Cultural Heritage Branding – Societal Costs and Benefits external link

Research Handbook on the Law and Economics of Trademark Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023, pp: 178-193, ISBN: 9781786430465

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.

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

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2025

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

Trapova, A. & Quintais, J.
Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2025

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

Kuczerawy, A. & Quintais, J.
2024

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}, }

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 7 december 2023 (OQ \ Land Hessen) download

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, iss. : 36, num: 334, pp: 7098, 2024

Bibtex

Case note{nokey, title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie van de EU 7 december 2023 (OQ \\ Land Hessen)}, author = {Dommering, E.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publications/annotatie-bij-hof-van-justitie-van-de-eu-7-december-2023-oq-land-hessen/annotatie_nj_2024_334/}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-12-19}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, issue = {36}, number = {334}, }

Financial Regulation, Political Context, and Technology in the European Union download

Barbereau, T., Weigl, L. & Pocher, N.
Decentralization Technologies: Financial Sector in Change, Springer, 2024, Series: Financial Innovation and Technology, ISBN: 978-3-031-66046-7

Abstract

Three decades after the establishment of the European Single Market, the ongoing digital transformation of its core socioeconomic pillars generates regulatory shifts. These shifts are also initiated by geopolitical pressures. Within its data-driven economy, innovative financial solutions and technologies strive to unfold against the backdrop of what is now a multilayered, complex regulatory environment. This chapter dismantles this complexity by outlining the main regulatory building blocks relevant to the European Union’s financial industry vis-à-vis the policy goals of digital and economic sovereignty. Given the focus of this book on decentralization technologies in the financial industry, it then contextualizes the impact of such policy on these and discusses the present dynamics between regulation and innovative technology.

Bibtex

Chapter{nokey, title = {Financial Regulation, Political Context, and Technology in the European Union}, author = {Barbereau, T. and Weigl, L. and Pocher, N.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publications/financial-regulation-political-context-and-technology-in-the-european-union/978-3-031-66047-4_2/}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-66047-4}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-12-11}, abstract = {Three decades after the establishment of the European Single Market, the ongoing digital transformation of its core socioeconomic pillars generates regulatory shifts. These shifts are also initiated by geopolitical pressures. Within its data-driven economy, innovative financial solutions and technologies strive to unfold against the backdrop of what is now a multilayered, complex regulatory environment. This chapter dismantles this complexity by outlining the main regulatory building blocks relevant to the European Union’s financial industry vis-à-vis the policy goals of digital and economic sovereignty. Given the focus of this book on decentralization technologies in the financial industry, it then contextualizes the impact of such policy on these and discusses the present dynamics between regulation and innovative technology.}, }

Generative AI and Creative Commons Licences – The Application of Share Alike Obligations to Trained Models, Curated Datasets and AI Output external link

JIPITEC, vol. 15, iss. : 3, 2024

Abstract

This article maps the impact of Share Alike (SA) obligations and copyleft licensing on machine learning, AI training, and AI-generated content. It focuses on the SA component found in some of the Creative Commons (CC) licences, distilling its essential features and layering them onto machine learning and content generation workflows. Based on our analysis, there are three fundamental challenges related to the life cycle of these licences: tracing and establishing copyright-relevant uses during the development phase (training), the interplay of licensing conditions with copyright exceptions and the identification of copyright-protected traces in AI output. Significant problems can arise from several concepts in CC licensing agreements (‘adapted material’ and ‘technical modification’) that could serve as a basis for applying SA conditions to trained models, curated datasets and AI output that can be traced back to CC material used for training purposes. Seeking to transpose Share Alike and copyleft approaches to the world of generative AI, the CC community can only choose between two policy approaches. On the one hand, it can uphold the supremacy of copyright exceptions. In countries and regions that exempt machine-learning processes from the control of copyright holders, this approach leads to far-reaching freedom to use CC resources for AI training purposes. At the same time, it marginalises SA obligations. On the other hand, the CC community can use copyright strategically to extend SA obligations to AI training results and AI output. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to use rights reservation mechanisms, such as the opt-out system available in EU copyright law, and subject the use of CC material in AI training to SA conditions. Following this approach, a tailor-made licence solution can grant AI developers broad freedom to use CC works for training purposes. In exchange for the training permission, however, AI developers would have to accept the obligation to pass on – via a whole chain of contractual obligations – SA conditions to recipients of trained models and end users generating AI output.

