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 (193)
- 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 (47)
- Fundamental rights (18)
- GDPR (22)
- Human rights (31)
- Intellectual property (30)
- Internet (24)
- Journalism (15)
- Kluwer Information Law Series (43)
- Licensing (13)
- Media law (28)
- Online platforms (20)
- Patent law (20)
- Personal data (35)
- Platforms (24)
- Privacy (326)
- Regulation (12)
- Social media (11)
- Software (10)
- Surveillance (11)
- Text and Data Mining (TDM) (20)
- Trademark law (13)
- Transparency (19)
Music Metadata as a Fundamental-Rights Question, or EU’s Positive Obligations to Secure Cultural Visibility and Equality Online external link
Abstract
Music metadata – credits, identifiers, language labels, territorial tags, and genre descriptors – functions as the operative infrastructure of streaming. It shapes what becomes searchable, recommendable, charted, and remunerated. This chapter argues that metadata is therefore not a neutral technical resource but a constitutional site where structural inequality is produced or mitigated. When metadata is sparse, standardised around dominant markets, or mis-specified, the resulting visibility and remuneration deficits disproportionately affect minority-language repertoires, music from smaller territories, field recordings and traditional archives, and women and non-binary creators. The chapter situates these “structural metadata harms” within the EU’s fundamental-rights framework, contending that Article 22 CFR (respect for cultural and linguistic diversity), read together with Articles 13 (artistic freedom), 17(2) (intellectual property), 21 (non-discrimination), and 23 (gender equality), constrains and guides metadata governance. Drawing on CJEU rights-balancing and ECtHR doctrines of positive obligations and indirect discrimination (via Article 52(3) CFR), it develops the claim that EU regulatory and standard-setting choices must secure the practical and effective enjoyment of cultural visibility and equal rights-realisation online.
RIS
Bibtex
LAION Round 2: Machine-Readable but Still Not Actionable — The Lack of Progress on TDM Opt-Outs – Part 2 external link
LAION Round 2: Machine-Readable but Still Not Actionable — The Lack of Progress on TDM Opt-Outs – Part 1 external link
Business-to-government datadelen via een derde. Onderzoek naar een generiek juridisch-technisch data governance raamwerk download
Abstract
Bedrijven bezitten gegevens die een (lokale) overheid kunnen helpen een meer accuraat en evidence-based beleid te vormen en uit te voeren. Bestaat er een werkwijze waarop een gemeente toegang kan verkrijgen tot gegevens die bedrijven bezitten, en kunnen gemeenten die vervolgens op verantwoorde wijze verwerken zonder de rechten, belangen en het vertrouwen van de betrokken bedrijven, consumenten en burgers te beperken of te schaden? Op dit moment vindt business-to-government gegevensdeling (‘B2G’) op beperkte schaal plaats, en voor zover het al gebeurt, geschiedt het veelal op ad hoc basis. Een dergelijke onsystematische toegang tot gegevens is problematisch omdat deze een meer georganiseerde en voorspelbare ondersteuning van accuraat, evidence-based beleid kan belemmeren. De EU-wetgever heeft wetgeving aangenomen (Data Act) om B2G een kader te bieden, maar dat biedt nog niet de gewenste duidelijkheid – noch voor gemeenten, noch voor bedrijven.
Bedrijven zijn terughoudend met het delen van gegevens, omdat met gegevens economische, technische, politieke en juridische risico’s gemoeid zijn. Deze en andere hindernissen zouden deels mogelijk kunnen worden overkomen door het delen van de gegevens te laten verlopen via een derde partij die erop gericht is de gegevensdeling tussen bedrijven en de gemeente op een juridisch correcte wijze en daarmee betrouwbare manier te (laten) delen. Deze derde, die we ‘data intermediary’ noemen mag, teneinde een dergelijke dienst aan bedrijven als de gemeente te kunnen bieden, deze gegevens alleen delen volgens een toegankelijk, transparant en handhaafbaar en specifiek op de situatie gericht juridisch data governance regime. De onlangs in werking getreden EU-Data Governanceverordening (‘DGA’) biedt data intermediaries enkele normen, maar nog geen sluitend data governance regime.
