Publications - Page 19 of 267

Trust and Safety in the Age of AI – the economics and practice of the platform-based discourse apparatus external link

2025

Abstract

In recent years social media services emerged as key infrastructures for a plethora of societal conversations around politics, values, culture, science, and more. Through their Trust and Safety practices, they are playing a central role in shaping what their users may know, may believe in, what kinds of values, truths and untruths, or opinions they are exposed to. The rapid emergence of various tools, such as AI and the likes brought further complexities to how these societal conversations are conducted online. On the one hand, platforms started to heavily rely on automated tools and algorithmic agents to identify various forms of speech, some of them flagged for further human review, others being filtered automatically. On the other hand, cheap and ubiquitous access to generative AI systems also produce a flood of new speech on social media platforms. Content moderation and filtering, as one of the largest ‘Trust and Safety’ activities, is, on the surface, the most visible, and understandable activity which could protect users from all the harms stemming from ignorant or malicious actors in the online space. But, as we argue in this paper, content moderation is much more than that. Platforms, through their AI-human content moderation stack are ordering key societal discourses. The Foucauldian understanding of society emphasizes that discourse is knowledge is power: we know what the discourse reveals to us, and we use this knowledge as power to produce the world around us, render it legible through discourse. This logic, alongside the radically shifting rules of information economics, which reduced the cost of information to zero, challenges the old institutions, rules, procedures, discourses, and subsequent knowledge and power structures. In this paper, we first explore the practical realities of content moderation based on an expert interview study with Trust and Safety professionals, and a supporting document analysis, based on data published through the DSA Transparency Database. We reconstruct these empirical insights as an analytical model – a discourse apparatus stack – in the Foucauldian framework. This helps to identify the real systemic challenges content moderation faces, but fails to address.

Artificial intelligence, automated filtering, Content moderation, Foucault, information economics, Platforms, trust

RIS

TY  - UNPD
AU  - Weigl, L.
AU  - Bodó, B.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-01-30
T1  - Trust and Safety in the Age of AI – the economics and practice of the platform-based discourse apparatus
UR  - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5116478
AB  - In recent years social media services emerged as key infrastructures for a plethora of societal conversations around politics, values, culture, science, and more. Through their Trust and Safety practices, they are playing a central role in shaping what their users may know, may believe in, what kinds of values, truths and untruths, or opinions they are exposed to. The rapid emergence of various tools, such as AI and the likes brought further complexities to how these societal conversations are conducted online.

On the one hand, platforms started to heavily rely on automated tools and algorithmic agents to identify various forms of speech, some of them flagged for further human review, others being filtered automatically. On the other hand, cheap and ubiquitous access to generative AI systems also produce a flood of new speech on social media platforms.

Content moderation and filtering, as one of the largest ‘Trust and Safety’ activities, is, on the surface, the most visible, and understandable activity which could protect users from all the harms stemming from ignorant or malicious actors in the online space. But, as we argue in this paper, content moderation is much more than that. Platforms, through their AI-human content moderation stack are ordering key societal discourses. The Foucauldian understanding of society emphasizes that discourse is knowledge is power: we know what the discourse reveals to us, and we use this knowledge as power to produce the world around us, render it legible through discourse. This logic, alongside the radically shifting rules of information economics, which reduced the cost of information to zero, challenges the old institutions, rules, procedures, discourses, and subsequent knowledge and power structures.

In this paper, we first explore the practical realities of content moderation based on an expert interview study with Trust and Safety professionals, and a supporting document analysis, based on data published through the DSA Transparency Database. We reconstruct these empirical insights as an analytical model – a discourse apparatus stack – in the Foucauldian framework. This helps to identify the real systemic challenges content moderation faces, but fails to address.
K1  - Artificial intelligence
K1  - automated filtering
K1  - Content moderation
K1  - Foucault
K1  - information economics
K1  - Platforms
K1  - trust
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Working paper{nokey,
	title = {Trust and Safety in the Age of AI – the economics and practice of the platform-based discourse apparatus},
	author = {Weigl, L. and Bodó, B.},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-01-30},
	abstract = {In recent years social media services emerged as key infrastructures for a plethora of societal conversations around politics, values, culture, science, and more. Through their Trust and Safety practices, they are playing a central role in shaping what their users may know, may believe in, what kinds of values, truths and untruths, or opinions they are exposed to. The rapid emergence of various tools, such as AI and the likes brought further complexities to how these societal conversations are conducted online.

On the one hand, platforms started to heavily rely on automated tools and algorithmic agents to identify various forms of speech, some of them flagged for further human review, others being filtered automatically. On the other hand, cheap and ubiquitous access to generative AI systems also produce a flood of new speech on social media platforms.

