140 Amendments of Dita CHARANZOVÁ related to 2016/0280(COD)
Amendment 80 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) In the fields of research, education and preservation of cultural heritage, digital technologies permit new types of uses that are not clearly covered by the current Union rules on exceptions and limitations. In addition, the optional nature of exceptions and limitations provided for in Directives 2001/29/EC, 96/9/EC and 2009/24/EC in these fields may negatively impact the functioning of the internal market. This is particularly relevant as regards cross-border uses, which are becoming increasingly important in the digital environment. Therefore, the existing exceptions and limitations in Union law that are relevant for scientific research, teaching and preservation of cultural heritage should be reassessed in the light of those new uses. Mandatory exceptions or limitations for uses of text and data mining technologies in the field of scientific research, illustration for teaching in the digital environment, illustration for teaching and for preservation of cultural heritage should be introduced. For uses not covered by the exceptions or the limitation provided for in this Directive, the exceptions and limitations existing in Union law should continue to apply. Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC should be adapted.
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 90 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) New technologies enable the automated computational analysis of information in digital form, such as text, sounds, images or any other type of data, generally known as text and data mining. Those technologies allow researchers tothe processing of large amounts of information to gain new knowledge and discover new trends. Whilst text and data mining technologies are prevalent across the digital economy, there is widespread acknowledgment that text and data mining can in particular benefit the research community and in so doing encourage innovation. However, in the Union, research organisations such as universities and research institutesindividuals, public and private entities who have legal access to content are confronted with legal uncertainty as to the extent to which they can perform text and data mining of content. In certain instances, text and data mining may involve acts protected by copyright and/or by the sui generis database right, notably the reproduction of works or other subject- matter and/or the extraction of contents from a database. Where there is no exception or limitation which applies, an authorisation to undertake such acts would be required from rightholders. Text and data mining may also be carried out in relation to mere facts or data which are not protected by copyright and in such instances no authorisation would be required. The right to read is the right to mine.
Amendment 96 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Union law already provides certain exceptions and limitations covering uses for scientific research purposes which may apply to acts of text and data mining. However, those exceptions and limitations are optional and not fully adapted to the use of technologies in scientific research. Moreover, where researchers have lawful access to content, for example through subscriptions to publications or open access licences, the terms of the licences may exclude text and data mining. As research and its Open Science Agenda is increasingly carried out with the assistance of digital technology, there is a risk that the Union's competitive position as a research area will suffer unless steps are taken to address the legal uncertainty for text and data mining.
Amendment 97 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) In the fields of research, education and preserv and innovation, transformative use, education ofand cultural heritage, digital technologies permit new types of uses that are not clearly covered by the current Union rules on exceptions and limitations. In addition, the optional nature of exceptions and limitations provided for in Directives 2001/29/EC, 96/9/EC and 2009/24/EC in these fields may negatively impacts the functioning of the internal market. This is particularly relevant as regards cross-border uses, which are becoming increasingly important in the digital environment. Therefore, the existing exceptions and limitations in Union law that are relevant for scientific research, teaching and preservation of cultural heritage should be reassessed and complemented in the light of those new uses. Mandatory exceptions or limitations for uses of text and data mining technologies in the field of scientific research, illustration for teaching in the digital environment and for preserv, illustration for teaching , user-generated content, freedom of panorama and for preservation and dissemination of cultural heritage should be introduced. For uses not covered by the exceptions or the limitations provided for in this Directive, the exceptions and limitations existing in Union law should continue to apply. Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC should be adapted.
Amendment 114 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) In view of a potentially high number of access requests to and downloads of their works or other subject- matter, rightholders should be allowed to apply measures where there is risk that the security and integrity of the system or databases where the works or other subject-matter are hosted would be jeopardised. Those measures should not exceed what is necessary, proportionate and effective to pursue the objective of ensuring the security and integrity of the system and should not undermine the effective application of the exception.
Amendment 120 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) This legal uncertainty should be addressed by providing for a mandatory exception to the right of reproduction and also to the right to prevent extraction from a database. The new exception should be without prejudice to the existing mandatory exception on temporary acts of reproduction laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, which should continue to apply to text and data mining techniques which do not involve the making of copies going beyond the scope of that exception. Research organisations should also benefit from the exception when they engage into public-private partnerships.
Amendment 121 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) Article 5(3)(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC allows Member States to introduce an exception or limitation to the rights of reproduction, communication to the public and making available to the public for the sole purpose of, among others, illustration for teaching. In addition, Articles 6(2)(b) and 9(b) of Directive 96/9/EC permit the use of a database and the extraction or re-utilization of a substantial part of its contents for the purpose of illustration for teaching. The scope of those exceptions or limitations as they apply to digital uses is unclear. In addition, there is a lack of clarity as to whether those exceptions or limitations would apply where teaching is provided online and thereby at a distance. Moreover, the existing framework does not provide for a cross-border effect. This situation may hamper the development of digitally- supported teaching activities and distance learning. Therefore, the introduction of a new mandatory exception or limitation is necessary to ensure that educational establishments benefit from full legal certainty when using works or other subject-matter in digital teaching activities, including online and across borders.
Amendment 124 #
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 education to the extent they pursue their educational activity for a non-commercial purpose. Tactivities for non-commercial purposes. However in order to ensure that the organisational structure and the means of funding of an educational establishment are not the decisive factorsfactors taken into account to determine the non- commercial nature of the activity, the exception or limitation should not be limited to educational establishments.
