Activities of Antanas GUOGA related to 2016/0280(COD)
Plenary speeches (1)
Copyright in the Digital Single Market (debate)
Amendments (78)
Amendment 71 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The directives which have been adopted in the area of copyright and related rights provide for a high level of protection for rightholders and create a framework wherein the exploitation of works and other protected subject-matter can take place. This harmonised legal framework contributes to the good functioning of the truly integrated internal market; it stimulates innovation, creativity, investment and production of new content, also in the digital environment. The protection provided by this legal framework also contributes to the Union's objective of respecting and promoting cultural diversity while at the same time bringing the European common cultural heritage to the fore. Article 167(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union requires the Union to take cultural aspects into account in its action.
Amendment 79 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) In the fields of research, innovation, 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 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, innovation, 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 and innovation, illustration for teaching in the digital environment 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 79 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The directives which have been adopted in the area of copyright and related rights provide for a high level of protection for rightholders and create a framework wherein the exploitation of works and other protected subject-matter can take place. This harmonised legal framework contributes to the good functioning of the truly integrated internal market; it stimulates innovation, creativity, investment and production of new content, also in the digital environment. The protection provided by this legal framework also contributes to the Union's objective of respecting and promoting cultural diversity while at the same time bringing the European common cultural heritage to the fore. Article 167(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union requires the Union to take cultural aspects into account in its action.
Amendment 92 #
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 data, generally known as text and data mining. Those technologies allow researchers to process large amounts of digitally stored 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 institutes 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.
Amendment 96 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) In the fields of research, innovation, 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 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 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 and innovation, illustration for teaching in the digital environment 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 102 #
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. Research organisations should also benefit from the exception when they engage into public-private partnerships. The new exceptions 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 115 #
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 data, generally known as text and data mining. Those technologies allow researchers to process large amounts of digitally stored information to gain new knowledge and discover new trends. Whilst tText and data mining technologies are prevalent across the digital economy, and there is a widespread acknowledgment that text and data mining can in particular benefit not only the research community but also start ups and in so doing encourage innovation. However, in the Union, research organisations such as universities and research institutes 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. This is where research organisations such as universities and research institutes as well as businesses that use text and data mining as their main tool are confronted with legal uncertainty as to the extent to which they can perform text and data mining of content. 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.
Amendment 124 #
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 havethere is 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 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. In terms of digital economy and its growth, it is important to recognise the positive impact that text and mining has on innovation and how it can foster further development of digital economy in the Union by providing for an exception for reproductions and extractions of information to be submitted to text and data mining when there is acquired lawful access.
Amendment 127 #
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, also including libraries which provide non- formal learning activities for a wide range of citizens across the Union every year to the extent when 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 130 #
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, libraries that provide non- formal learning activities, 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 or learning area 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 143 #
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 may create new challenges. In view of thespossible 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 147 #
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, digitally or otherwise, permanently in their collections for preservation purposes, for example to address technological obsolescence or the degradation of original supports. Such an exception should allow for the making of copies in any format 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.
Amendment 147 #
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. Research organisations should also benefit from the exception when they engage into public-private partnerships. 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 150 #
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 or educational establishment when copies are owned or permanently held by the cultural heritage institution, for example as a result of a transfer of ownership or licence agreements.
Amendment 158 #
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. 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 182 #
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, also including libraries which provide non- formal learning activities for a wide range of citizens across the Union every year 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 192 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) For the purposes of this Directive, it is necessary to define the concept 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, weekly or monthly magazines of general or special interest 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 does not extend to acts of hyperlinking which do not constitute communication to the publica computation referencing or indexing system such as hyperlinking.
Amendment 192 #
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 as well as libraries that provide non-formal learning activities, 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 or learning area 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 198 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 214 #
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 could also create new challenges. In view of thespossible 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 215 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) OEspecially 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 easy 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, but also causing challenges when copyright protected content is uploaded without prior authorization from right holders.
Amendment 224 #
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, digitally or otherwise, permanently in their collections for preservation purposes, for example to address technological obsolescence or the degradation of original supports. Such an exception should allow for the making of copies in any format 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.
