitutional and administrative law (11)
- Consumer law (11)
- Content moderation (22)
- Copyright (188)
- Cybersecurity (10)
- Data protection (29)
- Data protection law (11)
- Digital Services Act (DSA) (32)
- Digital Single Market (13)
- EU (19)
- EU law (26)
- Europe (12)
- European Union (10)
- Fake news (14)
- Freedom of expression (46)
- Fundamental rights (18)
- GDPR (22)
- Human rights (31)
- Intellectual property (29)
- Internet (24)
- Journalism (15)
- Kluwer Information Law Series (43)
- Licensing (13)
- Media law (28)
- Online platforms (19)
- Patent law (20)
- Personal data (35)
- Platforms (24)
- Privacy (326)
- Regulation (11)
- Social media (11)
- Software (10)
- Surveillance (11)
- Text and Data Mining (TDM) (20)
- Trademark law (13)
- Transparency (19)
Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 9 maart 2021, Hof van Justitie EU 22 juni 2021 & Hoge Raad 27 januari 2023 download
Demonopolizing the European Public Domain: Google Books Exclusivity Clauses and the Open Data Directive download
Abstract
This report is the result of a collaboration between Open Future and the Glushko & Samuelson Information Law and Policy Lab at the Law Faculty of the University of Amsterdam. Open Future is interested in understanding the evolving landscape around the use of public domain and openly licensed works for the purpose of training Generative AI systems. One of the largest sources of such data are the digitization partnerships between a number of European libraries and Google that were launched from 2010 onwards. These digitization partnerships were controversial at the time because they contain clauses that ensure that Google enjoys an exclusivity period with regard to commercial use of the digitized works. As a result, Google has a privileged position when it comes to access to large swaths of the European public domain. In the context of the emergence of generative AI as a new technological paradigm, access to this data likely constitutes a signicant competitive advantage that is hard to reconcile with both the public domain status of these collections and policies aimed at providing a level playing eld for smaller and European AI developers. In April 2024, Open Future approached the Information Law and Policy Lab with a request to examine the legal status of the datasets produced by the Google Books project in regard to their exclusivity clauses.
RIS
Bibtex
The New F-word: The case of fragmentation in Dutch cybersecurity governance external link
Abstract
The fragmentation of the Dutch cybersecurity government landscape is a widely discussed phenomenon among politicians, policy makers, and cybersecurity specialists. Remarkably though, a negative narrative is underlying the idea of fragmentation, suggesting that we are dealing with a serious problem. A problem that has the potential of impeding cybersecurity governance in the Netherlands. This research zooms in on how cybersecurity governance is organised within the central government, and which organisations are concerned with the creation, implementation, and oversight of cybersecurity policies vis à vis Dutch society. This article provides an overview of all central government organisations (de Rijksoverheid) that are involved in cybersecurity governance on a strategic level. This research provides the first step in doctoral research into the possible implications of the fragmentation of cybersecurity governance in the Dutch central government, and how this fragmentation could potentially impact policy creation, implementation, and oversight. Based on the mapping of this governance landscape, it set out to measure fragmentation based on the number of units or organisations that are concerned with cybersecurity governance in the central government on a strategic level. This study has found that based on Boyne's (1992) notion of fragmentation and the Dutch governments’ definition of tiers, the Dutch cybersecurity governance landscape could indeed, when meticulously following Boyne's counting procedure, be regarded as fragmented.
Links
Cybersecurity, fragmentation, Internet governance, the netherlands
RIS
Bibtex
Copyright, the AI Act and extraterritoriality external link
Opinion of the European Copyright Society on CG and YN v Pelham GmbH and Others, Case C-590/23 (Pelham II) external link
Abstract
In its questions for preliminary ruling, the German Federal Court of Justice asked for clarification as regards the definition of pastiche under EU copyright law; and, in essence, whether and how this concept applies to musical sampling. In the present Opinion, the European Copyright Society takes the view that pastiche is an autonomous concept of EU law. Article 5(3)(k) InfoSoc Directive (ISD) should be read as an overarching provision including three forms of permitted use that share their underlying nature but shall be judged differently. The meaning of pastiche cannot be understood as a mere imitation of an artistic style and it need not entail an explicit interaction with the original work. The presence of humour or mockery is not a necessary requirement for the application of the pastiche exception. Also, the expression resulting from the exercise of the pastiche exception need not itself be an original work. Finally, the intention of the user to create pastiche plays no role in the review of the legality of any given use. At the same time, legitimate forms of pastiche need to have their own features that are distinguishable from the copyrighted expression in pre-existing works used as source materials. Overall the use of the pastiche exception for purposes of musical sampling, as in the underlying Metall auf Metall case, complies with all the three steps of Article 5(5) ISD.
Copyright
RIS
Bibtex
Between the cracks: Blind spots in regulating media concentration and platform dependence in the EU external link
Abstract
Alongside the recent regulations addressing platforms and digital markets – the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA) – the European Union’s (EU) European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) aims to safeguard media freedom and pluralism, two essential pillars of democracy. The EMFA introduces several provisions, including rules specifically focused on assessing media concentration in "the online environment". While these initiatives are commendable, there are noticeable blind spots in how EU regulations tackle the issues of dependence on, and the power of, platforms amidst the rising trend of media concentration. An essential aspect that needs attention is the technological power of these platforms, underpinned by their economic and political power. We find that neither the infrastructural power of platforms – transforming them from “gatekeepers” to “digital infrastructure and AI providers” – nor their relational power – creating imbalances and dependencies while posing sustainability challenges for (local) journalism – are effectively addressed in the current EU regulatory frameworks, despite both forms of power driving digital media concentration. The article then concludes with recommendations for a way forward capable of preserving values such as media pluralism and editorial independence.
Links
EU, media concentration, Media law, Platforms, Regulation