Amendment 125 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
Amendment 135 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
Amendment 139 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) Article 5(3)(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC allows Member States to introduce an exception or limitation to the rights of reproduction, communication to the public and making available to the public for the sole purpose of, among others, illustration for teaching. In addition, Articles 6(2)(b) and 9(b) of Directive 96/9/EC permit the use of a database and the extraction or re-utilization of a substantial part of its contents for the purpose of illustration for teaching. TIn addition to the uneven application across Member States, the scope of those exceptions or limitations as they apply to digital uses is unclear. In addition, there is a lack of clarity as to whether those exceptions or limitations would apply where teaching is provided online and thereby at a distance. Moreover, the existing framework does not provide for a cross-border effect. This situation may hamper the development of digitally- supported teaching activities and distance learning. Therefore, the introduction of a new mandatory exception or limitation is necessary to ensure that educational establishments benefit from full legal certainty when using works or other subject-matter in digitall teaching activities, including online and across borders.
Amendment 141 #
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 education to the extent they pursue their educational activity for a non-commercial purpose, as well as organisations such as libraries and other cultural heritage institutions providing non-formal or informal education, to the extent they pursue their educational activity for a non-commercial purpose. In line with the Council conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training 'ET2020', the contribution of informal and non-formal education, alongside formal education, should be recognised and developed in order to deliver the Union's objectives. 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 154 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 d (new)
Recital 21 d (new)
(21 d) The reconciliation of the public's interest to participate in the public sphere by means of an exception regarding the use of depictions of buildings and permanent structures is necessary. Professional photographers and other authors, rightsholders, consumers, institutional users and service providers are predominantly using depictions of works on the basis of national exceptions for 'freedom of panorama' and rely on legal certainty for cross-border usage.
Amendment 154 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The exception or limitation should cover digitall uses of works and other subject- matter, digital or otherwise, 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 organisations such as libraries and other cultural heritage institutions providing non-formal or informal education, 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 disability in the context of illustration for teaching.
Amendment 160 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) Different arrangements, based on the implementation of the exception provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC or on licensing agreements covering further uses, are in place in a number of Member States in order to facilitate educational uses of works and other subject-matter. Such arrangements have usually been developed taking account of the needs of educational establishments and different levels of education. Whereas it is essential to harmonise the scope of the new mandatory exception or limitation in relation to digital uses and cross-border teaching activities, the modalities of implementation may differ from a Member State to another, to the extent they do not hamper the effective application of the exception or limitation or cross-border uses. This should allow Member States to build on the existing arrangements concluded at national level. In particular, Member States could decide to subject the application of the exception or limitation, fully or partially, to the availability of adequate licences, covering at least the same uses as those allowed under the exception. Any other compensation mechanisms should be limited to cases where there is a risk of unreasonable prejudice to the legitimate interests of rightholders. This mechanism would, for example, allow giving precedence to licences for materials which are primarily intended for the educational market. In order to avoid that such mechanism results in legal uncertainty or administrative burden for educational establishments, Member States adopting this approach should take concrete measures to ensure that licensing schemes allowing digital uses of works or other subject-matter for the purpose of illustration for teaching are easily available and that educational establishments are aware of the existence of such licensing schemes.
Amendment 167 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28 a (new)
Recital 28 a (new)
(28 a) Following technological developments and evolving user behaviour, a significant phenomenon of cultural creation has emerged, which relies on users uploading or displaying content, in various forms, to online services. Such user-generated content may comprise extracts or quotations of protected works or other subject-matter, which may be altered, combined or transformed for different purposes by users. Such uses of extracts or quotations within user-generated content, for various purposes such as the illustration of an idea, review or entertainment, are now widespread online and, provided that the use of such extracts or quotations of protected works or other subject-matter is proportionate, do not cause significant economic harm to the rightholders concerned and may even advertise the work used within the user-generated content.
Amendment 167 #
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. Cultural heritage institutions also engage in making internal reproductions for many varying purposes including insurance, rights clearance, and loans. 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.
Amendment 168 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28 b (new)
Recital 28 b (new)
(28 b) Despite some overlap with existing voluntary exceptions or limitations, such as the one for quotation and parody, the use of protected works or other subject- matter within user-generated content is nonetheless not properly covered by the existing list of exceptions or limitations, creating legal uncertainty for users. Particularly the voluntary nature of existing exceptions and limitations is significantly curtailing the development of user-generated content, which is typically disseminated in a borderless online environment. It is therefore necessary to provide a new mandatory specific exception to authorise the legitimate uses of extracts or quotations of protected works or other subject-matter within user- generated content.
Amendment 170 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Different approaches in the Member States for acts of preservaproduction by cultural heritage institutions and educational establishments hamper cross- border cooperation and the sharing of means of preservation by cultural heritage institutions in the internal market, leading to an inefficient. The collections of cultural heritage institutions, if not unique, are likely to be replicated and sit in other institutions, including those in other Member States. It is possible that cultural heritage institutions would also wish to create preservation networks across borders, to use of resources efficiently.
Amendment 173 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) A free and pluralist press is essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens' access to information. It 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 the absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, lLicensing and enforcement in the digital environment is often complex and inefficient.
