Activities of Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL related to 2016/0280(COD)
Plenary speeches (2)
Copyright in the Digital Single Market (debate) ES
Copyright in the Digital Single Market (debate) ES
Amendments (14)
Amendment 286 #
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 a context where news aggregators and search engines are increasingly making profit out of press publications, without contributing to their development and without fairly remunerating their creators. In the absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, licensing and enforcement in the digital environment is often complex and inefficient.
Amendment 303 #
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 316 #
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 should notably apply where the content is automatically generated by, for example, news aggregators but does not extend to acts of hyperlinking which do not constitute communication to the public as it may be the case with acts of hyperlinking.
Amendment 336 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
(34) The rights granted to the publishers of press publications under this Directive should have the same scope as the rights of reproduction and making available to the public provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC, insofar as digital uses are concerned. They should also be subject to the same provisions on exceptions and limitations as those applicable to the rights provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC including the exception on quotation for purposes such as criticism or review laid down in Article 5(3)(d) of that Directive.
Amendment 361 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) Evolution of digital technologies has led to the emergence of new business models and reinforced the role of the Internet as the main marketplace for the distribution of and access to copyright- protected content. Over the last years, the functioning of the online content marketplace has gained in complexity. Online services providing access to copyright protected content uploaded by their users without the involvement of right holders have flourished and have become main sources of access to content online. This affects rightholders' possibilities to determine whether, and under which conditions, their work and other subject- matter are used as well as their possibilities to get an appropriate remuneration for it. The creative sector contributes significantly both economically and culturally to the strength of the Union, and the importance of the sector has long been recognised by Union law including Directive 2001/29/EC, which aims to guarantee a framework wherein the exploitation of works and other protected subject-matter can take place. Difficulties faced by rightholders when seeking to license their rights to certain online services and be remunerated for the online distribution of their works and subject matter risks undermining that aim. To uphold a high level of protection that enables the creative sectors to continue to contribute culturally and economically to the Union it is necessary to ensure that legal certainty is provided both for rightholders and users of protected works and subject-matter and that rightholders are able to negotiate copyright licenses with user – uploaded content services that distribute their content.
Amendment 397 #
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 publicor making available to the public, as the case may be, they are obliged to conclude licensing agreements with 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 . _________________ 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 422 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
In order to ensure the functioning of any licensing agreement or to prevent the availability on their services of content not covered by such agreements, 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 consistent with prevailing technologies and industry best practices, and provided such technology exists. 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 441 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) Collaboration between information society service providers storing and providIn cases when the measures and technologies deployed ing 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 functioning of technologies, such as content recognition technologies. In such cases, rightholders should provide the necessary data to allow the services to identify their content and the services should be transparent towards rightholders with regard to the deployed technologies, to allow the assordance with this Directive affect the upload of content covered by an exception or authorization granted, it is necessary to require service providers to set up complaints and redress mechanisms for the benefit of users whose content has been affected by the measures. Such mechanisms should strike an appropriate balance between the need to ensure that content covered by exceptions to copyright or authorisations is not unduly affected by the measures, and the need to ensure that complaints and redress ment of their appropriateness. The services should in particular provide rightchanisms do not unreasonably prejudice the effectiveness of the measures. To achieve that aim, complaints and redress mechanisms shoulders with information on the type of technologies used, the way they are operated and their success r prescribe minimum standards for complaints to ensure right holders are provided with adequate infor the recognition of rightholders' content. Those technologies should also allow rightholders to get information from the information society service providers onmation to assess and respond to complaints. Properly functioning complaints and redress mechanisms should provide rightholders with an adequate period to respond to complaints, taking into account the number of complaints being processed by the recipient rightholder at the ustime of their content covered by an agreememplaint.
Amendment 741 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – title
Article 11 – title
Protection of press publications concerning digital uses
Amendment 757 #
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/EC for the digital use of their press publications.
Amendment 781 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Article 11 – paragraph 4
4. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall expire 2015 years after the publication of the press publication. This term shall be calculated from the first day of January of the year following the date of publication.
Amendment 817 #
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 works or other subject- matter uploaded by their users perform an act of communication or making available to the public. In cases where those service providers store and provide access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users, the service providers shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take effective 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.
Amendment 862 #
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 technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies andensure 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 particular regarding the possible application of an exception or an authorisation of use relating to the content concerned. Such mechanisms shall not unreasonably prejudice their effectiveness in light of technological developmentsof measures referred to in paragraph 1.
Amendment 931 #
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, appropriat equitable remuneration derived from the party with whom they entered intoexploitation of their works. The additional remuneration shall be adjusted for the party with whom a contract for the exploitation of the rights was entered into, when the remuneration originally agreed is disproportionately low compared to the subsequent relevaner than the net revenues and benefits derreceived from the exploitation of the works or performancesand provided for at the start of such exploitation.