Omdat er geen sluitende regelgeving is voor een dergelijk data govenance regime voor B2G via een data intermediary (B2G3P) dat de rechten en belangen van alle belanghebbenden, met name van hen die hun gegevens beschikbaar stellen, op juridische wijze reguleert, onderzoek ik in deze paper of een generiek data governance raamwerk ontwikkeld kan worden, dat juridische, organisatorische en technische voorwaarden die aan een dergelijk raamwerk moeten worden gesteld, op adequate wijze waar kan maken. We concluderen voorlopig het volgende:
i. een geschikt generiek juridisch data governance raamwerk dient de juridische, organisatorische en technische (‘socio-technische’) aard van gegevensdeling tussen bedrijven, lokale overheden en de data intermediary op passende wijze te reguleren;
ii. dat de EU-wetgeving enkele grondlijnen maar geen sluitend kader voor een generiek juridisch data governance raamwerk biedt;
iii. dat bestaande wetgeving op coherente en consistente wijze moet worden toegepast maar dat dit rechtsonzekerheid met zich meebrengt voor lokale overheden; en
iv. dat bij het ontwikkelen van een generiek juridisch data governance raamwerk een effectieve mix van juridische, organisatorische en technische (‘socio-technische’) aspecten moet worden geadresseerd en dat daarvoor passende socio-technische mechanismen moeten worden ontworpen.
RIS
Bibtex
‘Must-carry’, special treatment and freedom of expression on online platforms: a European story external link
Abstract
This paper examines the evolution and implications of ‘must-carry’ obligations in the regulation of online platforms, with a focus on Europe. These obligations, which restrict platforms’ discretion to remove or deprioritise certain content, represent a novel regulatory response to the growing power of platforms in shaping public discourse. The analysis traces developments at EU and national levels. At the EU level, it considers rejected must-carry proposals during the drafting of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the adoption of Article 18 of the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), which grants privileges to recognised media service providers. At the national level, it examines Germany’s prohibition on content discrimination, the UK’s Online Safety Act, and Poland’s abandoned legislative proposal on freedom of expression online. Case law from courts in the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, and Poland further illustrates the emergence of judicially crafted duties resembling must-carry obligations. The paper argues that these measures are best understood as special treatment rules that privilege particular speakers, notably media organisations and politicians, by limiting platform autonomy in content moderation. While intended to safeguard pluralism and access to trustworthy information, such rules risk creating a two-tier system of expression in which established voices receive disproportionate protection while ordinary users remain vulnerable. Protections for politicians raise concerns about shielding powerful actors from justified moderation, whereas media privileges, though more defensible, remain limited in scope and potentially counterproductive, especially when exploited by outlets disseminating disinformation. The conclusion is that compelled inclusion and preferential treatment are unlikely to offer sustainable solutions to the structural imbalances between platforms, media providers, and politicians. More durable approaches should focus on strengthening journalism through financial and structural support, fostering innovation and local media, and prioritising user empowerment measures. Only systemic safeguards of this kind can effectively promote pluralism, accountability, and resilience in the digital public sphere.
Digital Services Act (DSA), European Media Freedom Act, Freedom of expression, must carry, platform regulation
RIS
Bibtex
Author remuneration in the streaming age – exploitation rights and fair remuneration rules in the EU external link
Abstract
The shift from linear to on-demand consumption of copyright content on platforms like Spotify, Netflix and YouTube raises the question of whether authors and performers receive a fair share of streaming revenues. While industry rights holders have the opportunity to control access to protected content, it is often not the creators themselves who benefit from growing streaming revenue.