Amendment 243 #
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 toy should conclude licensing agreements with rightholders in order to ensure fair 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 247 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
Amendment 249 #
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. It is therefore necessary to provide for measures to facilitate the licensing of rights inonline availability 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 260 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
In order to ensure the functioning of any licensing agreement, 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 should take appropriatreasonable and approportionriate measures to ensure protection of works or other subject-matter, such as implementing effective technologies. This obligation should also apply when the information society service providers are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC.
Amendment 265 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 a (new)
Recital 38 a (new)
(38 a) For the implementation of such measures, rightholders should provide service providers with accurately identified works or subject matter over which they consider to have rights in copyright. Rightholders retain responsibility for claims made by third parties over the use of works which they would have identified as being their own in the implementation of any agreement reached with the service provider.
Amendment 274 #
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 funcimplementationing of technologies, such as content recognition technologies. In such casesreasonable and appropriate measures. Therefore, rightholders should provide the necessary data to allow the services to identify their content to which they have rights in copyright 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 rightholdersand provide them with information on the type of technologimeasures 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 agreement.
Amendment 285 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 40
Recital 40
(40) Certain rightholders such as authors and performers need information to assess the economic value of their rights which are harmonised under Union law. This is especially the case where such rightholders grant a licence or a transfer of rights in return for remuneration. As authors and performers tend to bare in a weaker contractual position when they grant licences or transfer their rights, they need information to assess the continued economic value of their rights, compared to the remuneration received for their licence or transfer, but they often face a lack of transparency. Therefore, the sharing of adequate information by their contractual counterparts or their successors in title is important for the transparency and balance in the system that governs the remuneration of authors and performers.
Amendment 295 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 42
Recital 42
(42) CertainMost contracts for the exploitation of rights harmonised at Union level are of long durationfor the entire duration of copyright, offering fewno possibilities for authors and performers to renegotiate them with their contractual counterparts or their successors in title. Therefore, without prejudice to the law applicable to contracts in Member States, there should be a remuneration adjustment mechanism for cases where the remuneration originally agreed under a licence or a transfer of rights is disproportionately low compared to the relevant revenues and the benefits derived from the exploitation of the work or the fixation of the performance, including in light of the transparency ensured by this Directive. The assessment of the situation should take account of the specific circumstances of each case as well as of the specificities and practices of the different content sectorsCollective bargaining should be considered as an option to reach an agreement. Where the parties do not agree on the adjustment of the remuneration, the author or performer should be entitled to bring a claim before a court or other competent authority.
Amendment 300 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 43
Recital 43
(43) Authors and performers are often reluctantunable to enforce their rights against their contractual partners before a court or tribunal. Member States should therefore provide for an alternative dispute resolution procedure that addresses claims related to obligations of transparency and the contract adjustment mechanism. The dispute settlement resolution can also be agreed upon in collective agreements.
Amendment 320 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) For the purposes of this Directive, it is necessary to define the concept 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, weekly or monthly magazines of general or special interest 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 does not extend to acts of hyperlinking which do not constitute communication to the publica computation referencing or indexing system such as hyperlinking.
Amendment 326 #
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 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 acquired lawful access for the purposes of scientific research.
Amendment 329 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 348 #
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 352 #
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 a cultural heritage institution or through a secure electronic network accessible only by the educational establishment's pupils or, students and teaching staff, teaching staff or registered members of the cultural heritage institution who are enrolled into the non- formal education activities provided by a cultural heritage institution;
Amendment 365 #
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 and visibility of the licences authorising the acts described in paragraph 1 for educational establishments and cultural heritage institutions.
Amendment 367 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) OEspecially 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 mainimportant sources of easy 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, also causing challenges when copyright protected content is uploaded without prior authorization from rightholders.
Amendment 371 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. Member States mayshall provide for fair compensation for the harm incurred by the rightholders due to the use of their works or other subject-matter pursuant to paragraph 1.
Amendment 395 #
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 toy should conclude licensing agreements with rightholders in order to ensure fair 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 403 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
Amendment 421 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
In order to ensure the functioning of any licensing agreement, 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 should take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure protection of works or other subject-matter, such as implementing effective technologies. This obligation should also apply when the information society service providers are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC.