Content moderation and filtering, as one of the largest ‘Trust and Safety’ activities, is, on the surface, the most visible, and understandable activity which could protect users from all the harms stemming from ignorant or malicious actors in the online space. But, as we argue in this paper, content moderation is much more than that. Platforms, through their AI-human content moderation stack are ordering key societal discourses. The Foucauldian understanding of society emphasizes that discourse is knowledge is power: we know what the discourse reveals to us, and we use this knowledge as power to produce the world around us, render it legible through discourse. This logic, alongside the radically shifting rules of information economics, which reduced the cost of information to zero, challenges the old institutions, rules, procedures, discourses, and subsequent knowledge and power structures.

In this paper, we first explore the practical realities of content moderation based on an expert interview study with Trust and Safety professionals, and a supporting document analysis, based on data published through the DSA Transparency Database. We reconstruct these empirical insights as an analytical model – a discourse apparatus stack – in the Foucauldian framework. This helps to identify the real systemic challenges content moderation faces, but fails to address.},
	keywords = {Artificial intelligence, automated filtering, Content moderation, Foucault, information economics, Platforms, trust},
}

Save .bib

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

Szkalej, K.

2025

Abstract

This paper examines the intricate relationship between copyright liability and generative AI, focusing on legal challenges at the output stage of AI content generation. As AI technology advances, questions regarding copyright infringement and attribution of liability have become increasingly pressing and complex, requiring a revision of existing rules and theories. The paper navigates the European copyright framework and offers insights from Swedish copyright law on unharmonized aspects of liability, reviewing key case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union and Swedish courts. Considering the liability of AI users first, the paper emphasizes that while copyright exceptions are relevant in the discussion, national liability rules nuance a liability risk assessment above and beyond the potential applicability of a copyright exception. The analysis centers in particular on the reversed burden of proof introduced by the Swedish Supreme Court in NJA 1994 s 74 (Smultronmålet / Wild strawberries case) and the parameters of permissible transformative or derivative use (adaptations of all sorts), especially the level of similarity allowed between a pre-existing and transformative work, examining in particular NJA 2017 s 75 (Svenska syndabockar / Swedish scapegoats). Moreover, the paper engages in a discussion over the harmonization of transformative use and the exclusive right of adaptation through the right of reproduction in Article 2 InfoSoc Directive. Secondly, the paper examines copyright liability of AI system providers when their technology is used to generate infringing content. While secondary liability remains unharmonized in the EU, thus requiring consideration of national conceptions of such liability and available defences, expansive interpretations of primary liability by the Court of Justice in cases like C-160/15 GS Media, C-527/15 Filmspeler, or C-610/15 Ziggo require a consideration of the question whether AI providers indeed could also be held primarily liable for what users do. In this respect, the analysis considers both the right of communication to the public as well as the right of reproduction. The paper concludes with a forward-looking perspective, arguing in light of available litigation tactics that clarity must emerge through litigation rather than premature legislative reform. It will provide an opportunity for courts to systematize existing rules and liability theories and provide essential guidance for balancing copyright protection with innovation.

