Publications

Top Keywords

“Must-carry”, Special Treatment and Freedom of Expression on Online Platforms: A European Story external link

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.

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.}, url = {https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5064244}, 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.}, 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

Dommering, E.
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

Szkalej, K. & Senftleben, M.
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

Hugenholtz, P.
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}, }

Demonopolizing the European Public Domain: Google Books Exclusivity Clauses and the Open Data Directive download

Arends, A., Bont, A. de & Rosenberg, M.
2024

Abstract

This report is the result of a collaboration between Open Future and the Glushko & Samuelson Information Law and Policy Lab at the Law Faculty of the University of Amsterdam. Open Future is interested in understanding the evolving landscape around the use of public domain and openly licensed works for the purpose of training Generative AI systems. One of the largest sources of such data are the digitization partnerships between a number of European libraries and Google that were launched from 2010 onwards. These digitization partnerships were controversial at the time because they contain clauses that ensure that Google enjoys an exclusivity period with regard to commercial use of the digitized works. As a result, Google has a privileged position when it comes to access to large swaths of the European public domain. In the context of the emergence of generative AI as a new technological paradigm, access to this data likely constitutes a signicant competitive advantage that is hard to reconcile with both the public domain status of these collections and policies aimed at providing a level playing eld for smaller and European AI developers. In April 2024, Open Future approached the Information Law and Policy Lab with a request to examine the legal status of the datasets produced by the Google Books project in regard to their exclusivity clauses.

Bibtex

Report{nokey, title = {Demonopolizing the European Public Domain: Google Books Exclusivity Clauses and the Open Data Directive}, author = {Arends, A. and Bont, A. de and Rosenberg, M.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publications/demonopolizing-the-european-public-domain-google-books-exclusivity-clauses-and-the-open-data-directive/241127_demonopolizing-the-european-public-domain/}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-11-14}, abstract = {This report is the result of a collaboration between Open Future and the Glushko & Samuelson Information Law and Policy Lab at the Law Faculty of the University of Amsterdam. Open Future is interested in understanding the evolving landscape around the use of public domain and openly licensed works for the purpose of training Generative AI systems. One of the largest sources of such data are the digitization partnerships between a number of European libraries and Google that were launched from 2010 onwards. These digitization partnerships were controversial at the time because they contain clauses that ensure that Google enjoys an exclusivity period with regard to commercial use of the digitized works. As a result, Google has a privileged position when it comes to access to large swaths of the European public domain. In the context of the emergence of generative AI as a new technological paradigm, access to this data likely constitutes a signicant competitive advantage that is hard to reconcile with both the public domain status of these collections and policies aimed at providing a level playing eld for smaller and European AI developers. In April 2024, Open Future approached the Information Law and Policy Lab with a request to examine the legal status of the datasets produced by the Google Books project in regard to their exclusivity clauses.}, }

The New F-word: The case of fragmentation in Dutch cybersecurity governance external link

Mirzaei, P. & Busser, E. de
Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 55, num: 106032, 2024

Abstract

The fragmentation of the Dutch cybersecurity government landscape is a widely discussed phenomenon among politicians, policy makers, and cybersecurity specialists. Remarkably though, a negative narrative is underlying the idea of fragmentation, suggesting that we are dealing with a serious problem. A problem that has the potential of impeding cybersecurity governance in the Netherlands. This research zooms in on how cybersecurity governance is organised within the central government, and which organisations are concerned with the creation, implementation, and oversight of cybersecurity policies vis à vis Dutch society. This article provides an overview of all central government organisations (de Rijksoverheid) that are involved in cybersecurity governance on a strategic level. This research provides the first step in doctoral research into the possible implications of the fragmentation of cybersecurity governance in the Dutch central government, and how this fragmentation could potentially impact policy creation, implementation, and oversight. Based on the mapping of this governance landscape, it set out to measure fragmentation based on the number of units or organisations that are concerned with cybersecurity governance in the central government on a strategic level. This study has found that based on Boyne's (1992) notion of fragmentation and the Dutch governments’ definition of tiers, the Dutch cybersecurity governance landscape could indeed, when meticulously following Boyne's counting procedure, be regarded as fragmented.

cybersecurity, fragmentation, Internet governance, the netherlands

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {The New F-word: The case of fragmentation in Dutch cybersecurity governance}, author = {Mirzaei, P. and Busser, E. de}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364924000980}, doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2024.106032}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-11-15}, journal = {Computer Law & Security Review}, volume = {55}, number = {106032}, pages = {}, abstract = {The fragmentation of the Dutch cybersecurity government landscape is a widely discussed phenomenon among politicians, policy makers, and cybersecurity specialists. Remarkably though, a negative narrative is underlying the idea of fragmentation, suggesting that we are dealing with a serious problem. A problem that has the potential of impeding cybersecurity governance in the Netherlands. This research zooms in on how cybersecurity governance is organised within the central government, and which organisations are concerned with the creation, implementation, and oversight of cybersecurity policies vis à vis Dutch society. This article provides an overview of all central government organisations (de Rijksoverheid) that are involved in cybersecurity governance on a strategic level. This research provides the first step in doctoral research into the possible implications of the fragmentation of cybersecurity governance in the Dutch central government, and how this fragmentation could potentially impact policy creation, implementation, and oversight. Based on the mapping of this governance landscape, it set out to measure fragmentation based on the number of units or organisations that are concerned with cybersecurity governance in the central government on a strategic level. This study has found that based on Boyne\'s (1992) notion of fragmentation and the Dutch governments’ definition of tiers, the Dutch cybersecurity governance landscape could indeed, when meticulously following Boyne\'s counting procedure, be regarded as fragmented.}, keywords = {cybersecurity, fragmentation, Internet governance, the netherlands}, }

Copyright, the AI Act and extraterritoriality external link

Quintais, J.
Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2024

AI Act, Copyright

Bibtex

Online publication{nokey, title = {Copyright, the AI Act and extraterritoriality}, author = {Quintais, J.}, url = {https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/11/28/copyright-the-ai-act-and-extraterritoriality/}, year = {2024}, date = {2024-11-28}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {AI Act, Copyright}, }