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 (191)
- 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 (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)
Patents and the Right to a Healthy Environment: An Outline of a Response to the Critics download
Intellectual Property and the Human Right to a Healthy Environment external link
Links
Human rights, Intellectual property
RIS
Bibtex
Balancing Intellectual Property Protection with the Human Right to a Healthy Environment: Internal and External Reconciliation Approaches download
healthy environment, Human rights, Intellectual property
RIS
Bibtex
Fashion Upcycling and the Human Right to a Healthy Environment: Trademark Protection Thwarting Sustainable Reuse? download
Fashion, healthy environment, Human rights, trade mark
RIS
Bibtex
Are the European TDM Exceptions Applicable to GenAI Training? Despite the Three-Step Test? external link
A Procedural Sedative: The GDPR’s Right to an Explanation download
Abstract
What remedies do you have when AI errs, when it discriminates, or harms you in some other way? How can we hold organizations accountable when they cause people harm during the development, distribution, or use of AI? Arguably, the first step is understanding how the system in question works. To this end, the right to an explanation, provided in EU
law under the GDPR and the AI Act, is one of the most important remedies individuals have to contest AI.
Links
AI Act, Artificial intelligence, GDPR
RIS
Bibtex
Trading nuance for scale? Platform observability and content governance under the DSA external link
Abstract
The Digital Services Act (DSA) marks a paradigmatic shift in platform governance, introducing mechanisms like the Statement of Reasons (SoRs) database to foster transparency and observability of platforms’ content moderation practices. This study investigates the DSA Transparency Database as a regulatory mechanism for enabling observability, focusing on the automation and territorial application of content moderation across the EU/EEA. By analysing 439 million SoRs from eight Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs), we find that the vast majority of content moderation decisions are enforced automatically and uniformly across the EU/EEA. We also identify significant discrepancies in content moderation strategies across VLOPs, with TikTok, YouTube and X exhibiting the most distinct practices, which are further analysed in the paper. Our findings reveal a strong correlation between automation and the speed of content moderation, automation and the territorial scope of decisions. We also highlight several limitations of the database, notably the lack of language-specific data and inconsistencies in how SoRs are reported by VLOPs. We conclude that despite such shortcomings, the DSA and its Transparency Database may enable a wider constellation of stakeholders to participate in platform governance, paving the way for more meaningful platform observability.
Links
Content moderation, Digital Services Act (DSA), platform governance, Transparency
RIS
Bibtex
Angemessene Vergütung insbesondere im Bereich Streaming und Plattform-Ökonomie/Reform des Vergütungssystems für gesetzlich erlaubte Nutzungen im Urheberrecht download
The EU’s Digital Sovereignty and Quantum Technologies: To What End? external link
Abstract
Digital sovereignty, as a core EU policy objective, conveys the urgency of reducing dependencies, safeguarding European values, and regaining control over data, infrastructure, and technologies through regulation, strategic investments and geopolitical partnerships. However, it is a broad term encompassing different elements, and achieving some form of digital sovereignty remains questionable. This paper argues that digital sovereignty is less about what the term tends to convey and more about legitimising points of control. First, we examine the evolution of sovereignty and resulting regulation in relation to digital infrastructures and technologies. Second, we focus on the less-studied field of quantum technologies, which has become a recent anchor point for EU digital sovereignty policy. We highlight how, underlying the efforts to assert control and attain independence, digital sovereignty operates performatively to construct the European identity and produces tangible effects, such as the allocation of funds towards uncertain technological goals and select European actors.
Digital sovereignty, quantum technologies