Artificial intelligence, Copyright, liability

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Szkalej, K.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-01-10
T1  - Copyright Liability and Generative AI: What’s the Way Forward?
UR  - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5117603
AB  - This paper examines the intricate relationship between copyright liability and generative AI, focusing on legal challenges at the output stage of AI content generation. As AI technology advances, questions regarding copyright infringement and attribution of liability have become increasingly pressing and complex, requiring a revision of existing rules and theories. The paper navigates the European copyright framework and offers insights from Swedish copyright law on unharmonized aspects of liability, reviewing key case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union and Swedish courts. Considering the liability of AI users first, the paper emphasizes that while copyright exceptions are relevant in the discussion, national liability rules nuance a liability risk assessment above and beyond the potential applicability of a copyright exception. The analysis centers in particular on the reversed burden of proof introduced by the Swedish Supreme Court in NJA 1994 s 74 (Smultronmålet / Wild strawberries case) and the parameters of permissible transformative or derivative use (adaptations of all sorts), especially the level of similarity allowed between a pre-existing and transformative work, examining in particular NJA 2017 s 75 (Svenska syndabockar / Swedish scapegoats). Moreover, the paper engages in a discussion over the harmonization of transformative use and the exclusive right of adaptation through the right of reproduction in Article 2 InfoSoc Directive. Secondly, the paper examines copyright liability of AI system providers when their technology is used to generate infringing content. While secondary liability remains unharmonized in the EU, thus requiring consideration of national conceptions of such liability and available defences, expansive interpretations of primary liability by the Court of Justice in cases like C-160/15 GS Media, C-527/15 Filmspeler, or C-610/15 Ziggo require a consideration of the question whether AI providers indeed could also be held primarily liable for what users do. In this respect, the analysis considers both the right of communication to the public as well as the right of reproduction. The paper concludes with a forward-looking perspective, arguing in light of available litigation tactics that clarity must emerge through litigation rather than premature legislative reform. It will provide an opportunity for courts to systematize existing rules and liability theories and provide essential guidance for balancing copyright protection with innovation.
K1  - Artificial intelligence
K1  - Copyright
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 = {2025-01-10},
	abstract = {This paper examines the intricate relationship between copyright liability and generative AI, focusing on legal challenges at the output stage of AI content generation. As AI technology advances, questions regarding copyright infringement and attribution of liability have become increasingly pressing and complex, requiring a revision of existing rules and theories. The paper navigates the European copyright framework and offers insights from Swedish copyright law on unharmonized aspects of liability, reviewing key case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union and Swedish courts. Considering the liability of AI users first, the paper emphasizes that while copyright exceptions are relevant in the discussion, national liability rules nuance a liability risk assessment above and beyond the potential applicability of a copyright exception. The analysis centers in particular on the reversed burden of proof introduced by the Swedish Supreme Court in NJA 1994 s 74 (Smultronmålet / Wild strawberries case) and the parameters of permissible transformative or derivative use (adaptations of all sorts), especially the level of similarity allowed between a pre-existing and transformative work, examining in particular NJA 2017 s 75 (Svenska syndabockar / Swedish scapegoats). Moreover, the paper engages in a discussion over the harmonization of transformative use and the exclusive right of adaptation through the right of reproduction in Article 2 InfoSoc Directive. Secondly, the paper examines copyright liability of AI system providers when their technology is used to generate infringing content. While secondary liability remains unharmonized in the EU, thus requiring consideration of national conceptions of such liability and available defences, expansive interpretations of primary liability by the Court of Justice in cases like C-160/15 GS Media, C-527/15 Filmspeler, or C-610/15 Ziggo require a consideration of the question whether AI providers indeed could also be held primarily liable for what users do. In this respect, the analysis considers both the right of communication to the public as well as the right of reproduction. The paper concludes with a forward-looking perspective, arguing in light of available litigation tactics that clarity must emerge through litigation rather than premature legislative reform. It will provide an opportunity for courts to systematize existing rules and liability theories and provide essential guidance for balancing copyright protection with innovation.},
	keywords = {Artificial intelligence, Copyright, liability},
}

Save .bib

Ευρωπαϊκός Κανονισμός για την Τεχνητή Νοημοσύνη: τι είναι και τι συνεπάγεται; external link

Vogiatzoglou, P.

Eteron, 2025

RIS
Bibtex

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Generative AI, Copyright and the AI Act external link

Quintais, J.

Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 56, num: 106107, 2025

Abstract

This paper provides a critical analysis of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act's implications for the European Union (EU) copyright acquis, aiming to clarify the complex relationship between AI regulation and copyright law while identifying areas of legal ambiguity and gaps that may influence future policymaking. The discussion begins with an overview of fundamental copyright concerns related to generative AI, focusing on issues that arise during the input, model, and output stages, and how these concerns intersect with the text and data mining (TDM) exceptions under the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (CDSMD). The paper then explores the AI Act's structure and key definitions relevant to copyright law. The core analysis addresses the AI Act's impact on copyright, including the role of TDM in AI model training, the copyright obligations imposed by the Act, requirements for respecting copyright law—particularly TDM opt-outs—and the extraterritorial implications of these provisions. It also examines transparency obligations, compliance mechanisms, and the enforcement framework. The paper further critiques the current regime's inadequacies, particularly concerning the fair remuneration of creators, and evaluates potential improvements such as collective licensing and bargaining. It also assesses legislative reform proposals, such as statutory licensing and AI output levies, and concludes with reflections on future directions for integrating AI governance with copyright protection.