The issue is global. In the EU, debates over the 2019 Copyright Directive led to harmonized rules on fair author remuneration. In 2023, the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries urged the World Intellectual Property Organization to analyse creators’ earnings from digital content. South Africa followed suit with its Copyright Amendment Bill in 2024. Together, these regional, international and national initiatives underscore the central role of remuneration in today’s copyright and streaming debates.
This analysis focuses on the EU legal framework, which provides mechanisms to secure fair remuneration for authors and performers. These include rules for licensing agreements – such as contract adjustments, transparency obligations, revocation rights and jurisdiction norms – as well as a liability regime for user-generated content encouraging rights clearance. Mandatory collective licensing and remunerated copyright exceptions also help generate revenue for creators. Section I lays the groundwork for the discussion of these legal instruments. Section II reviews exclusive rights applicable to streaming. Section III describes the different legal mechanisms to ensure creators’ fair remuneration – from individual and mandatory collective licensing to remunerated copyright exceptions. Section IV explores producers’ bargaining power in streaming platform contexts, and Section V summarizes the results.
Copyright, EU, exploitation, remuneration, streaming services
RIS
Bibtex
Freedom of Expression and Intellectual Property before the European Courts external link
Abstract
This paper presents the second chapter of the forthcoming book Human Rights and Intellectual Property before the European Courts: A Case Commentary on the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, the first comprehensive guide to how Europe’s highest courts address the intersection of intellectual property (IP) and human rights. This chapter analyses the relationship between freedom of expression and intellectual property in European law, focusing on how IP rights are balanced against the privileged yet limited right to free expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 11 of the EU Charter. It outlines the three-part test of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) for assessing interferences with freedom of expression and situates IP protection within the “rights of others” that may justify restrictions.
The chapter then examines copyright and trademark law as the two principal areas in which this conflict has arisen before the ECtHR and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In copyright, it highlights the growing engagement of both courts with freedom of expression claims and the divergence between the ECtHR’s acceptance of freedom of expression as an external limitation on copyright and the CJEU’s preference for internal balancing through copyright exceptions interpreted in the light of fundamental rights. In trademark law, it explores disputes over third-party expressive uses and refusals of trademark registration, noting the courts’ increasingly nuanced and contextual approach. Overall, the chapter shows how freedom of expression has become a central, though differently framed, constraint on IP protection in Europe.
Links
Freedom of expression, Intellectual property
RIS
Bibtex
Fundamental Rights in Out-of-Court Dispute Settlement under the Digital Services Act external link
Abstract
This paper argues that certified out-of-court dispute settlement (ODS) bodies under Article 21 of the Digital Services Act (DSA) should apply a structured fundamental rights review to platform content moderation, operationalised through the concept of case salience. Situating ODS within the DSA's broader regulatory architecture-particularly Articles 14(4), 17, and 20-the paper contends that Article 21 provides the procedural complement to Article 14(4)'s substantive duty to enforce terms of service "diligently, objectively and proportionately, with due regard to fundamental rights." Rather than extending the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR) horizontally in a direct sense, ODS bodies give effect to Charter-conforming statutory obligations owed by platforms, interpreted in light of Article 52(1) CFR. Drawing on jurisprudence from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), and national courts, the paper shows how freedom of expression and information interacts with countervailing rights-such as the freedom to conduct a business, privacy and data protection, and human dignity-in the context of online moderation. It proposes an intensity-of-review model: a deeper, meritsbased proportionality analysis for high-impact cases (e.g. political speech, account suspensions, issues of systemic relevance), and a lighter, procedural-sufficiency check for routine disputes. The paper emphasises that ODS remains non-judicial and operates without prejudice to Article 47 CFR and the availability of national court remedies. Over time, reasoned ODS decisions could evolve into a body of soft law, enhancing consistency and transparency in platform accountability. Ultimately, ODS bodies under the DSA represent a novel experiment in multi-actor rights protection. Their success will depend on whether they can reconcile accessibility, efficiency, and rights-based rigour, ensuring that content moderation in Europe evolves in line with the constitutional values of the Charter.
Content moderation, Digital Services Act (DSA), Fundamental rights