| Coutinho, M.F., Delinavelli, G., Fahy, R., Irion, K., Jusić, T., Kersevan Smokvina, T., Klimkiewicz, B., Llorens, C., Rozgonyi, K., Svensson, S., Til, G. van The independence of media regulatory authorities in Europe 2019, (Capello, M. (ed.), IRIS Special 2019-1, European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg). @techreport{Irion2019b,
title = {The independence of media regulatory authorities in Europe},
author = {Irion, K. and Delinavelli, G. and Coutinho, M.F. and Fahy, R. and Jusi\'{c}, T. and Klimkiewicz, B. and Llorens, C. and Rozgonyi, K. and Svensson, S. and Kersevan Smokvina, T. and Til, G. van},
editor = {Capello, M.},
url = {https://rm.coe.int/the-independence-of-media-regulatory-authorities-in-europe/168097e504},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-10-01},
publisher = {European Audiovisual Observatory},
note = {Capello, M. (ed.), IRIS Special 2019-1, European Audiovisual Observatory, Strasbourg},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
|
| Til, G. van Zelfregulering door online platforms: een waar wondermiddel tegen online desinformatie? In: Mediaforum, vol. 2019, no. 1, pp. 2-13, 2019. @article{Til2019b,
title = {Zelfregulering door online platforms: een waar wondermiddel tegen online desinformatie?},
author = {Til, G. van},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/Mediaforum_2019_1_vanTil.pdf},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-03-29},
journal = {Mediaforum},
volume = {2019},
number = {1},
pages = {2-13},
abstract = {In aanloop naar de Europese parlementsverkiezingen van mei 2019 heeft de Europese Commissie haar inspanningen in de bestrijding van online desinformatie opgevoerd. Veel hoop is daarbij gevestigd op een initiatief van zelfregulering door online platforms en de advertentie-industrie in de vorm van een Code of Practice. In dit artikel wordt de rol die de Europese Commissie momenteel voor zichzelf weggelegd ziet voor zelfregulering kritisch beschouwd en wordt aansluiting gezocht bij een pleidooi voor een meer gezamenlijke aanpak van het probleem van online desinformatie.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
In aanloop naar de Europese parlementsverkiezingen van mei 2019 heeft de Europese Commissie haar inspanningen in de bestrijding van online desinformatie opgevoerd. Veel hoop is daarbij gevestigd op een initiatief van zelfregulering door online platforms en de advertentie-industrie in de vorm van een Code of Practice. In dit artikel wordt de rol die de Europese Commissie momenteel voor zichzelf weggelegd ziet voor zelfregulering kritisch beschouwd en wordt aansluiting gezocht bij een pleidooi voor een meer gezamenlijke aanpak van het probleem van online desinformatie. |
| Til, G. van The Netherlands in 'Automating Society – Taking Stock of Automated Decision-Making in the EU' 2019. @techreport{Til2019,
title = {The Netherlands in 'Automating Society \textendash Taking Stock of Automated Decision-Making in the EU'},
author = {Til, G. van},
editor = {Spielkamp, M.S.},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/automating_society_report_2019/},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-02-11},
booktitle = {Automating Society \textendash Taking Stock of Automated Decision-Making in the EU},
pages = {93-102},
publisher = {AlgorithmWatch \& Bertelsmann Stiftung},
edition = {1},
abstract = {Systems for automated decision-making or decision support (ADM) are on the rise in EU countries: Profiling job applicants based on their personal emails in Finland, allocating treatment for patients in the public health system in Italy, sorting the unemployed in Poland, automatically identifying children vulnerable to neglect in Denmark, detecting welfare fraud in the Netherlands, credit scoring systems in many EU countries \textendash the range of applications has broadened to almost all aspects of daily life.
This begs a lot of questions: Do we need new laws? Do we need new oversight institutions? Who do we fund to develop answers to the challenges ahead? Where should we invest? How do we enable citizens \textendash patients, employees, consumers \textendash to deal with this?
For the report “Automating Society \textendash Taking Stock of Automated Decision-Making in the EU”, our experts have looked at the situation at the EU level but also in 12 Member States: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK. We assessed not only the political discussions and initiatives in these countries but also present a section “ADM in Action” for all states, listing examples of automated decision-making already in use.
This is the first time a comprehensive study has been done on the state of automated decision-making in Europe.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
Systems for automated decision-making or decision support (ADM) are on the rise in EU countries: Profiling job applicants based on their personal emails in Finland, allocating treatment for patients in the public health system in Italy, sorting the unemployed in Poland, automatically identifying children vulnerable to neglect in Denmark, detecting welfare fraud in the Netherlands, credit scoring systems in many EU countries – the range of applications has broadened to almost all aspects of daily life.