Amendment 177 #
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 and educational establishments to reproduce works and other subject-matter permanently in their collections for preservation purposesthe purpose of carrying out their public interest mission in preservation, research, education, culture and teaching, 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 andin any format or medium at any point in the life of a work or other subject-matter and to the extent required in order to produce a copy for preservation purposes onlyfor such reproduction, including via partnerships with other institutions or third parties.
Amendment 181 #
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 is therefore necessary to provide at Union level a harmonised legal protection for press publications in respect of digital uses. Such protection should be effectively guaranteed through the introduction, in Union law, of rights related to copyright for the reproduction and making available to the public of press publications in respect of digital uses.
Amendment 181 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) For the purposes of this Directive, works and other subject-matter should be considered to be permanently in the collection of a cultural heritage institution when copies are owned or, held on long-term loan or are permanently held by the cultural heritage institution or educational establishment, for example as a result of a transfer of ownership or licence agreements.
Amendment 183 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 a (new)
Recital 21 a (new)
Amendment 186 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Recital 33
Amendment 187 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 b (new)
Recital 21 b (new)
(21 b) Different arrangements, based on the implementation of the exception provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC, are in place in a number of Member States in order to facilitate cultural heritage institutions and educational establishments to give on site access to works and other subject-matter on the premises. Such arrangements exist as educational establishments and cultural heritage institutions are involved in preserving and giving access to their digital collections on the premises. Digital technologies provide new ways of giving access to those collections on the premises, such as secure WiFi networks and the use of technological protection measures. At the same time, the maturity of digital preservation requires cultural heritage institutions to preserve and give access not just to digitised analogue works and other subject-matter, but also to born- digital materials. Member States should therefore be required to provide for an exception to permit cultural heritage institutions, and educational establishments to give access to all digitised and born-digital collections, as long as such access is limited to access on the premises. Such an exception should allow copies to be delivered on any technology to members of the public while on the premises of the establishment.
Amendment 190 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 c (new)
Recital 21 c (new)
(21 c) In its ruling in Case C-174/15, Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken v Stichting Leenrecht32a , the Court of Justice of the European Union recognised that the lending of e-books can fall under the same rules as the lending of physical books. When Member States apply the limitation to copyright in Article 6 of Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council32b , libraries are able to buy any physical book on the market. Once purchased, they can lend it without restrictions linked to contract terms or other measures of protection which prevent the exercise of exceptions and limitations to copyright. That provision should also apply to e- books. Moreover, with the objective of ensuring that all citizens of the Union have access to a full selection of books and other resources, all Member States should ensure that the limitation to the exclusive public lending right in Article 6 of Directive 2006/115/EC is made mandatory. _________________ 32aJudgement of the Court of Justice of 10 November 2016, Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken v Stichting Leenrecht, ECLI:EU:C:2016:856. 32b Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 28).
Amendment 195 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) Cultural heritage institutions should benefit from a clear framework for the digitisation and dissemination, including across borders, of out-of-commerce works or other subject-matter. However, the particular characteristics of the collections of out-of-commerce works mean that obtaining the prior consent of the individual rightholders may be very difficult. This can be due, for example, to the age of the works or other subject- matter, their limited commercial value or the fact that they were never intended for commercial use to begin with. It is therefore necessary to provide for measures to facilitate the licensing of rights inonline availability of out- of-commerce works that are in the collections of cultural heritage institutions and thereby to allow the conclusion of agreements with cross- border effect in the internal market.
Amendment 198 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) Member States should, within the framework provided for in this Directive, have flexibility in choosing the specific type of mechanism allowing for licences for out-of-commerce works to extend to the rights of rightholders that are not represented by thecultural heritage institutions to disseminate their out-of-commerce collections, in accordance to their legal traditions, practices or circumstances. However, it is essential that such mechanisms allow rightholders to exclude their works and can include extended collective licensing and presumptions of representation, and limitations and exceptions where no collective management organisation, in accs exist, collective management ordgance to their legal traditions, practices or circumstances. Such mechanisms can include extended collective licensing and presumptions of representaisations are unable to achieve sufficient representativity or a collective management organisation is unable to offer adequate licences to cultural heritage institutions for the types of works and other subject-matter held in their collections.
Amendment 200 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 200 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) Considering the variety of works and other subject-matter in the collections of cultural heritage institutions, it is important that the licensing mechanisms introduced by this Directive are available and can be used in practice for different types of works and other subject-matter, including photographs, sound recordings and audiovisual works. In order to reflect the specificities of different categories of works and other subject-matter as regards modes of publication and distribution and to facilitate the usability of those mechanisms, specific requirements and procedures may have to be established by Member States for the practical application of those licensing mechanisms. It is appropriate that Member States consult rightholders, cultural heritage institutions, users and collective management organisations when doing so.
