The following article features a comprehensive visualization pyramid designed to illustrate the risk-based approach of the EU AI Act in a single, intuitive graphic. This tool is intended to be useful to academics, students, practitioners, data and AI enthusiasts, as well as anyone keenly interested in the imminent adoption of the EU AI Regulation.

The purpose of this article is to explore the existing data portability rights under EU law, and assess the potential gaps among the GDPR, the DMA and the Data Act in the light of the new development of autonomous AI agents.

In anticipation of AI Act’s publication on the Official Journal of the EU, the MIAI AI-Regulation Chair publishes an interactive Table of Contents (ToC) to help practitioners and the academic community navigating the lengthy and complex text of 252 pages, by enabling users to “click” and be directly transferred to different Titles, Chapters, and Articles.

This article delves into the EU’s groundbreaking rules for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models, as outlined in the politically agreed-upon AI Act on December 8th. It scrutinizes key questions, including whether this approach deviates from the original risk-based proposal, navigates the complexities of risk management in foundational models, and grapples with the uncertainties in benchmarking methods.

Drawing on intense criticism from online publishers across the European Union (EU) against Generative AI (GAI), the present article aims to highlight the highly debated copyright issue of data collection for Generative AI training. Three questions are therefore addressed: To what extent is scraping data for GAI training considered to be a copyright issue; How Data scraping and data mining are regulated under EU Law and; How the future AI Act intends to deal with the use of training data.

The present contribution provides an overview of two of the most pressing legal questions concerning IP law, authorship of AI-generated works and copyright infringement. It does so through the lens of US copyright law, since US courts have dealt with the highest number of AI art cases, and many AI systems manufacturers and suppliers are based in the US.

A fierce debate rages in Brussels over which AI systems should be considered as “High Risk”, while the systems in Annex II of the EU AI Act have attracted less attention. Here is a guide (with infographics) on the classification of ALL “High Risk” systems in the AI Act, as well as the corresponding conformity assessment procedures.

Data is the fuel of AI systems. Anonymisation has been presented as a panacea to protect personal data while enabling AI innovation. However, the growing efficiency of re-identification attacks on anonymised data raises a series of legal questions. 

On November 23rd, 2022 an article by Le Parisien, a French Newspaper, revealed that the French Government had dropped its project to deploy facial recognition to support security arrangements at the 2024 Paris Olympics. In fact, the debate on the possible implementation of facial recognition systems during the Olympic Games is part of a broader debate which divides political leaders on whether AI-driven biometric systems should be used to monitor public places.

The use of facial recognition technologies for criminal investigation purposes has been under the spotlight for many years in France and in the European Union. In this article accepted for publication in the European Review of Digital Administration & Law, T. Christakis & A. Lodie discuss a major decision issued last year by the French Conseil d’Etat.

AI-Regulation Researchers propose a highly interesting comparative approach of the definition of different categories of “data”, including “sensitive” and “biometric” data, as found in more than 20 international instruments. Karine Bannelier and Anaïs Trotry decided to proceed to a comparative analysis of all relevant international instruments and to compile, in two Charts, the definitions appearing in these instruments. You can download the Charts and read their first findings in this article. 

On September 28th, 2022, the European Commission released two proposals, the aim of which is to regulate civil liability in relation to AI-enabled systems, drawing from the Commission’s White Paper1 considerations on the use of such systems: a revised version of the Defective Product Liability Directive (PLD)2 and a Directive that adapts non-contractual civil liability rules to Artificial Intelligence (AI Liability Directive)3. The combination of these proposals with that of April 21st, 2021, Laying Down Harmonized Rules On Artificial Intelligence (AI Act)4, will result in the national liability frameworks being adapted to the digital age, the circular economy and global value chains.