Generatieve AI – Is de tijd rijp voor een AI-heffing die inkomsten oplevert voor menselijke makers? download

Auteursrecht, iss. : 3, pp: 103-114, 2023

Abstract

Met de evolutie van generatieve AI-systemen zijn algoritmische producties op literair en artistiek gebied zo goed geworden dat ze menselijke creaties kunnen vervangen. Het lijkt onvermijdelijk dat de toenemende kracht van AI-systemen de markt voor menselijke literaire en artistieke creaties zal verstoren. Generatieve AI-systemen kunnen literaire en artistieke output veel sneller en goedkoper leveren dan menselijke makers. Het is daarom te voorzien dat auteurs van vlees en bloed te maken zullen krijgen met substitutie-effecten. Van journalistiek tot muziek en beeldende kunst: menselijke makers lopen het risico inkomsten te verliezen of zelfs hun baan kwijt te raken.

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Generatieve AI – Is de tijd rijp voor een AI-heffing die inkomsten oplevert voor menselijke makers?}, author = {Senftleben, M.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/nl/publicaties/generatieve-ai-is-de-tijd-rijp-voor-een-ai-heffing-die-inkomsten-oplevert-voor-menselijke-makers/auteursrecht_2023_3/}, year = {2023}, date = {2023-03-15}, journal = {Auteursrecht}, issue = {3}, abstract = {Met de evolutie van generatieve AI-systemen zijn algoritmische producties op literair en artistiek gebied zo goed geworden dat ze menselijke creaties kunnen vervangen. Het lijkt onvermijdelijk dat de toenemende kracht van AI-systemen de markt voor menselijke literaire en artistieke creaties zal verstoren. Generatieve AI-systemen kunnen literaire en artistieke output veel sneller en goedkoper leveren dan menselijke makers. Het is daarom te voorzien dat auteurs van vlees en bloed te maken zullen krijgen met substitutie-effecten. Van journalistiek tot muziek en beeldende kunst: menselijke makers lopen het risico inkomsten te verliezen of zelfs hun baan kwijt te raken.}, }

Is Spotify the New Radio? The Scope of the Right to Remuneration for “Secondary Uses” in Respect of Audio Streaming Services download

Gestaltung der Informationsrechtsordnung: Festschrift für Thomas Dreier zum 65. Geburtstag, C.H. Beck, 2023, pp: 161-176, ISBN: 9383406777790

Copyright, radio, remuneration, Spotify, streaming services

Bibtex

Chapter{nokey, title = {Is Spotify the New Radio? The Scope of the Right to Remuneration for “Secondary Uses” in Respect of Audio Streaming Services}, author = {Hugenholtz, P.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/nl/publications/is-spotify-the-new-radio-the-scope-of-the-right-to-remuneration-for-secondary-uses-in-respect-of-audio-streaming-services/is-spotify-making-available/}, year = {2023}, date = {2023-03-17}, keywords = {Copyright, radio, remuneration, Spotify, streaming services}, }

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 22 november 2022 (WM, Sovim SA / Luxembourg Business Registers) download

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, iss. : 6, num: 62, pp: 1048-1051, 2023

Abstract

Verzoeken om een prejudiciële beslissing krachtens artikel 267 VWEU, ingediend door de tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg (rechter in eerste aanleg Luxemburg, Luxemburg) bij beslissingen van 24 januari 2020 en 13 oktober 2020. Voorkoming van het gebruik van het financiële stelsel voor het witwassen van geld of terrorismefinanciering. Toegang van elk lid van de bevolking tot informatie over uiteindelijk begunstigden. Geldigheid. Eerbiediging van het privéleven en van het familie- en gezinsleven. Bescherming van persoonsgegevens.