Amendment 202 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 26
Recital 26
Amendment 204 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
Recital 27
Amendment 207 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 209 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) Information regarding the future and ongoing use of out-of-commerce works and other subject-matter by cultural heritage institutions on the basis of the licensing mechanisms provided for in this Directive and the arrangements in place for all rightholders to exclude the application of licences to their works or other subject- matter should be adequately publicised. This is particularly important when uses take place across borders in the internal market. It is therefore appropriate to make provision for the creation of a single publicly accessible online portal for the Union to make such information available to the public for a reasonable period of time before the cross-border use takes place. Under Regulation (EU) No 386/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council33 , the European Union Intellectual Property Office is entrusted with certain tasks and activities, financed by making use of its own budgetary measures, aiming at facilitating and supporting the activities of national authorities, the private sector and Union institutions in the fight against, including the prevention of, infringement of intellectual property rights. It is therefore appropriate to rely on that Office to establish and manage the European portal making such information available. _________________ 33 Regulation (EU) No 386/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 April 2012 on entrusting the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) with tasks related to the enforcement of intellectual property rights, including the assembling of public and private-sector representatives as a European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights (OJ L 129, 16.5.2012, p. 1–6).
Amendment 214 #
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 holdersonline services enabling users to upload works and to make them accessible to the public have flourished and have become mainimportant sources of access to content online. This affects rightholders' possibilities to determine whether, and under which conditions, their w and of creativity. At the same time, when protected content is uploaded without priork and other subject-matter are used as well as their possibilities to get an appropriate remuneration for ituthorisation from rightholders, they have generated challenges.
Amendment 224 #
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 is therefore necessary to provide at Union level a harmonised legal protection for press publications in respect of digital uses. Such protection should be effectively guaranteed through the introduction, in Union law, of rights related to copyright for the reproduction and making available to the public of press publications in respect of digital uses.
Amendment 229 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Recital 33
Amendment 231 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Where an information society service is providers store and provide access to the public to copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users, thereby going beyond the mere provision of physical facilities and performing an act of communication to the public, they ared that consists of the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service and providers of the service enable users to upload works in such as a way as to make them available to the public and obtains knowledge after receiving notification by the rightholders that the work is used in an unauthorised manner and subject to copyright and related rights , they are obliged take that content down in order to be eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council34. However, it is in the interests of all parties involved that the content remain obnliged tone. Therefore, the possibility of concludeing a licensing agreements with between rightholders, unless they are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council34 and the service providers on fair and reasonable terms for that purpose should be enabled. In order to ensure that notifications of works subject to copyright and related rights are valid, rightholders should provide service providers with an accurate identification of both the protected works and the uploaded content deemed to be unauthorised, including its exact location. To prevent misuses or abuses of notifications, and protect freedom of information and expression and the limitations and exceptions to copyright law, users should have access to redress and complaint mechanisms. _________________ 34 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1–16).
Amendment 235 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 242 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 d (new)
Recital 21 d (new)
(21 d) The reconciliation of the public's interest to participate in the public sphere by means of an exception regarding the use of depictions of buildings and permanent structures is necessary. Professional photographers and other authors, rightholders, consumers, institutional users and service providers are predominantly using depictions of works on the basis of a national 'freedom of panorama'exceptions and rely on legal certainty for cross-border usage.
Amendment 250 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
Amendment 253 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) Over the last years, the functioning of the online content marketplace has gained in complexity. Oonline services providing access to copyright protected content uploaded by their users without the involvement of right holders have flourished and have become mainimportant 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, allowing for diversity and ease of access to content but also generating challenges when copyright protected content is uploaded without prior authorisation from rightholders.
Amendment 258 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
Amendment 267 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Where information society service providers store and provide access to the public to copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users, thereby going beyond the mere provision of physical facilities and performing an act of communication to the public, they are obliged to conclude licensing agreements with rightholdersy should conclude fair and balanced licensing agreements with rightholders in order to ensure fair and appropriate remuneration, unless they are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council34 . _________________ 34 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1–16).
Amendment 270 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
Amendment 272 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) Collaboration between information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users and rightholders is essential for the funand rightholders is essential to facilitate the accurate identification of unauthorised works online. Appropriate safeguards should however be put in place where they agree on the introductioning of technologies, such as content recognition technologies. In such cases, rightholders should provide the necessary data to allowvoluntary measures to ensure that the services to identify their content and the services should be transparent towards rightholders with regard to the deployed technologies, to allow the assessment of their appropriateness. The services should in particular provide rightholders with information on the type of technologies used, the way they are operated and their success rate for the recognition of rightholders' content. Those technologies should also allow rightholders to get information from the information society service providers on the use of their content covered by an agreemen do not infringe the fundamental rights of users, namely their right to protection of their personal data and their freedom to receive or impart information, in accordance with Articles 8 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union in particular their rights to the use of works made in accordance with an exception or limitation to copyright.
Amendment 276 #
Amendment 281 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
Amendment 286 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
Recital 39
Amendment 289 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) A free and pluralist press is essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens' access to information. It 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 the absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, lLicensing and enforcement in the digital environment is often complex and inefficient.
Amendment 295 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
Amendment 302 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 43 a (new)
Recital 43 a (new)
(43 a) There is in many cases a lack of information and availability of data regarding the holders of copyright and related rights, which prevents potential users of works to obtain a license to use or reproduce that work and directly remunerate the author or creator of that work. A centralised database should therefore be established to enable an easier identification of works subject to copyright and related rights, decrease complexity and costs in authors and performers's rights administration and to facilitate the remuneration and payment of licenses to artists and performers for their work.
Amendment 304 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. Except in the cases referred to in Article 6, this Directive shall leave intact and shall in no way affect existing rules laid down in the Directives currently in force in this area, in particular Directives 96/9/EC, 2000/31/EC, 2001/29/EC, 2006/115/EC, 2009/24/EC, 2012/28/EU and 2014/26/EU.