Amendment 428 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Recital 38 – paragraph 3 a (new)
For the implementation of such measures, rightholders should provide service providers with accurately identified works or subject matter over which they consider to have rights in copyright. Rigtholders retain responsibility for claims made by third parties over the use of works which they would have identified as being their own in the implementation of any agreement reached with the service provider.
Amendment 430 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/ECa presumption of representation of authors of literary works contained in publications and the legal possibility to sue in their own name when defending the rights of such author for the digital use of their press publications.
Amendment 437 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Amendment 439 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Amendment 443 #
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 funcimplementationing of technologies, such as content recognition technologies. In such casesreasonable and appropriate measures. Therefore, rightholders should provide the necessary data to allow the services to identify their content to which they have rights in copyright 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 agreemand provide them with information on the measures, the way they are operated and their success rate for the recognition of rightholders' content.
Amendment 463 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 40
Recital 40
(40) Certain rightholders such as authors and performers need information to assess the economic value of their rights which are harmonised under Union law. This is especially the case where such rightholders grant a licence or a transfer of rights in return for remuneration. As authors and performers tend to bare in a weaker contractual position when they grant licences or transfer their rights, they need information to assess the continued economic value of their rights, compared to the remuneration received for their licence or transfer, but they often face a lack of transparency. Therefore, the sharing of adequate information by their contractual counterparts or their successors in title is important for the transparency and balance in the system that governs the remuneration of authors and performers.
Amendment 468 #
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 reasonable and appropriate 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,. Those measures may take into account various available technological developments that would be appropriate for the nature of services of information society service provider. The service providers shall cooperate with rightholders and provide them with adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter.
Amendment 479 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 42
Recital 42
(42) CertainMost contracts for the exploitation of rights harmonised at Union level are of long durationfor the entire duration of copyright, offering fewno possibilities for authors and performers to renegotiate them with their contractual counterparts or their successors in title. Therefore, without prejudice to the law applicable to contracts in Member States, there should be a remuneration adjustment mechanism for cases where the remuneration originally agreed under a licence or a transfer of rights is disproportionately low compared to the relevant revenues and the benefits derived from the exploitation of the work or the fixation of the performance, including in light of the transparency ensured by this Directive. The assessment of the situation should take account of the specific circumstances of each cCollective bargaining should be considered ase as well as of the specificities and practices of the different content sectorsn option to reach an agreement. Where the parties do not agree on the adjustment of the remuneration, the author or performer should be entitled to bring a claim before a court or other competent authority.
Amendment 481 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 43
Recital 43
(43) Authors and performers are often reluctantunable to enforce their rights against their contractual partners before a court or tribunal. Member States should therefore provide for an alternative dispute resolution procedure that addresses claims related to obligations of transparency and the contract adjustment mechanism. The dispute settlement resolution could also be agreed upon in collective agreements.
Amendment 485 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. For this purpose, rightholders shall provide service providers with accurately identified works or subject matter over which they enjoy right.
Amendment 491 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure and provide measures 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.
Amendment 502 #
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 and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropri of measures thate andre proportionate content recognition technologiesand effective to ensure the protection of rightholders' works and or other subject-matter, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments.
Amendment 523 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that authors and performers receive on a regular basis and taking into account the specificities of each sector, timely, adequate, accurate and sufficient information on the exploitation of their works and performances from those to whom they have licensed or transferred their rights on a revenue share basis, notably as regards modes of exploitation, modes of promotion, revenues generated and remuneration due.
Amendment 529 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 2
Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. The obligation in paragraph 1 shall be proportionate and effective and shall ensure an appropriate levelensure a high degree of transparency in every sector. However, in those cases where the administrative burden resulting from the obligation would be disproportionate in view of the revenues generated by the exploitation of the work or performance, Member States mayshall adjust the obligation in paragraph 1, under the condition that the level of disproportionality is duly justified, provided that the obligation remains effective and ensures an appropriate level of transparency.
