29 Amendments of Martina MICHELS related to 2016/0280(COD)
Amendment 83 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Rapid technological developments continue to transform the way works and other subject-matter are created, produced, distributed and exploited. New business models and new actors continue to emerge. The objectives and the principles laid down by the Union copyright framework remain sound. However, legal uncertainty remains, for both rightholders and users, as regards certain uses, including cross-border uses, of works and other subject-matter in the digital environment. As set out in the Communication of the Commission entitled ‘Towards a modern, more European copyright framework’26 , in some areas it is necessary to adapt and supplement the current Union copyright framework. This Directive provides for rules to adapt certain exceptions and limitations to digital and cross-border environments, as well as measures to facilitate certain licensing practices as regards the dissemination of out-of- commerce works and the online availability of audiovisual works on video- on-demand platforms with a view to ensuring wider access to content. In order to achieve a well-functioning marketplace for copyright, there should also be rules on rights in publications, on the use of works and other subject-matter by online service providers storing and giving access to user uploaded content and on the transparency of authors' and performers' contracts. _________________ 26 COM(2015) 626 final. COM(2015) 626 final.
Amendment 103 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The exceptions and the limitation set out in this Directive seek to achieve a fair balance between the rights and interests of authors and other rightholders on the one hand, and of users on the other. They can be applied only in certain special cases which do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the works or other subject- matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholders. Such cases concern, in particular, access to education, knowledge and cultural heritage and, as such, are generally in the public interest. Furthermore, the exceptions concern the standard modern forms of communication between creative users offline and online. Whether with regard to citation or parody, the exchange of cultural material should be permitted and not considered as an infringement of copyright in respect of the overall work.
Amendment 143 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) While distance learning and cross- border education programmes are mostly developed at higher education level, digital tools and resources are increasingly used at all education levels, in particular to improve and enrich the learning experience. The exception or limitation provided for in this Directive should therefore benefit all educational establishments in primary, secondary, vocational and higher educationrecognised by the Member State in which they are established in primary, secondary, vocational and higher education as well as libraries or other public and non-profit institutions providing non-formal or informal cultural and other education, to the extent they pursue their educational activity for a non- commercial purpose. The organisational structure and the means of funding of an educational establishment are not the decisive factors to determine the non- commercial nature of the activity.
Amendment 155 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The exception or limitation should cover digital uses of works and other subject-matter such as the use of parts or extracts of works to support, enrich or complement the teaching, including the related learning activities. The use of the works or other subject-matter under the exception or limitation should be only in the context of teaching and learning activities carried out under the responsibility of educational establishments, including during examinations, and be limited to what is necessary for the purpose of such activities. The exception or limitation should cover both uses through digital means in the classroom and online uses through the educational establishment's secure electronic network, the access to which should be protected, notably by authentication procedures. The exception or limitation should be understood as covering the specific accessibility needs of persons with a disabilityn impairment in the context of illustration for teaching.
Amendment 166 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) An act of preservation may require a reproduction of a work or other subject- matter in the collection of a cultural heritage institution and consequently the authorisation of the relevant rightholders. Cultural heritage institutions are engaged in the preservation of their collections for future generations. Digital technologies offer new ways to preserve the heritage contained in those collections but they also create new challenges. In view of these new challenges, it is necessary to adapt the current legal framework by providing a mandatory exception to the right of reproduction in order to allow those acts of preservation as well as reproductions for other purposes such as insurance and rights clearance and including long-term and cross border loans.
Amendment 173 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) Member States should therefore be required to provide for an exception to permit cultural heritage institutions to reproduce works and other subject-matter permanently in their collections for preservation purposes, for example to address technological obsolescence or the degradation of original supports or for the purpose of digitisation. Such an exception should allow for the making of copies by the appropriate preservation tool, means or technology, in the required number and at any point in the life of a work or other subject-matter to the extent required in order to produce a copy for preservation purposes only. Such an exception should cover both cultural heritage institutions, including archaeological or other museum institutions of universities and colleges holding the works or other subject-matter, and third party cultural heritage institutions or service providers, which may be requested to perform the act of reproduction on behalf of a cultural heritage institution within the scope of the exception.