Amendment 310 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)
(2a) 'beneficiary' means any individual or entity, public or private, with lawful access to content ;
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 330 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. Except in the cases referred to in Article 6, this Directive shall leave intact and shall in no way affect existing rules laid down in the Directives currently in force in this area, in particular Directives 96/9/EC, 2000/31/EC, 2001/29/EC, 2006/115/EC, 2009/24/EC, 2012/28/EU and 2014/26/EU.
Amendment 331 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. Rightholders shall not be allowed to apply measures to ensure the security and integrity of the networks and databases where the works or otechnical measures that prevent or hinder beneficiaries from benefiting from the exception provided for in paragraph 1. Such measures shall therefore not exceed what is necessary to pursue the objective of ensuring ther subject-matter are hosted. Such measures shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objectiveecurity of the system and shall not undermine the effective application of the exception. These measures shall not prevent or unreasonably restrict the ability to text and mine data or the ability to develop text and data mining tools that differ from those offered by the rightholders as long as the security of the networks and databases are protected.
Amendment 337 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)
(2a) 'beneficiary' means any individual or entity, public or private, with lawful access to mined content;
Amendment 338 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 4
Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission, in cooperation with Member States, shall encourage rightholders and research organisations to define commonly-agreed best practices concerning the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 3.
Amendment 340 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 3
Article 2 – paragraph 3
(3) ‘'cultural heritage institution’' means a publicly accessible library, or museum or gallery, an educational establishment, an archive or a film or audio heritage institution, or a public service broadcaster;
Amendment 340 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 342 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – title
Article 4 – title
Use of works and other subject-matter in digital and cross-border teachingeducational activities
Amendment 344 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive in order to allow for the digital use of works and other subject- matter for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching, learning and scientific research to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, provided that the use:
Amendment 351 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 356 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 356 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive for reproductions and extractions made by research organisations in order to carry out text and data mining of works or other subject- matter to which they have lawful access for the purposes of scientific research.
Amendment 360 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. Any contractual provision or technical protection contrary to the exception provided for in paragraph 1 shall be unenforceable.
Amendment 362 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 362 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. Rightholders shall not be allowed to apply measures to prevent or to hinder beneficiaries from benefiting from the exception provided for in paragraph 1, unless such measures are to ensure the security and integrity of the networks and databases where the works or other subject-matter are hosted. Such measures shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.
Amendment 364 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 4
Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall encourage rightholders and research organisationbeneficiaries to define commonly-agreed best practices concerning the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 3ext and data mining protocols. Such best practice text and data mining protocols may be harmonised at Union level.
Amendment 365 #
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 holdersonline services enabling users to upload works and to make them accessible to the public have flourished and have become mainimportant sources of access to content online. This affects rightholders' possibilities to determine whether, and un and of creativity. At the same time, when protected content is uploaderd which conditions, their without priork and other subject-matter are used as well as their possibilities to get an appropriate remuneration for ituthorisation from right holders, they have generated challenges.
Amendment 367 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. The use of works and other subject- matter for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching through secure electronic networks undertaken in compliance with the provisions of national law adopted pursuant to this Article shall be deemed to occur solely in the Member State where the educational establishment is establishedonly be accessible to the beneficiaries of this exception or limitation.
Amendment 371 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – title
Article 4 – title
Use of works and other subject-matter in digital and cross-border teaching activities
Amendment 373 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. Member States may provide for fair compensation for the harm incurred by theany unreasonable actions contrary to the legitimate interests of rightholders duein relation to the use of their works or other subject-matter pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article and Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29/EC.
Amendment 376 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive in order to allow for the digital use of works and other subject- matter for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research, to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, provided that the use:
Amendment 384 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) takes place on the premises of an educational establishment or other educational venue, such as cultural heritage institutions, or through a secure electronic network accessible only by the educational establishment's pupils or students and teaching staff, or registered members of the cultural heritage institution involved in non-formal or informal education;
Amendment 385 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Where an information society service is providers store and provide access to the public to copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users, thereby going beyond the mere provision of physical facilities and performing an ad that consists of the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service and providers of the service enable users to upload works in such as a way as to make them available to the public and obtains knowledge after receiving notification by the rightholders that the work is used in an unauthorised manner and subject tof communication to the public, they are obliged to conclude licensing agreements with rightholders, unless they arpyright and related rights, those providers are obliged to take that content down in order to be eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council34 . _________________ 34 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1–16). However, it is in the interests of all parties involved that the content remain online. Therefore, the possibility of concluding a licensing agreement between rightholders and the service providers on fair and reasonable terms for that purpose should be enabled. In order to ensure that notifications of works subject to copyright and related rights are valid, rightholders should provide service providers with an accurate identification of both the protected works and the uploaded content deemed to be unauthorised, including its exact location. To prevent misuses or abuses of notifications, and protect freedom of information and expression and the limitations and exceptions to copyright law, users should have access to redress and complaint mechanisms.
Amendment 389 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 d (new)
Article 5 d (new)
Article 5d Freedom of Panorama 1. Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC and point (a) of Article 5 and Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, permitting the reproduction and use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places. 2. Any contractual provision contrary to the exception provided for in this Article shall be unenforceable.