Amendment 536 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Article 14 – paragraph 3
3. Member States may decide that tThe obligation in paragraph 1 does not apply when the contribution of the author or performer is not significant having regard to the overall work or performance or when reporting obligations have been agreed by parties, for instance through collective bargaining agreements which are reflected in terms of the contract or performed or which are otherwise applicable.
Amendment 539 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 4
Article 14 – paragraph 4
4. Paragraph 1 shall not be applicable to entities subject to the transparency obligations established by Directive 2014/26/EU.
Amendment 542 #
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 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 havea lawful access is acquired for the sole purposes of scientific researchtext and data mining.
Amendment 551 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that authors and performers are entitled to request additional, appropriate remuneration from the party with whom they entered into a contract for the exploitation of the rights when the remuneration originally agreed is widely disproportionately low compared to the unanticipated subsequent relevant revenues and benefits derived from the exploitation of the works or performances.
Amendment 555 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 does not apply when the contribution of the author or performer is not significant having regard to the overall work or performance, or when a revenue or profit share has been agreed by the parties.
Amendment 579 #
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 587 #
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 a cultural heritage institution through a secure electronic network accessible only by the educational establishment's pupils or students and teaching staff or registered members of a cultural heritage institution who are enrolled into the non-formal education activities provided by a cultural heritage institution;
Amendment 618 #
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 and visibility of the licences authorising the acts described in paragraph 1 for educational establishments and cultural heritage institutions.
Amendment 632 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. Member States mayshall provide for fair compensation for the harm incurred by the rightholders due to the use of their works or other subject-matter pursuant to paragraph 1.
Amendment 749 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/ECa presumption of representation of authors of literary works contained in publications and the legal possibility to sue in their own name when defending the rights of such author for the digital use of their press publications.
Amendment 771 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Amendment 778 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Amendment 822 #
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 reasonable and appropriate 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,. Those measures may take into account various available technological developments that would be appropriate for the nature of services of the information society provider. The service providers shall cooperate with rightholders and provide them with adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter.
Amendment 834 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. For this purpose, rightholders shall provide service providers with accurately identified works or subject matter over which they enjoy rights.
Amendment 844 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure and provide measures 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.
Amendment 861 #
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 and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologiesof measures that are proportionate and effective to ensure the protection of rightholders' works or other subject matter, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments.
Amendment 884 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that authors and performers receive on a regular basis and no less than once a year and taking into account the specificities of each sector, timely, adequate, accurate and sufficient information on the exploitation of their works and performances from those to whom they have licensed or transferred their rights or their successors in title, notably as regards modes of exploitation, revenues generated and remuneration due.
Amendment 906 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 2
Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. The obligation in paragraph 1 shall be proportionate and effective and shall ensure an appropriate levelensure a high degree of transparency in every sector. However, in those cases where the administrative burden resulting from the obligation would be disproportionate in view of the revenues generated by the exploitation of the work or performance, Member States may adjust the obligation in paragraph 1, under the condition that the level of disproportionality is duly justified, provided that the obligation remains effective and ensures an appropriate level of transparency.
Amendment 915 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Article 14 – paragraph 3
3. Member States may decide that tThe obligation in paragraph 1 does not apply when the contribution of the author or performer is not significant having regard to the overall work or performance or when reporting obligations have been agreed by parties, for instance through collective bargaining agreements which are reflected in terms of the contract.
Amendment 934 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that authors and performers are entitled to request additional,an appropriate remuneration from the party with whom they entered into a contract for the exploitation of the rights when the remuneration originally agreed is disproportionately low compared to the subsequent relevant revenues and benefits derived from the exploitation of theor the exploitation of their works or performances.
Amendment 950 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States shall ensure that authors and performers or their representative organisations are entitled to request additional, appropriate remuneration from the party with whom they entered into a contract for the exploitation of the rights when originally agreed remuneration is disproportionately low in comparison to the unexpected success and therefore net revenues derived from the exploitation of their works or performances.
Amendment 970 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Proceedings in respect of a dispute may be also brought on behalf of authors and performers by their representative organisations.