Bibtex

Case note{nokey, title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 22 november 2022 (WM, Sovim SA / Luxembourg Business Registers)}, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/nl/publications/annotatie-bij-hof-van-justitie-van-de-eu-22-november-2022-wm-sovim-sa-luxembourg-business-registers/annotatie_nj_2023_62/}, year = {2023}, date = {2023-03-17}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, issue = {6}, number = {62}, abstract = {Verzoeken om een prejudiciële beslissing krachtens artikel 267 VWEU, ingediend door de tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg (rechter in eerste aanleg Luxemburg, Luxemburg) bij beslissingen van 24 januari 2020 en 13 oktober 2020. Voorkoming van het gebruik van het financiële stelsel voor het witwassen van geld of terrorismefinanciering. Toegang van elk lid van de bevolking tot informatie over uiteindelijk begunstigden. Geldigheid. Eerbiediging van het privéleven en van het familie- en gezinsleven. Bescherming van persoonsgegevens.}, }

SLAPPed by the GDPR: protecting public interest journalism in the face of GDPR-based strategic litigation against public participation

Journal of Media Law, vol. 14, iss. : 2, pp: 378-405, 2022

Abstract

Strategic litigation against public participation is a threat to public interest journalism. Although typically a defamation claim underpins a SLAPP, the GDPR may serve as an alternative basis. This paper explores how public interest journalism is protected, and could be better protected, from abusive GDPR proceedings. The GDPR addresses the tension between data protection and freedom of expression by providing for a journalistic exemption. However, narrow national implementations of this provision leave the GDPR open for abuse. By analysing GDPR proceedings against newspaper Forbes Hungary, the paper illustrates how the GDPR can be instrumentalised as a SLAPP strategy. As European anti-SLAPP initiatives are finetuned, abusive GDPR proceedings need to be recognised as emerging forms of SLAPPs, requiring more attention to inadequate engagement with European freedom of expression standards in national implementations of the GDPR, data protection authorities’ role in facilitating SLAPPs, and the chilling effects of GDPR sanctions.

Data protection, Freedom of expression, GDPR, journalistic exemption, SLAPPS

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {SLAPPed by the GDPR: protecting public interest journalism in the face of GDPR-based strategic litigation against public participation}, author = {Rucz, M.}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2022.2129614}, year = {2022}, date = {2022-10-10}, journal = {Journal of Media Law}, volume = {14}, issue = {2}, pages = {378-405}, abstract = {Strategic litigation against public participation is a threat to public interest journalism. Although typically a defamation claim underpins a SLAPP, the GDPR may serve as an alternative basis. This paper explores how public interest journalism is protected, and could be better protected, from abusive GDPR proceedings. The GDPR addresses the tension between data protection and freedom of expression by providing for a journalistic exemption. However, narrow national implementations of this provision leave the GDPR open for abuse. By analysing GDPR proceedings against newspaper Forbes Hungary, the paper illustrates how the GDPR can be instrumentalised as a SLAPP strategy. As European anti-SLAPP initiatives are finetuned, abusive GDPR proceedings need to be recognised as emerging forms of SLAPPs, requiring more attention to inadequate engagement with European freedom of expression standards in national implementations of the GDPR, data protection authorities’ role in facilitating SLAPPs, and the chilling effects of GDPR sanctions.}, keywords = {Data protection, Freedom of expression, GDPR, journalistic exemption, SLAPPS}, }

How platforms govern users’ copyright-protected content: Exploring the power of private ordering and its implications download

Quintais, J., De Gregorio, G. & Magalhães, J.C.
Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 48, 2023

