Fashion Upcycling and the Human Right to a Healthy Environment: Trademark Protection Thwarting Sustainable Reuse? download
Fashion, healthy environment, Human rights, trade mark
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)
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
RIS
Bibtex
An EU Copyright Framework for Research: Opinion of the European Copyright Society external link
Abstract
Research and academic freedom are at the core of the EU project. Yet, the relationship between EU copyright law and research is intricate. Research and education interests have traditionally been recognized within copyright law to some degree, however, the current EU copyright acquis is not really conducive to an effective research environment. This jeopardises the fulfilment of the EU’s ambitions in the field.
Building on the pillars of action of the European Research Area (ERA) Policy Agenda 2022-2024 and its follow-up, the ECS emphasises the need for a copyright framework that fosters research, and supports the call for immediate action on the EU copyright framework to address the most pressing challenges it raises for European researchers and their institutions.
This Opinion stresses the need to ensure a proper balance between IP rights, protected under Article 17(2) CFREU, and the freedom of art and science (Article 13 CFREU), coupled with the ‘right to research’, as enshrined in international legal instruments (UDHR and ICESCR), the objectives of the EU treaties, and the CFREU and ECHR. Various EU and national legal instruments are in place that facilitate access and reuse of scientific works, but these have several shortcomings. They weaken the effective balance between copyright, research policy needs, and the fulfilment of ERA policy goals, including the EU Open Science agenda.
This opinion focuses on the flaws in key provisions aimed at balancing copyright and research needs: the general InfoSoc Directive research exception, the text and data mining exception of the CDSM Directive and national secondary publication rights. It also briefly assesses the interface between copyright and (research) data regulation. We propose several policy interventions to address the identified shortcomings. These include the introduction of an EU-wide secondary publication right with specific characteristics; the amendment of text and data mining exceptions; the creation of a general mandatory research exception overcoming the challenges raised by Article 5(3)(d) InfoSoc; and a more careful legislative drafting to reduce legal complexity and ensure consistency across copyright and data legislation.
Copyright, european copyright society, research
RIS
Bibtex
Public accountability and regulatory expectations for AI in journalism: qualitative evidence from focus groups with Dutch citizens
Abstract
As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to reshape society, its integration into journalism raises critical questions about transparency, accountability, and public trust. Existing AI regulations have largely been developed without meaningful public input, prompting concerns about whether current governance approaches adequately address societal expectations. This study investigates the expectations and concerns of Dutch citizens regarding mandatory AI disclosures in journalism through three focus groups (N = 21). We aimed for a broad sample of participants to ensure diversity in terms of age, gender, and education level. Key questions measured the main concerns about AI-generated content, why participants want to know if they are interacting with AI-generated content and which rights individuals would like to have in this context. The results reveal a preference for participatory regulatory processes and standardized transparency measures, such as the disclosure of sources. The results further underscore the wish to be able to hold news organizations and individual AI users accountable when regulations are breached. The findings can inform news professionals and regulators alike, for example, in the context of the implementation of the AI transparency obligations in the European AI Act.
Links
AI Regulation, Journalism
RIS
Bibtex
More Information Law Series Volumes Freely Available external link
Editorial: GenAI and the Copyright Three-Step Test – Do TDM Exceptions for AI Training Conflict With a Work’s Normal Exploitation? external link
Abstract
Text and data mining (TDM) for AI training can be regarded as the starting point of a complex process that impacts the market for human literary and artistic creations in different ways. The machine is only capable of mimicking human content after it had the opportunity to derive patterns for its own productions from myriad human creations that served as training resources. Once AI training has been completed and a generative AI (GenAI) system is brought to the market, AI output may support fruitful human/machine collaboration. However, it may also kill demand for the same human creativity that empowered the AI system to become a competitor in the first place. In the terminology of the ubiquitous three-step test in international and European copyright law, this latter challenge raises the question whether copyright exceptions permitting TDM for AI training cause a conflict with a work’s normal exploitation.
A closer inspection of the normal exploitation test shows that the chances of demonstrating a relevant conflict are slim in the case of AI training. Rightsholders seeking compensation for displacement effects caused by GenAI systems must resort to the final criterion of the three-step test and argue that the use for AI development unreasonably prejudices their legitimate interests. In practice, this means that copyright holders can hardly employ the three-step test as a tool to erode TDM exemptions altogether. They can only insist on the introduction of appropriate remuneration schemes to avoid unreasonable prejudice in cases of commercial AI training.
Links
Copyright, exploitation, GenAI, Text and Data Mining (TDM), three-step test