Links

AI Act, Content moderation, Copyright, Digital Services Act (DSA), Generative AI, Text and Data Mining (TDM), Transparency

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Quintais, J.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-01-30
T1  - Generative AI, Copyright and the AI Act
JO  - Computer Law & Security Review
VL  - 56
NV  - 106107
UR  - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4912701
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106107
AB  - This paper provides a critical analysis of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act\'s implications for the European Union (EU) copyright acquis, aiming to clarify the complex relationship between AI regulation and copyright law while identifying areas of legal ambiguity and gaps that may influence future policymaking. The discussion begins with an overview of fundamental copyright concerns related to generative AI, focusing on issues that arise during the input, model, and output stages, and how these concerns intersect with the text and data mining (TDM) exceptions under the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (CDSMD).
The paper then explores the AI Act\'s structure and key definitions relevant to copyright law. The core analysis addresses the AI Act\'s impact on copyright, including the role of TDM in AI model training, the copyright obligations imposed by the Act, requirements for respecting copyright law—particularly TDM opt-outs—and the extraterritorial implications of these provisions. It also examines transparency obligations, compliance mechanisms, and the enforcement framework. The paper further critiques the current regime\'s inadequacies, particularly concerning the fair remuneration of creators, and evaluates potential improvements such as collective licensing and bargaining. It also assesses legislative reform proposals, such as statutory licensing and AI output levies, and concludes with reflections on future directions for integrating AI governance with copyright protection.
K1  - AI Act
K1  - Content moderation
K1  - Copyright
K1  - Digital Services Act (DSA)
K1  - Generative AI
K1  - Text and Data Mining (TDM)
K1  - Transparency
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Generative AI, Copyright and the AI Act},
	author = {Quintais, J.},
	url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364925000020},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106107},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-01-30},
	journal = {Computer Law & Security Review},
	volume = {56},
	number = {106107},
	abstract = {This paper provides a critical analysis of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act\'s implications for the European Union (EU) copyright acquis, aiming to clarify the complex relationship between AI regulation and copyright law while identifying areas of legal ambiguity and gaps that may influence future policymaking. The discussion begins with an overview of fundamental copyright concerns related to generative AI, focusing on issues that arise during the input, model, and output stages, and how these concerns intersect with the text and data mining (TDM) exceptions under the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (CDSMD).
The paper then explores the AI Act\'s structure and key definitions relevant to copyright law. The core analysis addresses the AI Act\'s impact on copyright, including the role of TDM in AI model training, the copyright obligations imposed by the Act, requirements for respecting copyright law—particularly TDM opt-outs—and the extraterritorial implications of these provisions. It also examines transparency obligations, compliance mechanisms, and the enforcement framework. The paper further critiques the current regime\'s inadequacies, particularly concerning the fair remuneration of creators, and evaluates potential improvements such as collective licensing and bargaining. It also assesses legislative reform proposals, such as statutory licensing and AI output levies, and concludes with reflections on future directions for integrating AI governance with copyright protection.},
	keywords = {AI Act, Content moderation, Copyright, Digital Services Act (DSA), Generative AI, Text and Data Mining (TDM), Transparency},
}

Save .bib

Mass Data Surveillance and Predictive Policing: Contested Foundations and Human Rights Impact

Vogiatzoglou, P.

Routledge, 2025, pp: 312

Abstract

This book critically assesses legal frameworks involving the bulk processing of personal data, initially collected by the private sector, to predict and prevent crime through advanced profiling technologies. In the European Union (EU), mass data surveillance currently engages three sectors: electronic communications (under the e-Privacy Directive), air travelling (under the Passenger Name Records Directive), and finance (under the Anti-Money Laundering Directive), and increasingly intersects with the deployment of predictive policing techniques. The book questions the legitimacy and impact of these frameworks in light of the EU’s powers to provide security while safeguarding fundamental rights, particularly privacy, data protection, effective remedy, fair trial, and presumption of innocence. Focusing on the security shift towards forestalling crime before it occurs, the book identifies its distinct characteristics, such as the blurred lines between the public and private sector actors, and interrogates whether the legal bases and traditional theories on security can account for it. The book further explores the challenges these pre-crime practices pose, including their questionable effectiveness and the ambiguous application of human rights safeguards in situations where no crime has been committed, yet individuals face consequences as a result of deploying predictive analytics on mass amounts of commercially collected personal data. In examining the interference with several fundamental rights, the book also highlights aspects neglected by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, such as the expansive nature and the collective and cumulative effects of these frameworks.

Links

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003505297

RIS

TY  - BOOK
AU  - Vogiatzoglou, P.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-01-29
T1  - Mass Data Surveillance and Predictive Policing: Contested Foundations and Human Rights Impact
SP  - 312
DO  - https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003505297
AB  - This book critically assesses legal frameworks involving the bulk processing of personal data, initially collected by the private sector, to predict and prevent crime through advanced profiling technologies. In the European Union (EU), mass data surveillance currently engages three sectors: electronic communications (under the e-Privacy Directive), air travelling (under the Passenger Name Records Directive), and finance (under the Anti-Money Laundering Directive), and increasingly intersects with the deployment of predictive policing techniques. The book questions the legitimacy and impact of these frameworks in light of the EU’s powers to provide security while safeguarding fundamental rights, particularly privacy, data protection, effective remedy, fair trial, and presumption of innocence.