Abstract

Online platforms provide primary points of access to information and other content in the digital age. They foster users’ ability to share ideas and opinions while offering opportunities for cultural and creative industries. In Europe, ownership and use of such expressions is partly governed by a complex web of legislation, sectoral self- and co-regulatory norms. To an important degree, it is also governed by private norms defined by contractual agreements and informal relationships between users and platforms. By adopting policies usually defined as Terms of Service and Community Guidelines, platforms almost unilaterally set use, moderation and enforcement rules, structures and practices (including through algorithmic systems) that govern the access and dissemination of protected content by their users. This private governance of essential means of access, dissemination and expression to (and through) creative content is hardly equitable, though. In fact, it is an expression of how platforms control what users – including users-creators – can say and disseminate online, and how they can monetise their content. As platform power grows, EU law is adjusting by moving towards enhancing the responsibility of platforms for content they host. One crucial example of this is Article 17 of the new Copyright Directive (2019/790), which fundamentally changes the regime and liability of “online content-sharing service providers” (OCSSPs). This complex regime, complemented by rules in the Digital Services Act, sets out a new environment for OCSSPs to design and carry out content moderation, as well as to define their contractual relationship with users, including creators. The latter relationship is characterized by significant power imbalance in favour of platforms, calling into question whether the law can and should do more to protect users-creators. This article addresses the power of large-scale platforms in EU law over their users’ copyright-protected content and its effects on the governance of that content, including on its exploitation and some of its implications for freedom of expression. Our analysis combines legal and empirical methods. We carry our doctrinal legal research to clarify the complex legal regime that governs platforms’ contractual obligations to users and content moderation activities, including the space available for private ordering, with a focus on EU law. From the empirical perspective, we conducted a thematic analysis of most versions of the Terms of Services published over time by the three largest social media platforms in number of users – Facebook, Instagram and YouTube – so as to identify and examine the rules these companies have established to regulate user-generated content, and the ways in which such provisions shifted in the past two decades. In so doing, we unveil how foundational this sort of regulation has always been to platforms’ functioning and how it contributes to defining a system of content exploitation.

CDSM Directive, Content moderation, Copyright, creators, Digital services act, online content, Online platforms, platform regulation, private ordering, terms of service

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {How platforms govern users’ copyright-protected content: Exploring the power of private ordering and its implications}, author = {Quintais, J. and De Gregorio, G. and Magalhães, J.C.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/nl/publications/how-platforms-govern-users-copyright-protected-content-exploring-the-power-of-private-ordering-and-its-implications/computer_law_and_security_review_2023/}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105792}, year = {2023}, date = {2023-02-24}, journal = {Computer Law & Security Review}, volume = {48}, pages = {}, abstract = {Online platforms provide primary points of access to information and other content in the digital age. They foster users’ ability to share ideas and opinions while offering opportunities for cultural and creative industries. In Europe, ownership and use of such expressions is partly governed by a complex web of legislation, sectoral self- and co-regulatory norms. To an important degree, it is also governed by private norms defined by contractual agreements and informal relationships between users and platforms. By adopting policies usually defined as Terms of Service and Community Guidelines, platforms almost unilaterally set use, moderation and enforcement rules, structures and practices (including through algorithmic systems) that govern the access and dissemination of protected content by their users. This private governance of essential means of access, dissemination and expression to (and through) creative content is hardly equitable, though. In fact, it is an expression of how platforms control what users – including users-creators – can say and disseminate online, and how they can monetise their content. As platform power grows, EU law is adjusting by moving towards enhancing the responsibility of platforms for content they host. One crucial example of this is Article 17 of the new Copyright Directive (2019/790), which fundamentally changes the regime and liability of “online content-sharing service providers” (OCSSPs). This complex regime, complemented by rules in the Digital Services Act, sets out a new environment for OCSSPs to design and carry out content moderation, as well as to define their contractual relationship with users, including creators. The latter relationship is characterized by significant power imbalance in favour of platforms, calling into question whether the law can and should do more to protect users-creators. This article addresses the power of large-scale platforms in EU law over their users’ copyright-protected content and its effects on the governance of that content, including on its exploitation and some of its implications for freedom of expression. Our analysis combines legal and empirical methods. We carry our doctrinal legal research to clarify the complex legal regime that governs platforms’ contractual obligations to users and content moderation activities, including the space available for private ordering, with a focus on EU law. From the empirical perspective, we conducted a thematic analysis of most versions of the Terms of Services published over time by the three largest social media platforms in number of users – Facebook, Instagram and YouTube – so as to identify and examine the rules these companies have established to regulate user-generated content, and the ways in which such provisions shifted in the past two decades. In so doing, we unveil how foundational this sort of regulation has always been to platforms’ functioning and how it contributes to defining a system of content exploitation.}, keywords = {CDSM Directive, Content moderation, Copyright, creators, Digital services act, online content, Online platforms, platform regulation, private ordering, terms of service}, }

Protecting creatives or impeding progress? Machine learning and the EU copyright framework external link

