Document Actions
Citation and metadata
Recommended citation
Martin Senftleben, Guardians of the UGC Galaxy – Human Rights Obligations of Online Platforms, Copyright Holders, Member States and the European Commission Under the CDSM Directive and the Digital Services Act, 14 (2023) JIPITEC 435 para 1.
Download Citation
Endnote
%0 Journal Article %T Guardians of the UGC Galaxy – Human Rights Obligations of Online Platforms, Copyright Holders, Member States and the European Commission Under the CDSM Directive and the Digital Services Act %A Senftleben, Martin %J JIPITEC %D 2023 %V 14 %N 2023 %@ 2190-3387 %F senftleben2023 %X With the shift from the traditionalsafe harbour for hosting to statutory content filtering and licensing obligations in Article 17 of theCDSM Directive, EU copyright law imperils the freedom of users to upload and share their content creations. Seeking to avoid overbroad inroads into freedom of expression, EU law obliges online platformsand the creative industry to take into account humanrights when coordinating their content filtering actions. Platforms must also establish complaint andredress procedures for users. The European Commission will initiate stakeholder dialogues to identifybest practices. These “safety valves” in the legislativepackage, however, may prove to be mere fig leaves.Instead of safeguarding human rights, the EU legislator outsources human rights obligations to the platform industry. At the same time, the burden of polic-ing content moderation systems is imposed on userswho are unlikely to bring complaints in each individual case. The new legislative design may thus conceal human rights violations instead of bringing themto light. The Digital Services Act rests on a similar –equally problematic – approach. Against this backdrop, the analysis addresses the risk of human rightsinterference, which is exacerbated by the fact thatthe Court of Justice, in its Poland decision, upheld theregulatory approach underlying Article 17, rather thanexposing and discussing the corrosive effect of human rights outsourcing. Luckily, the new rules in theCDSM Directive and the Digital Services Act also contain several safeguards that allow EU Member Statesand the European Commission to actively take measures against the erosion of human rights. %L 340 %K audit reports %K complaint and redress %K content moderation %K copyright %K freedom of expression %K human rights outsourcing %K parody %K pastiche %K proportionality %K transformative use %U http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-58477 %P 435-NoneDownload
Bibtex
@Article{senftleben2023,
author = "Senftleben, Martin",
title = "Guardians of the UGC Galaxy -- Human Rights Obligations of Online Platforms, Copyright Holders, Member States and the European Commission Under the CDSM Directive and the Digital Services Act",
journal = "JIPITEC",
year = "2023",
volume = "14",
number = "2023",
pages = "435--None",
keywords = "audit reports; complaint and redress; content moderation; copyright; freedom of expression; human rights outsourcing; parody; pastiche; proportionality; transformative use",
abstract = "With the shift from the traditionalsafe harbour for hosting to statutory content filtering and licensing obligations in Article 17 of theCDSM Directive, EU copyright law imperils the freedom of users to upload and share their content creations. Seeking to avoid overbroad inroads into freedom of expression, EU law obliges online platformsand the creative industry to take into account humanrights when coordinating their content filtering actions. Platforms must also establish complaint andredress procedures for users. The European Commission will initiate stakeholder dialogues to identifybest practices. These ``safety valves'' in the legislativepackage, however, may prove to be mere fig leaves.Instead of safeguarding human rights, the EU legislator outsources human rights obligations to the platform industry. At the same time, the burden of polic-ing content moderation systems is imposed on userswho are unlikely to bring complaints in each individual case. The new legislative design may thus conceal human rights violations instead of bringing themto light. The Digital Services Act rests on a similar --equally problematic -- approach. Against this backdrop, the analysis addresses the risk of human rightsinterference, which is exacerbated by the fact thatthe Court of Justice, in its Poland decision, upheld theregulatory approach underlying Article 17, rather thanexposing and discussing the corrosive effect of human rights outsourcing. Luckily, the new rules in theCDSM Directive and the Digital Services Act also contain several safeguards that allow EU Member Statesand the European Commission to actively take measures against the erosion of human rights.",
issn = "2190-3387",
url = "http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-58477"
}
Download
RIS
TY - JOUR AU - Senftleben, Martin PY - 2023 DA - 2023// TI - Guardians of the UGC Galaxy – Human Rights Obligations of Online Platforms, Copyright Holders, Member States and the European Commission Under the CDSM Directive and the Digital Services Act JO - JIPITEC SP - 435 EP - None VL - 14 IS - 2023 KW - audit reports KW - complaint and redress KW - content moderation KW - copyright KW - freedom of expression KW - human rights outsourcing KW - parody KW - pastiche KW - proportionality KW - transformative use AB - With the shift from the traditionalsafe harbour for hosting to statutory content filtering and licensing obligations in Article 17 of theCDSM Directive, EU copyright law imperils the freedom of users to upload and share their content creations. Seeking to avoid overbroad inroads into freedom of expression, EU law obliges online platformsand the creative industry to take into account humanrights when coordinating their content filtering actions. Platforms must also establish complaint andredress procedures for users. The European Commission will initiate stakeholder dialogues to identifybest practices. These “safety valves” in the legislativepackage, however, may prove to be mere fig leaves.Instead of safeguarding human rights, the EU legislator outsources human rights obligations to the platform industry. At the same time, the burden of polic-ing content moderation systems is imposed on userswho are unlikely to bring complaints in each individual case. The new legislative design may thus conceal human rights violations instead of bringing themto light. The Digital Services Act rests on a similar –equally problematic – approach. Against this backdrop, the analysis addresses the risk of human rightsinterference, which is exacerbated by the fact thatthe Court of Justice, in its Poland decision, upheld theregulatory approach underlying Article 17, rather thanexposing and discussing the corrosive effect of human rights outsourcing. Luckily, the new rules in theCDSM Directive and the Digital Services Act also contain several safeguards that allow EU Member Statesand the European Commission to actively take measures against the erosion of human rights. SN - 2190-3387 UR - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-58477 ID - senftleben2023 ER -Download