Focusing on the security shift towards forestalling crime before it occurs, the book identifies its distinct characteristics, such as the blurred lines between the public and private sector actors, and interrogates whether the legal bases and traditional theories on security can account for it. The book further explores the challenges these pre-crime practices pose, including their questionable effectiveness and the ambiguous application of human rights safeguards in situations where no crime has been committed, yet individuals face consequences as a result of deploying predictive analytics on mass amounts of commercially collected personal data. In examining the interference with several fundamental rights, the book also highlights aspects neglected by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, such as the expansive nature and the collective and cumulative effects of these frameworks.
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Book{nokey,
	title = {Mass Data Surveillance and Predictive Policing: Contested Foundations and Human Rights Impact},
	author = {Vogiatzoglou, P.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003505297},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-01-29},
	pages = {312},
	abstract = {This book critically assesses legal frameworks involving the bulk processing of personal data, initially collected by the private sector, to predict and prevent crime through advanced profiling technologies. In the European Union (EU), mass data surveillance currently engages three sectors: electronic communications (under the e-Privacy Directive), air travelling (under the Passenger Name Records Directive), and finance (under the Anti-Money Laundering Directive), and increasingly intersects with the deployment of predictive policing techniques. The book questions the legitimacy and impact of these frameworks in light of the EU’s powers to provide security while safeguarding fundamental rights, particularly privacy, data protection, effective remedy, fair trial, and presumption of innocence.

Focusing on the security shift towards forestalling crime before it occurs, the book identifies its distinct characteristics, such as the blurred lines between the public and private sector actors, and interrogates whether the legal bases and traditional theories on security can account for it. The book further explores the challenges these pre-crime practices pose, including their questionable effectiveness and the ambiguous application of human rights safeguards in situations where no crime has been committed, yet individuals face consequences as a result of deploying predictive analytics on mass amounts of commercially collected personal data. In examining the interference with several fundamental rights, the book also highlights aspects neglected by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, such as the expansive nature and the collective and cumulative effects of these frameworks.},
}

Save .bib

Mapping Data Protection Legal Mobilization Before the CJEU: The Need to Rethink a Success Story?

Tzanou, M. & Vogiatzoglou, P.

Nordic Journal of European Law, vol. 7, iss. : 4, pp: 96-129, 2025

Abstract

The article explores data protection legal mobilisation before the Court of Justice of the EU (‘DPLM’). It provides a theoretical framework to study DPLM before the CJEU and undertakes, for the first time, a comprehensive mapping of this area. It does so by studying, all the data protection-related judgments delivered by the Court between 2014-2023. The mapping is crucial to shed light on the characteristics and mechanisms of DPLM; it is also needed in order to unveil any potential blind spots of such mobilisation. The article asks: How can data protection legal mobilisation before the CJEU be understood through general mobilisation debates and theoretical frameworks? What are its main actors, objectives, topics and outcomes? What are its potential neglected aspects and omissions? The article argues that while DPLM as it emerges from our empirical study can be considered a successful story overall; it, nevertheless, appears elitist in its objectives, problems and actors. In this regard, we call for a critical rethinking of DPLM in order to transfer the data protection collective struggles of more marginalised social movements to the CJEU juridical field.