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2023

Copyright

Bibtex

Online publication{nokey, title = {Protecting creatives or impeding progress? Machine learning and the EU copyright framework}, author = {Keller, P.}, url = {https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2023/02/20/protecting-creatives-or-impeding-progress-machine-learning-and-the-eu-copyright-framework/}, year = {2023}, date = {2023-02-20}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {Copyright}, }

Gebruikersrechten door de achterdeur. Nationale implementaties van artikel 17 DSM-richtlijn en de uitspraak van het HvJ EU in de zaak Polen/EU (C-401/19) download

Auteursrecht, iss. : 1, pp: 12-17, 2023

Abstract

Meer dan drie en een half jaar na de aanname van de richtlijn Auteursrecht in de eengemaakte digitale markt (CDSM), en anderhalf jaar na de deadline voor de implementatie, blijft het effect van de meest controversiële bepaling ervan, artikel 17, grotendeels onduidelijk. Voor een buitenstaander is het nog steeds moeilijk om negatieve of positieve gevolgen te zien van de nieuwe aansprakelijkheidsregeling voor aanbieders van onlinediensten voor het delen van inhoud (OCSSPs), anders dan dat de overdreven beweringen dat artikel 17 ‘het einde van het internet zou betekenen of ‘de creatieve industrie zou redden’ onjuist zijn gebleken. In deze bijdrage wordt beschreven wat er met artikel 17 is gebeurd sinds het verstrijken van de implementatiedeadline. Wat weten we over nationale implementaties en de gevolgen daarvan voor platforms en hun gebruikers?

Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Auteursrecht

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Gebruikersrechten door de achterdeur. Nationale implementaties van artikel 17 DSM-richtlijn en de uitspraak van het HvJ EU in de zaak Polen/EU (C-401/19)}, author = {Keller, P.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/nl/publications/gebruikersrechten-door-de-achterdeur-nationale-implementaties-van-artikel-17-dsm-richtlijn-en-de-uitspraak-van-het-hvj-eu-in-de-zaak-polen-eu-c-401-19/auteursrecht_2023_1/}, year = {2023}, date = {2023-02-23}, journal = {Auteursrecht}, issue = {1}, abstract = {Meer dan drie en een half jaar na de aanname van de richtlijn Auteursrecht in de eengemaakte digitale markt (CDSM), en anderhalf jaar na de deadline voor de implementatie, blijft het effect van de meest controversiële bepaling ervan, artikel 17, grotendeels onduidelijk. Voor een buitenstaander is het nog steeds moeilijk om negatieve of positieve gevolgen te zien van de nieuwe aansprakelijkheidsregeling voor aanbieders van onlinediensten voor het delen van inhoud (OCSSPs), anders dan dat de overdreven beweringen dat artikel 17 ‘het einde van het internet zou betekenen of ‘de creatieve industrie zou redden’ onjuist zijn gebleken. In deze bijdrage wordt beschreven wat er met artikel 17 is gebeurd sinds het verstrijken van de implementatiedeadline. Wat weten we over nationale implementaties en de gevolgen daarvan voor platforms en hun gebruikers?}, keywords = {Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Auteursrecht}, }

ChatGPT and the AI Act external link

Helberger, N. & Diakopoulos, N.
Internet Policy Review, vol. 12, iss. : 1, 2023

Abstract

It is not easy being a tech regulator these days. The European institutions are working hard towards finalising the AI Act in autumn, and then generative AI systems like ChatGPT come along! In this essay, we comment the European AI Act by arguing that its current risk-based approach is too limited for facing ChatGPT & co.

Artificial intelligence, ChatGPT

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {ChatGPT and the AI Act}, author = {Helberger, N. and Diakopoulos, N.}, url = {https://policyreview.info/essay/chatgpt-and-ai-act}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.14763/2023.1.1682}, year = {2023}, date = {2023-02-16}, journal = {Internet Policy Review}, volume = {12}, issue = {1}, pages = {}, abstract = {It is not easy being a tech regulator these days. The European institutions are working hard towards finalising the AI Act in autumn, and then generative AI systems like ChatGPT come along! In this essay, we comment the European AI Act by arguing that its current risk-based approach is too limited for facing ChatGPT & co.}, keywords = {Artificial intelligence, ChatGPT}, }