ai, Copyright, creative commons, Licensing, machine learning

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Generative AI and Creative Commons Licences – The Application of Share Alike Obligations to Trained Models, Curated Datasets and AI Output}, author = {Szkalej, K. and Senftleben, M.}, url = {https://www.jipitec.eu/jipitec/article/view/415}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-12-13}, journal = {JIPITEC}, volume = {15}, issue = {3}, pages = {}, abstract = {This article maps the impact of Share Alike (SA) obligations and copyleft licensing on machine learning, AI training, and AI-generated content. It focuses on the SA component found in some of the Creative Commons (CC) licences, distilling its essential features and layering them onto machine learning and content generation workflows. Based on our analysis, there are three fundamental challenges related to the life cycle of these licences: tracing and establishing copyright-relevant uses during the development phase (training), the interplay of licensing conditions with copyright exceptions and the identification of copyright-protected traces in AI output. Significant problems can arise from several concepts in CC licensing agreements (‘adapted material’ and ‘technical modification’) that could serve as a basis for applying SA conditions to trained models, curated datasets and AI output that can be traced back to CC material used for training purposes. Seeking to transpose Share Alike and copyleft approaches to the world of generative AI, the CC community can only choose between two policy approaches. On the one hand, it can uphold the supremacy of copyright exceptions. In countries and regions that exempt machine-learning processes from the control of copyright holders, this approach leads to far-reaching freedom to use CC resources for AI training purposes. At the same time, it marginalises SA obligations. On the other hand, the CC community can use copyright strategically to extend SA obligations to AI training results and AI output. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to use rights reservation mechanisms, such as the opt-out system available in EU copyright law, and subject the use of CC material in AI training to SA conditions. Following this approach, a tailor-made licence solution can grant AI developers broad freedom to use CC works for training purposes. In exchange for the training permission, however, AI developers would have to accept the obligation to pass on – via a whole chain of contractual obligations – SA conditions to recipients of trained models and end users generating AI output.}, keywords = {ai, Copyright, creative commons, Licensing, machine learning}, }

When public values and user-centricity in e-government collide – A systematic review download

Weigl, L., Roth, T., Amard, A. & Zavolokina, L.
Government Information Quarterly, vol. 41, iss. : 3, num: 101956, 2024

Abstract

User-centricity in e-government is a double-edged sword. While it helps governments design digital services tailored to the needs of citizens, it may also increase the burden on users and deepen the digital divide. From an institutional perspective, these fundamental conflicts are inevitable. To better understand the role and effect of user-centricity in e-government, this paper analyses academic literature on user-centricity and public values. The analysis leads to three main insights: First, there is a conflict in citizen representation that may result from the normative dominance of decision-makers. Second, we identify an accountability conflict that can prevent usercentric innovation from thriving in a highly institutionalized environment. Third, we identify a pluralism conflict that emerges from a clash between the reality of a diverse society and the assumed homogeneity of actors. The need to address these conflicts increases with rapid technological innovation, such as distributed ledger tech nologies, artificial intelligence, and trust infrastructures. These technologies put the user at the center stage and permeate aspects of social life beyond government. In response to these insights, we outline suggestions for further research and practice.

Informatierecht, Overheidsinformatie

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {When public values and user-centricity in e-government collide – A systematic review}, author = {Weigl, L. and Roth, T. and Amard, A. and Zavolokina, L.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/when-public-values-and-user-centricity-in-e-government-collide-a-systematic-review/giq_2024/}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101956}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-09-03}, journal = {Government Information Quarterly}, volume = {41}, issue = {3}, number = {101956}, pages = {}, abstract = {User-centricity in e-government is a double-edged sword. While it helps governments design digital services tailored to the needs of citizens, it may also increase the burden on users and deepen the digital divide. From an institutional perspective, these fundamental conflicts are inevitable. To better understand the role and effect of user-centricity in e-government, this paper analyses academic literature on user-centricity and public values. The analysis leads to three main insights: First, there is a conflict in citizen representation that may result from the normative dominance of decision-makers. Second, we identify an accountability conflict that can prevent usercentric innovation from thriving in a highly institutionalized environment. Third, we identify a pluralism conflict that emerges from a clash between the reality of a diverse society and the assumed homogeneity of actors. The need to address these conflicts increases with rapid technological innovation, such as distributed ledger tech nologies, artificial intelligence, and trust infrastructures. These technologies put the user at the center stage and permeate aspects of social life beyond government. In response to these insights, we outline suggestions for further research and practice.}, keywords = {Informatierecht, Overheidsinformatie}, }

The right to trust your vote: Cybersecurity, human rights and electronic voting download

van Daalen, O. & Hoekstra, N.
2024

cybersecurity, Electronic voting, Human rights

Bibtex

Report{nokey, title = {The right to trust your vote: Cybersecurity, human rights and electronic voting}, author = {van Daalen, O. and Hoekstra, N.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publications/the-right-to-trust-your-vote-cybersecurity-human-rights-and-electronic-voting/vandaalenhoekstra2024a/}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-12-05}, keywords = {cybersecurity, Electronic voting, Human rights}, }

Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 9 maart 2021, Hof van Justitie EU 22 juni 2021 & Hoge Raad 27 januari 2023 download

Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, iss. : 34, num: 314, pp: 6726-6728, 2024

case law, Copyright

Bibtex

Case note{nokey, title = {Annotatie bij Hof van Justitie EU 9 maart 2021, Hof van Justitie EU 22 juni 2021 & Hoge Raad 27 januari 2023}, author = {Hugenholtz, P.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publications/annotatie-bij-hof-van-justitie-eu-9-maart-2021-hof-van-justitie-eu-22-juni-2021-hoge-raad-27-januari-2023-stichting-brein-news-service-europe/annotatie_nj_2024_314/}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-12-05}, journal = {Nederlandse Jurisprudentie}, issue = {34}, number = {314}, keywords = {case law, Copyright}, }