Links

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36969/njel.v7i4.27294

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Tzanou, M.
AU  - Vogiatzoglou, P.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-01-29
T1  - Mapping Data Protection Legal Mobilization Before the CJEU: The Need to Rethink a Success Story?
JO  - Nordic Journal of European Law
VL  - 7
IS  - 4
SP  - 96-129
DO  - https://doi.org/10.36969/njel.v7i4.27294
AB  - The article explores data protection legal mobilisation before the Court of Justice of the EU (‘DPLM’).  It provides a theoretical framework to study DPLM before the CJEU and undertakes, for the first time, a comprehensive mapping of  this area. It does so by studying, all the data protection-related judgments delivered by the Court between 2014-2023. The mapping is crucial to shed light on the  characteristics and mechanisms of DPLM; it is also needed in order to unveil any potential blind spots of such mobilisation. The article asks: How can data protection legal mobilisation before the CJEU be understood through general mobilisation debates and theoretical frameworks? What are its main actors, objectives, topics and outcomes? What are its potential neglected aspects and omissions? The article argues that while DPLM as it emerges from our empirical study can be considered a successful story overall; it, nevertheless, appears elitist in its objectives, problems and actors. In this regard, we call for a critical rethinking of DPLM in order to transfer the data protection collective struggles of more marginalised social movements to the CJEU juridical field.
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Mapping Data Protection Legal Mobilization Before the CJEU: The Need to Rethink a Success Story?},
	author = {Tzanou, M. and Vogiatzoglou, P.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.36969/njel.v7i4.27294},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-01-29},
	journal = {Nordic Journal of European Law},
	volume = {7},
	issue = {4},
	pages = {96-129},
	abstract = {The article explores data protection legal mobilisation before the Court of Justice of the EU (‘DPLM’).  It provides a theoretical framework to study DPLM before the CJEU and undertakes, for the first time, a comprehensive mapping of  this area. It does so by studying, all the data protection-related judgments delivered by the Court between 2014-2023. The mapping is crucial to shed light on the  characteristics and mechanisms of DPLM; it is also needed in order to unveil any potential blind spots of such mobilisation. The article asks: How can data protection legal mobilisation before the CJEU be understood through general mobilisation debates and theoretical frameworks? What are its main actors, objectives, topics and outcomes? What are its potential neglected aspects and omissions? The article argues that while DPLM as it emerges from our empirical study can be considered a successful story overall; it, nevertheless, appears elitist in its objectives, problems and actors. In this regard, we call for a critical rethinking of DPLM in order to transfer the data protection collective struggles of more marginalised social movements to the CJEU juridical field.},
}

Save .bib

Shifting Battlegrounds: Corporate Political Activity in the EU General Data Protection Regulation

Ocelík, V., Kolk, A. & Irion, K.

Business & Society, 2025

Abstract

Scholarship on corporate political activity (CPA) has remained largely silent on the substance of information strategies that firms utilize to influence policymakers. To address this deficiency, our study is situated in the European Union (EU), where political scientists have noted information strategies to be central to achieving lobbying success; the EU also provides a context of global norm-setting activities, especially with its General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Aided by recent advances in the field of unsupervised machine learning, we performed a structural topic model analysis of the entire set of lobby documents submitted during two GDPR consultations, which were obtained via a so-called Freedom of Information request. Our analysis of the substance of information strategies reveals that the two policy phases constitute “shifting battlegrounds,” where firms first seek to influence what is included and excluded in the legislation, after which they engage the more specific interests of other stakeholders. Our main theoretical contribution concerns the identification of two distinct information strategies. Furthermore, we point at the need for more attention for institutional procedures and for the role of other stakeholders’ lobbying activities in CPA research.

Links

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503241306958

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Ocelík, V.
AU  - Kolk, A.
AU  - Irion, K.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-01-20
T1  - Shifting Battlegrounds: Corporate Political Activity in the EU General Data Protection Regulation
JO  - Business & Society
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503241306958
AB  - Scholarship on corporate political activity (CPA) has remained largely silent on the substance of information strategies that firms utilize to influence policymakers. To address this deficiency, our study is situated in the European Union (EU), where political scientists have noted information strategies to be central to achieving lobbying success; the EU also provides a context of global norm-setting activities, especially with its General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Aided by recent advances in the field of unsupervised machine learning, we performed a structural topic model analysis of the entire set of lobby documents submitted during two GDPR consultations, which were obtained via a so-called Freedom of Information request. Our analysis of the substance of information strategies reveals that the two policy phases constitute “shifting battlegrounds,” where firms first seek to influence what is included and excluded in the legislation, after which they engage the more specific interests of other stakeholders. Our main theoretical contribution concerns the identification of two distinct information strategies. Furthermore, we point at the need for more attention for institutional procedures and for the role of other stakeholders’ lobbying activities in CPA research.
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Shifting Battlegrounds: Corporate Political Activity in the EU General Data Protection Regulation},
	author = {Ocelík, V. and Kolk, A. and Irion, K.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503241306958},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-01-20},
	journal = {Business & Society},
	abstract = {Scholarship on corporate political activity (CPA) has remained largely silent on the substance of information strategies that firms utilize to influence policymakers. To address this deficiency, our study is situated in the European Union (EU), where political scientists have noted information strategies to be central to achieving lobbying success; the EU also provides a context of global norm-setting activities, especially with its General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Aided by recent advances in the field of unsupervised machine learning, we performed a structural topic model analysis of the entire set of lobby documents submitted during two GDPR consultations, which were obtained via a so-called Freedom of Information request. Our analysis of the substance of information strategies reveals that the two policy phases constitute “shifting battlegrounds,” where firms first seek to influence what is included and excluded in the legislation, after which they engage the more specific interests of other stakeholders. Our main theoretical contribution concerns the identification of two distinct information strategies. Furthermore, we point at the need for more attention for institutional procedures and for the role of other stakeholders’ lobbying activities in CPA research.},
}

Save .bib

Cultural Heritage Branding – Societal Costs and Benefits external link

Senftleben, M.

