Upcoming events in 2025:
| 6 February IViR Lecture Series The UK copyright law’s approach to issues generated by AI |
| 14 Februari Save the date! Symposium Mediaforum studenteneditie |
| 10-11 April AlgoSoc International Conference 2025 |
Latest News
Vacature: Onderzoeker bij het IViR
Heb je recent je Master Rechten afgerond of rond je die binnenkort af? Heb je aantoonbare affiniteit met informatierechtelijke onderwerpen zoals intellectuele eigendom, platformregulering, gegevensbescherming, data governance, uitingsvrijheid of AI? Vind je het leuk onderzoek te doen naar actuele vraagstukken in deze domeinen? Dan hebben wij de perfecte startersbaan voor jou!
Kristina Irion joins advisory board of Center on Privacy & Technology
Kristina Irion has joined the advisory board of the Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown Law.
Vacancy: PhD Candidate Generative AI in the Media
The overall goal of this project is to study the role and implications that the new regulatory framework has in realising public values and influencing the power dynamics and legal relationships in the context of the development and use of generative AI models and systems in the media context, with a focus on AI-generated illegal and harmful content.
Upcoming events
IViR Lecture Series: The UK copyright law’s approach to issues generated by AI
Amsterdam, The NetherlandsSave the date! Symposium Mediaforum studenteneditie
Leiden, The NetherlandsAlgoSoc International Conference 2025
The Future of Public Values in the Algorithmic Society
Amsterdam, The Netherlandshttps://algosoc.org/events/algos…Recente Publicaties
Shifting Battlegrounds: Corporate Political Activity in the EU General Data Protection Regulation
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
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.},
} Cultural Heritage Branding – Societal Costs and Benefits external link
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
Bibtex
Chapter{nokey,
title = {Cultural Heritage Branding – Societal Costs and Benefits},
author = {Senftleben, M.},
url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4399942},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786430472},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-02-05},
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.},
} DPG Media et al vs. HowardsHome – A national ruling on DSM’s press publishers’ rights and TDM exceptions external link
Copyright
Bibtex
Online publication{nokey,
title = {DPG Media et al vs. HowardsHome – A national ruling on DSM’s press publishers’ rights and TDM exceptions},
author = {Valk, E.G. and Toepoel, I.},
url = {https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2025/01/16/dpg-media-et-al-vs-howardshome-a-national-ruling-on-dsms-press-publishers-rights-and-tdm-exceptions/},
year = {2025},
date = {2025-01-16},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {Copyright},
} EU copyright law roundup – fourth trimester of 2024 external link
Links
Copyright
Bibtex
Online publication{nokey,
title = {EU copyright law roundup – fourth trimester of 2024},
author = {Trapova, A. and Quintais, J.},
url = {https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2025/01/06/eu-copyright-law-roundup-fourth-trimester-of-2024/},
year = {2025},
date = {2025-01-06},
journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog},
keywords = {Copyright},
} “Must-carry”, Special Treatment and Freedom of Expression on Online Platforms: A European Story
Abstract
This paper examines the role of "must-carry" obligations in the regulation of online platforms, arguing that these obligations are better understood as special treatment rules rather than direct analogues of traditional broadcasting regulation. By analysing the development of such rules within the European Union, particularly through the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), the paper explores how these provisions aim to safeguard freedom of expression, ensure access to trustworthy information, enhance media pluralism, and regulate platform behaviour. The analysis extends to national-level laws and court decisions in Germany, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Poland, illustrating how these countries have grappled with similar challenges in applying and contextualizing special treatment rules. Through a detailed examination of these frameworks, the paper critiques the risks of these rules, including their potential to entrench power imbalances, amplify state narratives, and complicate efforts to counter disinformation. Additionally, the paper highlights the broader implications of granting privileged status to legacy media and political actors, questioning whether such measures align with democratic principles and the rule of law. Ultimately, the paper argues that while these rules may offer a response to platform dominance, their implementation risks undermining the equality of speech and shifting the focus of freedom of expression toward a privilege for select groups.
The paper is currently under peer review so please contact the authors for a copy of the preprint. We'll upload it again once the review is complete.
Content moderation, Digital services act, EU law, European Media Freedom Act, must carry, platform regulation
Bibtex
Online publication{nokey,
title = {“Must-carry”, Special Treatment and Freedom of Expression on Online Platforms: A European Story},
author = {Kuczerawy, A. and Quintais, J.},
year = {2024},
date = {2024-12-19},
abstract = {This paper examines the role of \"must-carry\" obligations in the regulation of online platforms, arguing that these obligations are better understood as special treatment rules rather than direct analogues of traditional broadcasting regulation. By analysing the development of such rules within the European Union, particularly through the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), the paper explores how these provisions aim to safeguard freedom of expression, ensure access to trustworthy information, enhance media pluralism, and regulate platform behaviour. The analysis extends to national-level laws and court decisions in Germany, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Poland, illustrating how these countries have grappled with similar challenges in applying and contextualizing special treatment rules. Through a detailed examination of these frameworks, the paper critiques the risks of these rules, including their potential to entrench power imbalances, amplify state narratives, and complicate efforts to counter disinformation. Additionally, the paper highlights the broader implications of granting privileged status to legacy media and political actors, questioning whether such measures align with democratic principles and the rule of law. Ultimately, the paper argues that while these rules may offer a response to platform dominance, their implementation risks undermining the equality of speech and shifting the focus of freedom of expression toward a privilege for select groups.
The paper is currently under peer review so please contact the authors for a copy of the preprint. We\'ll upload it again once the review is complete.},
keywords = {Content moderation, Digital services act, EU law, European Media Freedom Act, must carry, platform regulation},
}