Wordbib
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <b:Sources SelectedStyle="" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" > <b:Source> <b:Tag>senftleben2023</b:Tag> <b:SourceType>ArticleInAPeriodical</b:SourceType> <b:Year>2023</b:Year> <b:PeriodicalTitle>JIPITEC</b:PeriodicalTitle> <b:Volume>14</b:Volume> <b:Issue>2023</b:Issue> <b:Url>http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-58477</b:Url> <b:Pages>435-None</b:Pages> <b:Author> <b:Author><b:NameList> <b:Person><b:Last>Senftleben</b:Last><b:First>Martin</b:First></b:Person> </b:NameList></b:Author> </b:Author> <b:Title>Guardians of the UGC Galaxy – Human Rights Obligations of Online Platforms, Copyright Holders, Member States and the European Commission Under the CDSM Directive and the Digital Services Act</b:Title> <b:Comments>With the shift from the traditionalsafe harbour for hosting to statutory content filtering and licensing obligations in Article 17 of theCDSM Directive, EU copyright law imperils the freedom of users to upload and share their content creations. Seeking to avoid overbroad inroads into freedom of expression, EU law obliges online platformsand the creative industry to take into account humanrights when coordinating their content filtering actions. Platforms must also establish complaint andredress procedures for users. The European Commission will initiate stakeholder dialogues to identifybest practices. These “safety valves” in the legislativepackage, however, may prove to be mere fig leaves.Instead of safeguarding human rights, the EU legislator outsources human rights obligations to the platform industry. At the same time, the burden of polic-ing content moderation systems is imposed on userswho are unlikely to bring complaints in each individual case. The new legislative design may thus conceal human rights violations instead of bringing themto light. The Digital Services Act rests on a similar –equally problematic – approach. Against this backdrop, the analysis addresses the risk of human rightsinterference, which is exacerbated by the fact thatthe Court of Justice, in its Poland decision, upheld theregulatory approach underlying Article 17, rather thanexposing and discussing the corrosive effect of human rights outsourcing. Luckily, the new rules in theCDSM Directive and the Digital Services Act also contain several safeguards that allow EU Member Statesand the European Commission to actively take measures against the erosion of human rights.</b:Comments> </b:Source> </b:Sources>Download
ISI
PT Journal AU Senftleben, M TI Guardians of the UGC Galaxy – Human Rights Obligations of Online Platforms, Copyright Holders, Member States and the European Commission Under the CDSM Directive and the Digital Services Act SO JIPITEC PY 2023 BP 435 EP None VL 14 IS 2023 DE audit reports; complaint and redress; content moderation; copyright; freedom of expression; human rights outsourcing; parody; pastiche; proportionality; transformative use AB With the shift from the traditionalsafe harbour for hosting to statutory content filtering and licensing obligations in Article 17 of theCDSM Directive, EU copyright law imperils the freedom of users to upload and share their content creations. Seeking to avoid overbroad inroads into freedom of expression, EU law obliges online platformsand the creative industry to take into account humanrights when coordinating their content filtering actions. Platforms must also establish complaint andredress procedures for users. The European Commission will initiate stakeholder dialogues to identifybest practices. These “safety valves” in the legislativepackage, however, may prove to be mere fig leaves.Instead of safeguarding human rights, the EU legislator outsources human rights obligations to the platform industry. At the same time, the burden of polic-ing content moderation systems is imposed on userswho are unlikely to bring complaints in each individual case. The new legislative design may thus conceal human rights violations instead of bringing themto light. The Digital Services Act rests on a similar –equally problematic – approach. Against this backdrop, the analysis addresses the risk of human rightsinterference, which is exacerbated by the fact thatthe Court of Justice, in its Poland decision, upheld theregulatory approach underlying Article 17, rather thanexposing and discussing the corrosive effect of human rights outsourcing. Luckily, the new rules in theCDSM Directive and the Digital Services Act also contain several safeguards that allow EU Member Statesand the European Commission to actively take measures against the erosion of human rights. ERDownload
Mods
<mods>
<titleInfo>
<title>Guardians of the UGC Galaxy – Human Rights Obligations of Online Platforms, Copyright Holders, Member States and the European Commission Under the CDSM Directive and the Digital Services Act</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="family">Senftleben</namePart>
<namePart type="given">Martin</namePart>
</name>
<abstract>With the shift from the traditional
safe harbour for hosting to statutory content filtering and licensing obligations in Article 17 of the
CDSM Directive, EU copyright law imperils the freedom of users to upload and share their content creations. Seeking to avoid overbroad inroads into freedom of expression, EU law obliges online platforms
and the creative industry to take into account human
rights when coordinating their content filtering actions. Platforms must also establish complaint and
redress procedures for users. The European Commission will initiate stakeholder dialogues to identify
best practices. These “safety valves” in the legislative
package, however, may prove to be mere fig leaves.