Research Handbook on the Law and Economics of Trademark Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023, pp: 178-193, ISBN: 9781786430465

Abstract

The adoption of cultural heritage signs as trademarks entails several risks that must not be underestimated. Instead of enriching language and rhetoric devices, trademark protection restricts the freedom of future generations of authors to use affected cultural signs for new literary and artistic productions. Trademark protection means that one player in the communication process has strong incentives to invest in the development of her own messages and the suppression of the messages of others. Hence, the discourse surrounding affected cultural signs is no longer as open and free as it was before. Invoking broad protection against confusion and dilution, the trademark owner can take steps to censor artistic expressions that interfere with her branding strategy. The grant of trademark rights will also lead to a commercial redefinition and devaluation of affected cultural heritage material. Once a public domain sign is no longer exclusively linked with its cultural background in the mind of the audience, an artist cannot avoid the evocation of both cultural and commercial connotations. The addition of undesirable marketing messages tarnishes the cultural dimension of the affected sign. It will erode the sign’s artistic meaning and discourse potential over time and minimize the benefits – in the sense of impulses for societal renewal – which society could have derived from critical reflections on the cultural symbol and related societal conditions.

Links

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786430472

RIS

TY  - CHAP
AU  - Senftleben, M.
PY  - 2023
DA  - 2023-02-05
T1  - Cultural Heritage Branding – Societal Costs and Benefits
SP  - 178-193
UR  - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4399942
DO  - https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786430472
AB  - The adoption of cultural heritage signs as trademarks entails several risks that must not be underestimated. Instead of enriching language and rhetoric devices, trademark protection restricts the freedom of future generations of authors to use affected cultural signs for new literary and artistic productions. Trademark protection means that one player in the communication process has strong incentives to invest in the development of her own messages and the suppression of the messages of others. Hence, the discourse surrounding affected cultural signs is no longer as open and free as it was before. Invoking broad protection against confusion and dilution, the trademark owner can take steps to censor artistic expressions that interfere with her branding strategy. The grant of trademark rights will also lead to a commercial redefinition and devaluation of affected cultural heritage material. Once a public domain sign is no longer exclusively linked with its cultural background in the mind of the audience, an artist cannot avoid the evocation of both cultural and commercial connotations. The addition of undesirable marketing messages tarnishes the cultural dimension of the affected sign. It will erode the sign’s artistic meaning and discourse potential over time and minimize the benefits – in the sense of impulses for societal renewal – which society could have derived from critical reflections on the cultural symbol and related societal conditions.
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Chapter{nokey,
	title = {Cultural Heritage Branding – Societal Costs and Benefits},
	author = {Senftleben, M.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786430472},
	year = {2023},
	date = {2023-02-05},
	pages = {178-193},
	abstract = {The adoption of cultural heritage signs as trademarks entails several risks that must not be underestimated. Instead of enriching language and rhetoric devices, trademark protection restricts the freedom of future generations of authors to use affected cultural signs for new literary and artistic productions. Trademark protection means that one player in the communication process has strong incentives to invest in the development of her own messages and the suppression of the messages of others. Hence, the discourse surrounding affected cultural signs is no longer as open and free as it was before. Invoking broad protection against confusion and dilution, the trademark owner can take steps to censor artistic expressions that interfere with her branding strategy. The grant of trademark rights will also lead to a commercial redefinition and devaluation of affected cultural heritage material. Once a public domain sign is no longer exclusively linked with its cultural background in the mind of the audience, an artist cannot avoid the evocation of both cultural and commercial connotations. The addition of undesirable marketing messages tarnishes the cultural dimension of the affected sign. It will erode the sign’s artistic meaning and discourse potential over time and minimize the benefits – in the sense of impulses for societal renewal – which society could have derived from critical reflections on the cultural symbol and related societal conditions.},
}

Save .bib

DPG Media et al vs. HowardsHome – A national ruling on DSM’s press publishers’ rights and TDM exceptions external link

Valk, E.G. & Toepoel, I.

Copyright

RIS

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Save .bib

Probing the production of quantum technologies to imagine its legal framework

Mittal, A.