Putting the DSA into Practice: Enforcement, Access to Justice and Global Implications external link

Verfassungsbooks, 2023, ISBN: 9783757517960

Abstract

The Digital Services Act was finally published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 27 October 2022. This publication marks the end of a years-long drafting and negotiation process, and opens a new chapter: that of its enforcement, practicable access to justice, and potential to set global precedents. The Act has been portrayed as Europe’s new „Digital Constitution“, which affirms the primacy of democratic rulemaking over the private transnational ordering mechanisms of Big Tech. With it, the European Union aims once again to set a global standard in the regulation of the digital environment. But will the Digital Services Act be able to live up to its expectations, and under what conditions?

big tech, DSA, enforcement

Bibtex

Book{nokey, title = {Putting the DSA into Practice: Enforcement, Access to Justice and Global Implications}, author = {van Hoboken, J. and Quintais, J. and Appelman, N. and Fahy, R. and Buri, I. and Straub, M.}, url = {https://verfassungsblog.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/vHoboken-et-al_Putting-the-DSA-into-Practice.pdf}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.17176/20230208-093135-0}, year = {2023}, date = {2023-02-17}, abstract = {The Digital Services Act was finally published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 27 October 2022. This publication marks the end of a years-long drafting and negotiation process, and opens a new chapter: that of its enforcement, practicable access to justice, and potential to set global precedents. The Act has been portrayed as Europe’s new „Digital Constitution“, which affirms the primacy of democratic rulemaking over the private transnational ordering mechanisms of Big Tech. With it, the European Union aims once again to set a global standard in the regulation of the digital environment. But will the Digital Services Act be able to live up to its expectations, and under what conditions?}, keywords = {big tech, DSA, enforcement}, }

Algorithmic News Diversity and Democratic Theory: Adding Agonism to the Mix

Digital Journalism, vol. 10, iss. : 10, pp: 1650-1670, 2022

Abstract

The role news recommenders can play in stimulating news diversity is receiving increasing amounts of attention. Democratic theory plays an important role in this debate because it helps explain why news diversity is important and which kinds of news diversity should be pursued. In this article, I observe that the current literature on news recommenders and news diversity largely draws on a narrow set of theories of liberal and deliberative democracy. Another strand of democratic theory often referred to as ‘agonism’ is often ignored. This, I argue, is a mistake. Liberal and deliberative theories of democracy focus on the question of how political disagreements and conflicts can be resolved in a rational and legitimate manner. Agonism, to the contrary, stresses the ineradicability of conflict and the need to make conflict productive. This difference in thinking about the purpose of democratic politics can also lead to new ways of thinking about the value of news diversity and role algorithmic news recommenders should play in promoting it. The overall aim of the article is (re)introduce agonistic theory to the news recommender context and to argue that agonism deserves more serious attention.

agonism, algorithmic news recommenders, Democracy, diversity, Media law, news recommenders

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Algorithmic News Diversity and Democratic Theory: Adding Agonism to the Mix}, author = {Sax, M.}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2114919}, year = {2022}, date = {2022-09-14}, journal = {Digital Journalism}, volume = {10}, issue = {10}, pages = {1650-1670}, abstract = {The role news recommenders can play in stimulating news diversity is receiving increasing amounts of attention. Democratic theory plays an important role in this debate because it helps explain why news diversity is important and which kinds of news diversity should be pursued. In this article, I observe that the current literature on news recommenders and news diversity largely draws on a narrow set of theories of liberal and deliberative democracy. Another strand of democratic theory often referred to as ‘agonism’ is often ignored. This, I argue, is a mistake. Liberal and deliberative theories of democracy focus on the question of how political disagreements and conflicts can be resolved in a rational and legitimate manner. Agonism, to the contrary, stresses the ineradicability of conflict and the need to make conflict productive. This difference in thinking about the purpose of democratic politics can also lead to new ways of thinking about the value of news diversity and role algorithmic news recommenders should play in promoting it. The overall aim of the article is (re)introduce agonistic theory to the news recommender context and to argue that agonism deserves more serious attention.}, keywords = {agonism, algorithmic news recommenders, Democracy, diversity, Media law, news recommenders}, }