Amendment 391 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Any contractual provision contrary to the exception set out in paragraph 1 shall be unenforceable.
Amendment 401 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Member States availing themselves of the provision of the first subparagraph shall take the necessary measures to ensure appropriate availability, accessibility and visibility of the licences authorising the acts described in paragraph 1 for educational establishments and cultural heritage institutions.
Amendment 402 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
Amendment 403 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
No sooner than ... [three years after the date of entry into force of this Directive], and in consultation with all stakeholders, the Commission shall report on the availability of such licences, with a view to proposing improvements if needed.
Amendment 407 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. Member States may provide for fair compensation for the harm incurred by theany unreasonable actions contrary to the legitimate interests of rightholders duein relation to the use of their works or other subject-matter pursuant to paragraph 1.
Amendment 412 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – title
Article 5 – title
Amendment 415 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Member States shall provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive, permitting cultural heritage institutions or educational establishments, to make copies of any works or other subject-matter that are permanently in their collections, in any format or medium, forto the sole purpose of the preservation of such works or other subject-matter and to the extent necessary for such preservationextent necessary for such reproduction, for the purpose of, individually or collaboratively with others, carrying out their public interest mission in preservation, research, culture, education and teaching.
Amendment 416 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
Amendment 417 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that information that allows the identification of the works or other subject-matter covered by a licence granted in accordance with Article 7 and information about the possibility of rightholders to object referred to in Article 7(1)(c) are made publicly accessible in a single online portal for at least six months before the works or other subject-matter are digitised, distributed, communicated to the public or made available in Member States other than the one where the licence is granted, and for the whole duration of the licence.
Amendment 420 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Any contractual provision contrary to the exception set out in paragraph 1 shall be unenforceable.
Amendment 422 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11
Article 11
Amendment 424 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5a Document delivery by cultural heritage institutions and educational establishments 1. Member States shall provide an exception to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive, permitting cultural heritage institutions, or educational establishments to make reproductions in any format or medium upon request, for the sole purpose of a person's scientific research or private study, as long as the source, including the author's name is indicated, unless inclusion of the name is impractical. 2. Any contractual provision contrary to the exception set out in paragraph 1 shall be unenforceable.
Amendment 425 #
Article 5b Access for the purposes of research or private study on the premises of cultural heritage institutions or educational establishments 1. Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive for the communication or making available of works and other subject matter contained in the collections of cultural heritage institutions, or educational establishments, for the purpose of research or private study, to members of the public on the premises of those institutions or establishments. 2. Any contractual provision contrary to the exception set out in paragraph 1 shall be unenforceable.
Amendment 428 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 c (new)
Article 5 c (new)
Article 5c Public lending of literary works 1. Member States shall provide for a limitation to the rights provided in Article 1 of Directive 2006/115/EC in order to allow the lending of literary works in any format to the public, where such works have been legitimately acquired. This is without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 6(2) and 6(3) of Directive 2006/115/EC. 2. Any contractual provision contrary to the exception provided for in paragraph 1 shall be unenforceable. 3. Member States shall provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, and Article 11(1) of this Directive, permitting libraries to make reproductions of literary works in order to facilitate public lending where the literary works have been legitimately acquired, but are not available in the format or medium required as part of the lending service. 4. Member States, libraries, authors and publishers shall work together to ensure that libraries can acquire and lend on reasonable terms, including remotely, all commercially available literary works in any format, including digital, that have legally entered their collections or to which they have legal access. The Commission shall report on progress towards this goal no later than two years after ... [date of entry into force of this Directive].
Amendment 436 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph -1 (new)
Article 7 – paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive in order to allow cultural heritage institutions to distribute, communicate to the public or make available out-of-commerce works or other subject-matter permanently in the collection of the institution for non- commercial purposes. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this paragraph before 22 December 2020.
Amendment 437 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph -1 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph -1 a (new)
-1a. When applying the exception or limitation Member States shall take due account of remuneration schemes to compensate for any unreasonable actions contrary to the legitimate interests of rightholders, and ensure that all rightholders may at any time object to the use of any of their works or other subject- matter that are deemed to be out of commerce and be able to exclude the use of their works or other subject-matter.
Amendment 438 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph -1 b (new)
Article 7 – paragraph -1 b (new)
-1b. Acts which would otherwise be permitted under paragraph 1 shall not be permitted if valid licences from collective management organisations are available authorising the acts in question and the cultural heritage institution responsible for those acts knew or ought to have been aware of that fact.
Amendment 444 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) Collaboration between information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users and rightand right holders is essential to facilitate the accurate identification of unauthorised works online. Appropriate safeguards shoulders is essential for the functioning of technologies, such as content recognition technologies. In such cases, rightholders should provide the necessary data to allow however be put in place where they agree on the introduction of voluntary measures to ensure that the services to identify their content and the services should be transparent towards rightholders with regard to the deployed technologies, to allow the assessment of their appropriateness. The services should in particular provide rightholders with information on the type of technologies used, the way they are operated and their success rate for the recognition of rightholders' content. Those technologies should also allow rightholders to get information from the information society service providers on the use of their content covered by an agreemen do not infringe the fundamental rights of users, namely their right to protection of their personal data and their freedom to receive or impart information, in accordance with Articles 8 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union, in particular their rights to the use of works made in accordance with an exception or limitation to copyright.