Research Directions: Quantum Technologies, vol. 3, 2025

Abstract

Quantum technologies (QT) are being awaited with excitement. They are supported by many governments, the corporate sector, international bodies and technology forecasters. There is discursive investment as well in terms of creating expectations and laying down a vision for the ‘Second Quantum Revolution’. Science and technology studies are also playing their part to think of the quantum future along with philosophical discussions around it. These visions and expectations perform an implicit and latent function of steering policy proposals and governance. At the current stage of development of quantum technologies, a comprehensive and cogent legal framework is hard to envisage. As it is difficult to foresee the final shape of these technologies, a way to proceed can be to focus on the legal enquiry related to economic, political and policy factors which contribute to its material emergence. This can broaden the focus from thinking about its impact to contextualizing its production and development. Further, it allows a way of determining the extent to which social science and ethical frames can apply to the governance of QT, given the legal and practical realities of technology production and use. This article maps the myriad governance frameworks being envisaged to think about the future of QT. It zooms onto the discussion related to the access divide being framed for QT to understand the points of legal intervention. It uses the case of quantum computing to understand the way legal and practical policy solutions have been ideated. It highlights the way these solutions entrench power of digital infrastructure providers further. This seeks to motivate further work to expand the scope of a legal framework for QT.

Links

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/qut.2024.6

quantum technologies

RIS

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Mittal, A.
PY  - 2025
DA  - 2025-01-08
T1  - Probing the production of quantum technologies to imagine its legal framework
JO  - Research Directions: Quantum Technologies
VL  - 3
DO  - https://doi.org/10.1017/qut.2024.6
AB  - Quantum technologies (QT) are being awaited with excitement. They are supported by many governments, the corporate sector, international bodies and technology forecasters. There is discursive investment as well in terms of creating expectations and laying down a vision for the ‘Second Quantum Revolution’. Science and technology studies are also playing their part to think of the quantum future along with philosophical discussions around it. These visions and expectations perform an implicit and latent function of steering policy proposals and governance. At the current stage of development of quantum technologies, a comprehensive and cogent legal framework is hard to envisage. As it is difficult to foresee the final shape of these technologies, a way to proceed can be to focus on the legal enquiry related to economic, political and policy factors which contribute to its material emergence. This can broaden the focus from thinking about its impact to contextualizing its production and development. Further, it allows a way of determining the extent to which social science and ethical frames can apply to the governance of QT, given the legal and practical realities of technology production and use. This article maps the myriad governance frameworks being envisaged to think about the future of QT. It zooms onto the discussion related to the access divide being framed for QT to understand the points of legal intervention. It uses the case of quantum computing to understand the way legal and practical policy solutions have been ideated. It highlights the way these solutions entrench power of digital infrastructure providers further. This seeks to motivate further work to expand the scope of a legal framework for QT.
K1  - quantum technologies
ER  -

Save .RIS

Bibtex

Article{nokey,
	title = {Probing the production of quantum technologies to imagine its legal framework},
	author = {Mittal, A.},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.1017/qut.2024.6},
	year = {2025},
	date = {2025-01-08},
	journal = {Research Directions: Quantum Technologies},
	volume = {3},
	abstract = {Quantum technologies (QT) are being awaited with excitement. They are supported by many governments, the corporate sector, international bodies and technology forecasters. There is discursive investment as well in terms of creating expectations and laying down a vision for the ‘Second Quantum Revolution’. Science and technology studies are also playing their part to think of the quantum future along with philosophical discussions around it. These visions and expectations perform an implicit and latent function of steering policy proposals and governance. At the current stage of development of quantum technologies, a comprehensive and cogent legal framework is hard to envisage. As it is difficult to foresee the final shape of these technologies, a way to proceed can be to focus on the legal enquiry related to economic, political and policy factors which contribute to its material emergence. This can broaden the focus from thinking about its impact to contextualizing its production and development. Further, it allows a way of determining the extent to which social science and ethical frames can apply to the governance of QT, given the legal and practical realities of technology production and use. This article maps the myriad governance frameworks being envisaged to think about the future of QT. It zooms onto the discussion related to the access divide being framed for QT to understand the points of legal intervention. It uses the case of quantum computing to understand the way legal and practical policy solutions have been ideated. It highlights the way these solutions entrench power of digital infrastructure providers further. This seeks to motivate further work to expand the scope of a legal framework for QT.},
	keywords = {quantum technologies},
}

Save .bib

Top Keywords

Abstract

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

RIS

Bibtex

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex

RIS

Bibtex

Abstract

Links

RIS

Bibtex