Instead of safeguarding human rights, the EU legislator outsources human rights obligations to the platform industry. At the same time, the burden of polic-ing content moderation systems is imposed on users
who are unlikely to bring complaints in each individual case. The new legislative design may thus conceal human rights violations instead of bringing them
to light. The Digital Services Act rests on a similar –
equally problematic – approach. Against this backdrop, the analysis addresses the risk of human rights
interference, which is exacerbated by the fact that
the Court of Justice, in its Poland decision, upheld the
regulatory approach underlying Article 17, rather than
exposing and discussing the corrosive effect of human rights outsourcing. Luckily, the new rules in the
CDSM Directive and the Digital Services Act also contain several safeguards that allow EU Member States
and the European Commission to actively take measures against the erosion of human rights.</abstract>
<subject>
<topic>audit reports</topic>
<topic>complaint and redress</topic>
<topic>content moderation</topic>
<topic>copyright</topic>
<topic>freedom of expression</topic>
<topic>human rights outsourcing</topic>
<topic>parody</topic>
<topic>pastiche</topic>
<topic>proportionality</topic>
<topic>transformative use</topic>
</subject>
<classification authority="ddc">340</classification>
<relatedItem type="host">
<genre authority="marcgt">periodical</genre>
<genre>academic journal</genre>
<titleInfo>
<title>JIPITEC</title>
</titleInfo>
<part>
<detail type="volume">
<number>14</number>
</detail>
<detail type="issue">
<number>2023</number>
</detail>
<date>2023</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>435</start>
<end>None</end>
</extent>
</part>
</relatedItem>
<identifier type="issn">2190-3387</identifier>
<identifier type="urn">urn:nbn:de:0009-29-58477</identifier>
<identifier type="uri">http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-58477</identifier>
<identifier type="citekey">senftleben2023</identifier>
</mods>
Download
Full Metadata
| Bibliographic Citation | Journal of intellectual property, information technology and electronic commerce law 14 (2023) 2023 |
|---|---|
| Title |
Guardians of the UGC Galaxy – Human Rights Obligations of Online Platforms, Copyright Holders, Member States and the European Commission Under the CDSM Directive and the Digital Services Act (eng) |
| Author | Martin Senftleben |
| Language | eng |
| Abstract | With the shift from the traditional safe harbour for hosting to statutory content filtering and licensing obligations in Article 17 of the CDSM Directive, EU copyright law imperils the freedom of users to upload and share their content creations. Seeking to avoid overbroad inroads into freedom of expression, EU law obliges online platforms and the creative industry to take into account human rights when coordinating their content filtering actions. Platforms must also establish complaint and redress procedures for users. The European Commission will initiate stakeholder dialogues to identify best practices. These “safety valves” in the legislative package, however, may prove to be mere fig leaves. Instead of safeguarding human rights, the EU legislator outsources human rights obligations to the platform industry. At the same time, the burden of polic-ing content moderation systems is imposed on users who are unlikely to bring complaints in each individual case. The new legislative design may thus conceal human rights violations instead of bringing them to light. The Digital Services Act rests on a similar – equally problematic – approach. Against this backdrop, the analysis addresses the risk of human rights interference, which is exacerbated by the fact that the Court of Justice, in its Poland decision, upheld the regulatory approach underlying Article 17, rather than exposing and discussing the corrosive effect of human rights outsourcing. Luckily, the new rules in the CDSM Directive and the Digital Services Act also contain several safeguards that allow EU Member States and the European Commission to actively take measures against the erosion of human rights. |
| Subject | audit reports, complaint and redress, content moderation, copyright, freedom of expression, human rights outsourcing, parody, pastiche, proportionality, transformative use |
| DDC | 340 |
| Rights | DPPL |
| URN: | urn:nbn:de:0009-29-58477 |