Amendment 448 #
Proposal for a directive
Chapter 4 – title
Chapter 4 – title
Certain uses of protected content by the users of online services
Amendment 452 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
A work or other subject-matter shall be deemed to be out of commerce when the whole work or other subject-matter, in all its translations, versions and manifestations, is not avails not available through customary channels in any form substitutable tofor the public through customary channels of commerce and cannot bwork permanently in the collection of a cultural heritage institution. Out of commerce works include both works that have preasonably expected to beviously been available commercially and works that have never been comme sorcially available.
Amendment 455 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – title
Article 13 – title
Use of protected content by users of certain information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users
Amendment 458 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Member States shall, in consultation with rightholders, collective management organisations and cultural heritage institutions, ensure that the requirements used to determine whether works and other subject-matter can be licensed in accordance with paragraph 1are out of commerce do not extend beyond what is necessary and reasonable and proportionate and do not preclude the possibility to determine the out-of- commerce status of a collection as a whole, when it is reasonable to presume that all works or other subject-matter in the collection are out of commerce.
Amendment 461 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) theany licence, and in particular its application to unrepresented rightholders;
Amendment 462 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amouinformation provided by a recipients of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on ervice and enable users to upload works in such a way as to make them available to the public shall, upon obtaining knowledge or awareness that an uploaded work subject to copyright and otheir services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matterrelated rights is used in an unauthorised manner, act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the content, except where service providers conclude a licensing agreement with rightholders enabling the content to remain available.
Amendment 463 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – point c – paragraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 3 – point c – paragraph 1
the possibility of rightholders to object, referred to in paragraph 2 and point (c) of paragraph 14;
Amendment 468 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – introductory part
4. Member States shall ensure that the licences referred to in paragraph 14 are sought from a collective management organisation that is representative for the Member State where:
Amendment 469 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – point a
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – point a
(a) the majority of works or phonograms were first published or, in the absence of publication, where they were first created or broadcast, except for cinematographic and audiovisual works;
Amendment 471 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 5
Article 7 – paragraph 5
Amendment 474 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. Works or other subject-matter covered by a licence grantused in accordance with Article 7 may be used by the cultural heritage institution in accordance with the terms of the licences in all Member States.
Amendment 476 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that information that allows the identification of the works or other subject-matter covered by a licence grantused in accordance with Article 7 and information about the possibility of rightholders to object referred to in Article 7(12) and (4)(c) are made publicly accessible in a single online portal for at least six months before the works or other subject-matter are digitised, distributed, communicated to the public or made available in all Member States other than the one where the licence is granted, and for the whole duration of the licence.
Amendment 478 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure a regular dialogue between representative users' and rightholders' organisations, and any other relevant stakeholder organisations, to, on a sector-specific basis, foster the relevance and usability of the licensing mechanisms referred to in Article 7(1),, including resolving issues where cultural heritage institutions activities in line with Articles 7 and 8 are not being reasonably enabled, to ensure the effectiveness of the safeguards for rightholders referred to in this Chapter, notably as regards publicity measures, and, where applicable, to assist in the establishment of the requirements referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 7(26).
Amendment 484 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. In order to be valid, the notification of an unauthorised protected content shall include, in particular, the identification by the rightholder of the work subject to copyright and related rights claimed to have been infringed and the identification of the uploaded work, including its exact location, that is considered to be using work subject to copyright and related rights.
Amendment 489 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11
Article 11
Amendment 492 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. Except in the cases referred to in Article 6, this Directive shall leave intact and shall in no way affect existing rules laid down in the Directives currently in force in this area, in particular Directives 96/9/EC, 2000/31/EC, 2001/29/EC, 2006/115/EC, 2009/24/EC, 2012/28/EU and 2014/26/EU.
Amendment 493 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1. These mechanisms shall in particular ensure that where the removal of the content referred to in paragraph 1 is not justified, the content in question shall be reinstated online within a reasonable time. As a last resort, Member States shall ensure the possibility of judicial redress.
Amendment 496 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. In order to ensure uniform protection of users and rightholders across the Union, the Commission shall develop guidelines on the conditions that need to be met for the validity of the notification referred to in paragraph 1a and for the complaint and redress mechanisms referred to in paragraph 2.
Amendment 500 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission, in cooperation with Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers referred to in paragraph 1, users and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, am for the implementationg others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developmentsf paragraph 1.
Amendment 505 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Member States shall ensure that where service providers take voluntary measures, these measures do not infringe the fundamental rights of users, namely their right to protection of their personal data and their freedom to receive or impart information, in accordance with Articles 8 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular their rights to the use of works made within an exception or limitation to copyright.
Amendment 509 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13a User generated content Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC, point (a) of Article 5 and Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, point (a) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 13 of this Directive in order to allow for the digital use of quotations or extracts of works and other subject-matter comprised within user-generated content for purposes such as but not limited to criticism, review, entertainment, illustration, caricature, parody or pastiche, provided that the quotations or extracts: (a) relate to works or other subject- matter that have already been lawfully made available to the public; (b) are accompanied by the indication of the source, including the author's name, unless this turns out to be impossible; and (c) are used in accordance with fair practice and in a manner that does not extend beyond the specific purpose for which they are being used.