This begs a lot of questions: Do we need new laws? Do we need new oversight institutions? Who do we fund to develop answers to the challenges ahead? Where should we invest? How do we enable citizens – patients, employees, consumers – to deal with this?
For the report “Automating Society – Taking Stock of Automated Decision-Making in the EU”, our experts have looked at the situation at the EU level but also in 12 Member States: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK. We assessed not only the political discussions and initiatives in these countries but also present a section “ADM in Action” for all states, listing examples of automated decision-making already in use.
This is the first time a comprehensive study has been done on the state of automated decision-making in Europe. |
| Hugenholtz, P., Lindhout, P., Poort, J., Til, G. van Film Financing and the Digital Single Market: its Future, the Role of Territoriality and New Models of Financing 2019, (Study requested by the CULT Committee, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, PE 629.186, European Parliament - January 2019). @techreport{Poort2019,
title = {Film Financing and the Digital Single Market: its Future, the Role of Territoriality and New Models of Financing},
author = {Poort, J. and Hugenholtz, P. and Lindhout, P. and Til, G. van},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/IPOL_STU2019629186_EN.pdf},
year = {2019},
date = {2019-01-17},
abstract = {This report studies the role of territoriality in film financing, the legal and market challenges territoriality faces as a key model for film financing and the consequences if EU policies were to reduce or mitigate the scope of territorial exclusivity in the audiovisual sector. It provides information on Member States’ and EU models of film financing, explores the challenges film financing faces from digital developments and evolving consumer behaviour and analyses possible alternatives to traditional methods of financing and policies to support this.},
note = {Study requested by the CULT Committee, Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, PE 629.186, European Parliament - January 2019},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {techreport}
}
This report studies the role of territoriality in film financing, the legal and market challenges territoriality faces as a key model for film financing and the consequences if EU policies were to reduce or mitigate the scope of territorial exclusivity in the audiovisual sector. It provides information on Member States’ and EU models of film financing, explores the challenges film financing faces from digital developments and evolving consumer behaviour and analyses possible alternatives to traditional methods of financing and policies to support this. |
| Til, G. van Waar het wringt: zoekmachines en hyperlinks als mededeling aan het publiek In: AMI, vol. 2018, no. 3, pp. 103-109, 2018. @article{vanTil2018,
title = {Waar het wringt: zoekmachines en hyperlinks als mededeling aan het publiek},
author = {Til, G. van},
url = {https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/artikel-Gijs-van-Til_AMI-2018-3.pdf},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-06-19},
journal = {AMI},
volume = {2018},
number = {3},
pages = {103-109},
abstract = {De recente jurisprudentie van het Hof van Justitie van de EU over de vraag of een hyperlink kwalificeert als mededeling aan het publiek, heeft al een hoop stof doen opwaaien. De gevolgen die deze uitspraken zouden kunnen hebben voor zoekmachines zijn tot op heden echter onderbelicht gebleven. Deze bijdrage bevat een analyse van de juridische positie van zoekmachines in het licht van de recente jurisprudentie.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
De recente jurisprudentie van het Hof van Justitie van de EU over de vraag of een hyperlink kwalificeert als mededeling aan het publiek, heeft al een hoop stof doen opwaaien. De gevolgen die deze uitspraken zouden kunnen hebben voor zoekmachines zijn tot op heden echter onderbelicht gebleven. Deze bijdrage bevat een analyse van de juridische positie van zoekmachines in het licht van de recente jurisprudentie. |
Gijs van Til works as project researcher at the Institute for Information Law (IViR) of the University of Amsterdam. In this capacity he is involved in several of the Institute's ongoing research projects, ranging from the future of copyright to the legal implications of the use of artificial intelligence & automated decision-making. During his studies in both Private and Information Law Gijs gained profound knowledge of the Dutch and European legal system and developed his interest for the intersect between law and technology. A paper which he wrote in the course of his study about the relationship between copyright and search engines was published in a Dutch scientific journal. He wrote his master thesis about the proposed use of self-/coregulatory measures to tackle online disinformation.
In addition to his study, Gijs functioned as legal advisor and chairman of Clinic, in which capacity he lead a team of twelve students providing free legal advice to individuals and startups on issues ranging from intellectual property to privacy. He currently still functions as board member and treasurer of Clinic.