Amendment 217 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) A free and pluralist press is, a legal framework for research and source protection, as well as decent payment for quality journalism are essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens' access to information. ItThey provides a fundamental contribution to public debate and the proper functioning of a democratic society. In the transition from print to digital, publishers of press publications are facing problems in licensing the online use of their publications and recouping their investments. In just like other absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, licensing and enforcement in the digital environment is often complex and inefficientnalogue media did in the 20th century as they prepared to grow for mass consumption. Those media have since established themselves in day-to-day life.
Amendment 223 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) The organisational and financial contribution of publishers in producing press publications needs to be recognised and further encouraged to ensure the sustainability of the publishing industry. It isn't therefore necessary to provide at Union level a harmonised legal protection for press publications in respect of digital uses. Such protection should be effectively guaranearch engines or editorialised news blogs, online excerpts, online press reviews, or comparable professional online disseminations, which contain only short references to daily newspaper articles, have been proven to be more of a guarantor of media pluralism and have an increasing attention for the offers of the voluntarily listed press publishers.The resulting market power of the new players, which have radically altered through the introduction, in Union law, of rights related to copyright for the ree media landscape, should lead to appropriate taxation in the Member States. There is a strong imperative for every democratic society to decide to use tax revenues to improve the working conditions of journalists and the innovative development of modern publishing houses. The European Commission should encourage this dialogue in an intensive manner. The experience with the failed produtection and making available to the public of press publications in respect of digital uses. of press publishers in Germany and Spain, as well as the stimulating consultation process, which has solved many modern conflicts in the context of the revision of this Directive, should be used for future solutions. The establishment of a permanent consultation mechanism dealing with questions of the harmonisation of copyright law is urgently required.
Amendment 228 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Recital 33
Amendment 236 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 242 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 246 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36
Recital 36
Amendment 250 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) Over the last years, the functioning of the online content marketplace has gained in complexity. Online services providing access to copyright protected content uploaded by their users without the involvement of right holders have flourished and have become main sources of access to content online. This affects rightholders' possibilities to determine whether, and under which conditions, their work and other subject-matter are used as well as their possibilities to get an appropriate remuneration for it. Therefore there should be an intensive dialogue on the appropriate determination of copyright-protected content in uploads that could include the possibility of a flat- rate payment, which must be proportionate to the modern use of music and media platforms. The much abused technical solution, known as upload filters, cannot be considered sufficiently effective and robust to merit measures with legal consequences. They do not solve the underlying problem of fair payment for authors, musicians or other rightholders and should be omitted from the provisions in this Directive because they produce new problems in the field of privacy and data protection.
Amendment 256 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Amendment 281 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
Amendment 287 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
Recital 39
Amendment 295 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
Amendment 312 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) For the purposes of this Directive, it is necessary to defineclarify the sconceptpe of press publication in a way that embraces only journalistic publications, published by a service provider, periodically or regularly updated in any media, for the purpose of informing or entertaining. Such publications would include, for instance, daily newspapers, weeklotection set out in Article s2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC. In order to improve legal certainty for all concerned parties, and to ensure the freedom to carry out certain acts necessary for monthly magazines of general or special ithe normal functioning of the Internest and news websites. Periodical publications which are published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, should not be covered by the protection granted to press publications under this Directive. This protection doess well as to take account of certain fundamental rights, these Articles should not extend to acts of hyperlinking, which do not constitute communication to the public.
Amendment 326 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 339 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 3
Article 2 – paragraph 3
(3) ‘cultural heritage institution’ means a publicly accessible library or museum, an archive, archive, museum or gallery or a film or audio heritage institution, as well as a media library of a public service broadcaster;
Amendment 340 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 485 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11
Article 11
Amendment 504 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12
Article 12
Amendment 507 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13
Article 13
Amendment 519 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Amendment 576 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Where a performer has transferred or assigned an exclusive right of making available on demand, the performer shall be entitled to equitable remuneration. Collection of the remuneration is provided without prejudice to existing national organisational schemes for collective management of copyright. The remuneration entitlement shall not prevent the choice of the creator on dissemination modes (i.e. creative commons).
Amendment 608 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Amendment 731 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11
Article 11
Amendment 995 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 2