Amendment 509 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – title
Article 13 – title
Use of copyright protected content byuploaded by users of information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users
Amendment 524 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Information society service providers that store and provide access to the public access to large amounts ofto copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter achieve fair and balanced agreements in cooperation with rightholders governing such content in order to ensure fair and appropriate compensation for the stakeholders concerned, unless they are eligible for the liability exemption provided for in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC. The implementation of such agreements shall respect the users' fundamental rights and shall comply with Article 15 of Directive 2000/31/EC. The service providers shall cooperate and work together with rightholders to ensure that the functioning and implementation of such agreements are full and transparent.
Amendment 529 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place effective mechanisms, including for complaints and redress mechanisms, that are available to users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1.
Amendment 534 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers, user representatives and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developm for the implementation of paragraph 1 in a manner that is proportionate and efficients.
Amendment 537 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13a User Generated Content Member States shall provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Article 5 and Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC, Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Directive 2006/115/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive in order to allow natural persons to use an existing work or other subject matter in the creation and use of a new work or other subject-matter, provided that: (a) the work or other subject-matter has already been lawfully made available to the public; (b) the use of the new work is done solely for non-commercial purposes; (c) the source - including, if available, the name of the author, performer, producer, or broadcaster - is indicated; (d) there is a certain level of creativity in the new work which substantially differentiates it from the original work.
Amendment 540 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 a (new)
Article 14 a (new)
Article 14a Establishment of a central database 1. The European Commission is empowered to take measures for the establishment of a central database enabling the electronic transfer of data on works subject to copyright and other related rights from existing databases of collective management organisations and providing the possibility for independent authors or performers to submit individually the data related to their respective works. 2. The database shall provide the following non exhaustive information regarding the work subject to copyright and related rights : (a) the type of use (b) the means of distribution (c) the territory (d) the duration of the copyright (e) the name of the holder(s) of the relevant rights (d) the organisation or person managing the rights (e) the rights metadata 3. For the purpose of paragraph 1, collective management organisations shall make their databases available in the public domain. 4. The database shall provide to the user the possibility to request, obtain and pay for the use of the content subject to copyright and related rights through a secure online platform, or in cases where the content cannot be obtained directly, the possibility to contact the collective management organisation or any other third party managing the rights. 5. The European Commission is empowered to take measures to ensure that the database is managed in an independent and transparent manner.
Amendment 573 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Amendment 601 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point n
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point n
(ba) point (n) of Article 5(3) is amended as follows: "(n) use by communication or making available, for the purpose of research or private study, to individual members of the public by dedicated terminals on the premises of establishments referred to in paragraph 2(c) of works and other subject- matter not subject to purchase or licensing terms which are contained in their collections;" (This amendment seeks to amend a provision within the existing act - Article 5, paragraph 3,such establishments' collections;" Or. en point n - that was not referred to in the Commission proposal.)
Amendment 606 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Directive 2006/115/EC
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
2a. Paragraph 1 of Article 6 is amended as follows: "1. Member States mayshall derogate from the exclusive right provided for in Article 1 in respect of public lending, in any format, provided that at least authors obtain a remuneration for such lending. Member States shall be free to determine thisat remuneration taking account of their cultural promotion objectives." (This amendment seeks to amend a provision within the existing act - Article 6, paragraph 1 -Or. en that was not referred to in the Commission proposal.)
Amendment 667 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 d (new)
Article 5 d (new)
Article 5 d Freedom of Panorama 1. Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC and point (a) of Article 5 and Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, permitting the reproduction and use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places. 2. Any contractual provision contrary to the exception provided for in this Article shall be unenforceable.
Amendment 731 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11
Article 11
Amendment 796 #
Proposal for a directive
Chapter 4 – title
Chapter 4 – title
Certain uses of protected content by the users of online services.
Amendment 801 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – title
Article 13 – title
Use of protected content byin certain information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users.
Amendment 816 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amouinformation provided by a recipients of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on ervice and enable users to upload works in such a way as to make them available to the public shall, upon obtaining knowledge or awareness that an uploaded work subject to copyright and otheir services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matterrelated rights is used in an unauthorised manner, act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the content, except where service providers conclude a licensing agreement with rightholders enabling the content to remain available.
Amendment 832 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. In order to be valid, the notification of an unauthorised protected content shall include, in particular, the identification by the right holder of the work subject to copyright and related rights claimed to have been infringed and the identification of the uploaded work, including its exact location, that is considered to be using work subject to copyright and related rights.
Amendment 839 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1. These mechanisms shall in particular ensure that where the removal of the content referred to in paragraph 1 is not justified, the content in question shall be reinstated online within a reasonable time. As a last resort, Member States shall ensure the possibility of judicial redress.
Amendment 850 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. In order to ensure uniform protection of users and right holders across the Union, the European Commission shall develop guidelines on the conditions that need to be met for the validity of the notification referred to in paragraph 1a and for the complaint and redress mechanisms referred to in paragraph 2.
Amendment 859 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission, in cooperation with Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers referred to in paragraph 1, users and right holders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, am for the implementationg others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developmentsf paragraph 1.
Amendment 864 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Member States shall ensure that where service providers take voluntary measures, these measures do not infringe the fundamental rights of users, namely their right to protection of their personal data and their freedom to receive or impart information, in accordance with Articles 8 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular their rights to the use of works made within an exception or limitation to copyright.
Amendment 995 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 2