28 Amendments of Eleftherios SYNADINOS related to 2016/0280(COD)
Amendment 14 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The Treaty provides for the establishment of an internal market and the institution of a system ensuring that competition in the internal market is not distorted. Harmonisation of the laws of the Member States on copyright and related rights should contribute further to the achievement of those objectives in an objective, transparent and proportionate manner.
Amendment 15 #
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 internal market; it as stimpulates 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 actiond by priorities and objectives set at European level; it stimulates investment in the digital environment, innovation and creativity.
Amendment 16 #
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 to ensure continuity and legal certainty and with an aim to modernise and update thatlegal framework. This Directive provides for rules to adapt, in a targeted manner, 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 greatest possible transparency of authors' and performers' contracts. __________________ 26 COM(2015) 626 final.
Amendment 17 #
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, though this has not yet been asserted or presumed. 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 national cultural heritage of the respective Member States should be reassessed in the light of those new uses and be protected as social assets under the auspices of the Member States. 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 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 as an absolute minimum. Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC should be adapted.
Amendment 18 #
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, often of public nature or financed from national budgets, a process generally known as text and data mining. Those technologies allow researchers to process 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 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 19 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Union law alreadrightly provides certain exceptions and limitations covering uses for scientific research purposes already, which may apply to acts of text and data mining. However, those exceptions and limitations are merely 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 improperly, unnecessarily or wrongly 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.
Amendment 20 #
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 proportional and necessary to pursue the objective of ensuring the respectively graduated or classified security and integrity of the system and should not undermine the effective application of the exception.
Amendment 21 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) There is no need to provide for compensation for directly relevant rightholders as regards uses under the text and data mining exception introduced by this Directive given that in view of the particular nature and limited scope of the exception the plausible harm should be minimal.
Amendment 22 #
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, maintenance and utilisation of their collections for the benefit of future generations. Digital technologies offer new ways to preserve the heritage contained in those collections but they also create new challenges. In view of these new challenges, it is necessary to adapt the current legal framework by providing a mandatory exception to the right of reproduction in order to allow those acts of preservation.
Amendment 23 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Different approaches in the Member States for acts of preservation by cultural heritage institutions hajudiciously imperde cross- border cooperation and the sharing of means of preservation by cultural heritage institutions in the internal market, leading to an inefficient use of resources that is not the most efficient or widest possible.
Amendment 24 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) For reasons of international comitySubject to the need for reciprocity between Member States and third countries as applicable, the licensing mechanisms for the digitisation and dissemination of out-of- commerce works provided for in this Directive should not apply to works or other subject-matter that are first published or, in the absence of publication, first broadcast in a third country or, in the case of cinematographic or audiovisual works, to works the producer of which has his headquarters or habitual residence in a third country. Those mechanisms should also not apply to works or other subject- matter of third country nationals except when they are first published or, in the absence of publication, first broadcast in the territory of a Member State or, in the case of cinematographic or audiovisual works, to works of which the producer's headquarters or habitual residence is in a Member State.
Amendment 25 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) As mass digitisation projects can entail significant investments by cultural heritage institutions, any licences granted under the mechanisms provided for in this Directive should not prevent them from generating reasonable revenues in order to cover the costs of the licence and the costs of digitising and disseminating the works and other subject-matter covered by the licence, if those investments are not covered by other resources or funds.
Amendment 26 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) To facilitate the licensing of rights in audiovisual works to video-on-demand platforms, this Directive requires Member States to set up a negotiation mechanism allowing parties willing to conclude an agreement to rely on the assistance of an impartial and politically independent body. The body should meet with the parties and help with the negotiations by providing professional and external advice. Against that background, Member States should decide on the conditions of the functioning of the negotiation mechanism, including the timing and duration of the assistance to negotiations and the bearing of the costs. Member States should ensure that administrative and financial burdens remain proportionate to guarantee the efficiency of the negotiation forum.
Amendment 28 #
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. IWhen it is indeed and truly free, its actions and goals are not dictated by third actors, and it is not driven by self-serving interests against the objectives that it theoretically serves, then 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, licensing and enforcement in the digital environment is often complex, fragmented and inefficient.
Amendment 29 #
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 assess whether it would be appropriate 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 86 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 43
Recital 43
(43) Authors and performers are often reluctant to enforce their rights against their contractual partners before a court or tribunal, since this procedure is often economically inexpedient or unviable in addition to procedural barriers. Member States should therefore assess the applicability of provideing for an alternative dispute resolution procedure that addresses claims related to obligations of transparency and the contract adjustment mechanism.
Amendment 87 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 46
Recital 46
(46) Any processing of personal data under this Directive should respect fundamental rights as these are stipulated in the Treaties, the legislation and relevant case-law, including the right to respect for private and family life and the right to protection of personal data under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and must be in compliance with Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council35 and Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council36 . __________________ 35 Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31– 50). This Directive is repealed with effect from 25 May 2018 and shall be replaced by Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1–88). 36 Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ L 201, 31.7.2002, p. 37–47), called, as amended by Directives 2006/24/EC and 2009/136/EC, the “e- Privacy Directive”.
Amendment 88 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
1. This Directive lays down rules which aim at further harmonising the Union law applicable to copyright and related rights in the framework of the internal market, with interventions on the digital internal market proportional to the objectives pursued, taking into account in particular digital and cross-border uses of protected content. It also lays down certain specific rules on exceptions and limitations, on the facilitation of licences as well as rules aiming at theoretically ensuring a well-functioning marketplace for the exploitation of works and other subject-matter.
Amendment 89 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – introductory part
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – introductory part
(1) ‘research organisation’ means a university, a research institute or any other organisation the primary goal of which is to conduct scientific research or to conduct scientific research and provide educational services:
Amendment 90 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b
(b) pursuant to a public interest mission explicitly recognised by a Member State within the territory of which it operates and in which it is primarily based and where its headquarters are located;
Amendment 91 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3
(3) ‘cultural heritage institution’ means a publicly accessible, directly or indirectly, library or museum, an archive or a film or audio heritage institution, or organization explicitly recognised by a Member State as such or pursuant to such a mission;
Amendment 92 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. Any contractual provision contrary to the spirit of the exception provided for in paragraph 1 shall be unenforceable.
Amendment 93 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. Member States may provide for fairdirectly proportional compensation for the established and documented harm incurred by the rightholders due to the use of their works or other subject-matter pursuant to paragraph 1.
Amendment 123 #
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, in addition to the ordinary court or tribunal procedures.
Amendment 132 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall facilitacontribute, where appropriate, to the cooperation between the information society service providers 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 developments.
Amendment 141 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that authors and performers are entitled to receive on a regular basis and taking into account the specificities of each sector, timely, adequate and sufficient information on the exploitation of their works and performances from those to whom they have licensed or transferred their rights, notably as regards modes of exploitation, revenues generated and remuneration due.
Amendment 143 #
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 disproportionately low compared to the subsequent relevant revenues and benefits derived from the exploitation of the works or performances, in accordance with the relevant case-law and without disproportionally burdening the party that exploits the rights conferred upon those works.
Amendment 144 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 21 – paragraph 2
Article 21 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive post-adoption.