Publications
Top Keywords
- AI Act (11)
- Art. 10 EVRM (26)
- Art. 17 CDSM Directive (13)
- Artificial intelligence (85)
- Big data (12)
- Constitutional and administrative law (11)
- Consumer law (11)
- Content moderation (22)
- Copyright (213)
- Cybersecurity (10)
- Data protection (29)
- Data protection law (11)
- Digital Services Act (DSA) (32)
- Digital Single Market (13)
- EU (19)
- EU law (25)
- Europe (13)
- Fake news (14)
- Freedom of expression (50)
- Fundamental rights (21)
- GDPR (22)
- Human rights (31)
- Intellectual property (31)
- Internet (24)
- Journalism (18)
- Kluwer Information Law Series (43)
- Licensing (14)
- Media law (37)
- Online platforms (20)
- Patent law (20)
- Personal data (35)
- Platforms (24)
- Privacy (327)
- Regulation (14)
- Social media (12)
- Software (10)
- Surveillance (11)
- Text and Data Mining (TDM) (21)
- Trademark law (16)
- Transparency (19)
Panel at CPDP.ai 2025: “Future Digital Infrastructures for Climate Change: A Solution That Brings Along Its Own Challenges?” external link
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
Bibtex
A new liability paradigm for online platforms in EU copyright law download
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
RIS
Bibtex
A Unitary Title for Copyright download
Nieuwheid in het Auteursrecht download
Procedural Justice and Judicial AI; Substantiating Explainability Rights with the Values of Contestation external link
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
Bibtex
Korte loopbaanbeschrijving van Prof. Egbert Dommering download
Export Controls as Innovation Marketing? Sociotechnical Imaginaries in the Ringfencing of Quantum Technologies external link
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.
quantum technologies
RIS
Bibtex
New Book Explores Collective Management of Copyright in the Digital Age external link
Copyright Liability and Generative AI: What’s the Way Forward? download
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.
Links
Artificial intelligence, Copyright, Generative AI, liability