| Spui 25: The AI Gigafactory 10 March 2026 |
| IVIR Lecture Series: Does Information Law Suit Information Machines? 27 March 2026 |
IViR Summer Courses:
Latest News
Els De Busser presenting at the European Parliament (LIBE Committee)
On 24 February, Els De Busser (Associate Professor at IVIR and Programme Director of the Master Information Law) gave a presentation in front of the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE Committee).
Gabriela Trogrlić: From junior researcher to PhD candidate…
This month, Gabriela started as a PhD candidate at the Institute for Information Law (IViR). She holds bachelor’s degrees in Law and Philosophy from Erasmus University Rotterdam and a master’s degree in Information Law from the University of Amsterdam. After completing her studies, she worked as a junior researcher at IViR, contributing to projects on (decentralised) platform regulation, disinformation, freedom of expression, and the privacy and data protection implications of digital health initiatives for mobile populations.
Politico: EU tech enforcer tells officials not to be scared by US threats
POLITICO Europe reported about the keynote speech by Prabhat Agarwal (DG Connect, European Commission) at the DSA and Platform Regulation Conference on Monday 16 February in Amsterdam (University of Amsterdam).
Upcoming events
The AI Gigafactory
How the EU learned to stop worrying and love the hyperscaler
Amsterdam, The Netherlandshttps://spui25.nl/programma/the-…IViR Lecture Series: Does Information Law Suit Information Machines?
Amsterdam, The NetherlandsComputer Privacy and Data Protection (CPDP) Conference
Competing Visions Shared Futures
Brussels, Belgiumhttps://www.cpdpconferences.org/TILTing Perspectives 2026
Between Values and Innovation: Tech Governance in a Multicentric World
Tilburg, The Netherlandshttps://www.tilburguniversity.ed…ALAI Congress 2026: Copyright and Free Expression in the Age of Algorithms
The Hague, The Netherlandshttps://alai2026.org/Copyright’s Next Generation Event
The Hague, The Netherlandshttps://alai2026.org/#nextgenLatest publications
What environmental sensing means for the scope of the right to private life external link
Abstract
Environmental sensors measure and capture data about natural phenomena like gas, light and temperature. Traditionally core to scientific research and environmental governance, they have become strategic tools for climate action as they have advanced technologically. The European Union leverages data as a catalyst for the green transition policies of the European Green Deal (‘twin transition’). At the same time, the European Court of Human Rights recently recognised states’ positive obligations to mitigate the harmful effects of climate change for the effective protection of the right to private life. Whereas increasingly sophisticated environmental sensing, data capture and processing could be defended under Article 8, these systems could also be invasive of privacy. This paper explores and conceptualises these different relationships of the right to private life under Article 8 and how they apply to environmental sensing technologies. Building on this, the paper identifies potential ways in which the relationship between privacy and climate action could evolve further in the future.
Links
Privacy
RIS
Bibtex
The AI Act/Copyright Interface – A Success Formula for Reconciling the Societal Interest in Culturally Diverse AI With Copyright Values? download
Comment of the European Copyright Society on the request for preliminary ruling in Case C-250/25 (Like Company) external link
Text and Data Mining, Generative AI, and the Copyright Three-Step Test external link
Abstract
In the debate on copyright exceptions permitting text and data mining (“TDM”) for the development of generative AI systems, the so-called “three-step test” has become a centre of gravity. The test serves as a universal yardstick for assessing the compatibility of domestic copyright exceptions with international copyright law. However, it is doubtful whether the international three-step test is applicable at all. Arguably, TDM copies fall outside the scope of the international right of reproduction and go beyond the ambit of the test’s operation. Only if national or regional copyright legislation declares the test applicable, the question arises whether copyright exceptions supporting TDM for AI training constitute certain special cases that do not conflict with a work’s normal exploitation and do not unreasonably prejudice legitimate author or rightsholder interests. As the following analysis will show, rules permitting TDM for AI training can satisfy all test criteria. An opt-out opportunity for copyright owners bans the risk of a conflict with a work’s normal exploitation and an unreasonable prejudice from the outset. A clear focus on specific policy goals, such as the objective to support scientific research, adds conceptual contours that dispel concerns about incompliance. In the case of TDM provisions covering commercial AI development, equitable remuneration regimes can be introduced as a counterbalance to avoid an unreasonable prejudice.
Links
Copyright, Generative AI, Text and Data Mining (TDM), three-step test
RIS
Bibtex
Comment of the European Copyright Society on the request for preliminary ruling in Case C-250/25 (Like Company) external link
Abstract
The reference in Like Company v Google (Case C-250/25) is seen as a potential landmark case, giving the EU’s highest court the opportunity to define the scope and conditions of permitted artificial intelligence (AI) training and develop an infringement test for AI outputs. The European Copyright Society (ECS) urges the Court of Justice (sitting as a Grand Chamber) to exercise caution.
While the reference stems from a plausible complaint by a press publisher against the provider of an AI powered chatbot reproducing and communicating its editorial content, the implications of this problematic reference could be far-reaching.
(1) The reference is factually murky with respect to the technology and services at stake, conflating concepts of ‘chatbot’, ‘large language model’, and ‘search engine’.
(2) The reference fails to identify consistently the subject matter at stake, which is the press publishers’ right under Article 15 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (2019/790/EU, hereinafter CDSMD), not authorial works.
Specifically, the reference conflates questions relating to the training phase (Questions 2 and 3) with the legal characterisation of the use of press publications by an LLM-based chatbot (Question 4 but also Question 1, referring to the right of communication to the public and the right of reproduction under Directive 2001/29/EC, hereinafter InfoSoc Directive).
If the reference is found admissible, it is suggested that the Court of Justice should address jointly Questions 4 and 1, which relate to the legal characterisation of the use of press publications in the display. Here it is important to correctly understand next-token prediction in large language models, augmented retrieval technology (where the use of data does not generally form part of the learning process) as well as ‘online use’, defining the scope of the press publishers’ right under Article 15 of the CDSMD.
In the Opinion of the ECS, the ambiguous characterisation of a fast-moving technology may result in the failure to realise the societal benefits of AI as a potential general-purpose technology. There are risks that a rash decision will push Europe towards a licensing economy in which AI systems are offered as a service by (non-European) multinationals, without solving issues of equity such as creator consent and distribution of revenues.
Links
Copyright