Activities of Daniel DALTON related to 2016/0280(COD)
Plenary speeches (1)
Copyright in the Digital Single Market (debate)
Shadow opinions (2)
OPINION on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market
OPINION on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market
Amendments (60)
Amendment 51 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Where information society service providers store and provide accessare actively involved in the making available, promoting and curating to the public to copyright protected works or other subject-matterdigital content 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 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 61 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
In respect of Article 14, it is necessary to verify whether the service provider has playsed an active role with knowledge of the copyright protected work in question, including by optimising the presentation of the uploaded works or subject-matter or promoting them, irrespective of the nature of the means used therefor.
Amendment 72 #
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 accessactively involved in the making available 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 their value and size 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/ECin accordance with technological developments.
Amendment 73 #
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, and relevant legislation must be future proof so as to not restrict technological development. 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 80 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) Collaboration between information society service providers storing and providing accessactively involved in the making available to the public tof 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 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 agreement.
Amendment 82 #
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 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 innovation, 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 and for preservation of cultural heritage should be introduced. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, such exceptions or limitations should complement, rather than replace, existing TDM exceptions in Member States. 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 97 #
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 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 Union law, while ensuring that well-functioning text and data mining exceptions in Member States may continue to be applied.
Amendment 104 #
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, and should complement, rather than replace, existing TDM exceptions in Member States. Research organisations should also benefit from the exception when they engage into public-private partnerships.
Amendment 109 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Research organisations across the Union encompass a wide variety of entities which carry out research, including the public sector and cultural heritage institutions, the primary goal of which is to conduct scientific research or to do so together with the provision of educational services. Due to the diversity of such entities, it is important to have a common understanding of the beneficiaries of the exception. Despite different legal forms and structures, research organisations across Member States generally have in common that they act either on a not for profit basis or in the context of a public- interest mission recognised by the State. Such a public-interest mission may, for example, be reflected through public funding or through provisions in national laws or public contracts. At the same time, organisations upon which commercial undertakings have a decisive influence allowing them to exercise control because of structural situations such as their quality of shareholders or members, which may result in preferential access to the results of the research, should not be considered research organisations for the purposes of this Directive.
Amendment 113 #
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 amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperwhose users upload copyright protected content without the authorisation withof rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning ofif that authorisation is required, shall endeavour to achieve, where appropriate, 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-mattergoverning this content, unless they are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC. The implementation of such agreements shall respect users' fundamental rights and Article 15 of Directive 2000/31/EC. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the implementation of such agreements.
Amendment 120 #
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
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 measureimplementation of agreements referred to in paragraph 1.
Amendment 125 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) While distance learning, e-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. 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 128 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The exception or limitation should cover digital uses of works and other subject-matter such as the use of parts or extracts of works to support, enrich or complement the teaching, including the related learning activities to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved. The amount of a work that can be copied may vary according to the type of work and its use. Member States should be able therefore to set out appropriate limits in their national law to address this variation, as long as these limits strike a fair balance between the needs of users and rightholders. The use of the works or other subject-matter under the exception or limitation should be only in the context of teaching and learning activities carried out under the responsibility of educational establishments, including during examinations, and be limited to what is necessary for the purpose of such activities. The exception or limitation should cover both uses through digital means in the classroom and online uses through e- learning and 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 130 #
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 for the implementation of paragraph 1 in a manner that is proportionate and efficient, 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 134 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Hyperlinking to an already publicly available content does not constitute a communication to the public of that source, where the hyperlink only contains information necessary to find and/or request the source's contents.
Amendment 138 #
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. 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 172 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
Amendment 179 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
Amendment 185 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Recital 33
Amendment 199 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 208 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 241 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Where information society service providers store and provide accessare actively involved in the making available, promoting and curating to the public to copyright protected works or other subject-matterdigital content 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 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 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 254 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
In respect of Article 14, it is necessary to verify whether the service provider has playsed an active role with knowledge of the copyright protected work in question,, including by optimising the presentation of the uploaded works or subject-matter or promoting them, irrespective of the nature of the means used therefor.
Amendment 259 #
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 accessactively involved in the making available 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 their value and size 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/ECin accordance with technological developments.
Amendment 273 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) Collaboration between information society service providers storing and providing accesactively involved in the making available of copyright protected works 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 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 agreement.
Amendment 281 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
Amendment 288 #
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 be 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 direct 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 32
Recital 32
Amendment 298 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 42
Recital 42
(42) Certain contracts for the exploitation of rights harmonised at Union level are of long duration, offering few 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 bMember States may decide to introduce a remuneration adjustment mechanism for cases of unexpected success where the remuneration originally agreed under a licence or a transfer of rights is disproportionately low compared to the relevant net 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 sectors. 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 301 #
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. Member States should therefore provide for an efficient alternative dispute resolution procedure that addresses claims related to obligations of transparency and the contract adjustment mechanism.
Amendment 307 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 a (new)
(1a) 'educational establishment' means a school, college, university, or any other organisation the primary goal of which is to provide educational services: (a) on a not-for-profit basis or by reinvesting all the profits in such provision; or (b) pursuant to a public interest mission recognised by a Member State.
Amendment 312 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 3
Article 2 – paragraph 3
(3) ‘cultural heritage institution’ means a publicly accessible library or, museum, gallery or educational establishment, an archive or a film or audio heritage institution or public broadcaster;
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 316 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Amendment 322 #
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 lawful access for the purposes of scientific research. Member States may continue to apply existing well- functioning exceptions.
Amendment 326 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 334 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. Rightholders shall be allowed to apply targeted, proportionate, reasonable and non-discriminatory measures to ensure the security and integrity of the networks and databases where the works or other subject-matter are hosted. Such measures shall be reasonable and efficient, not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective, or unnecessarily hamper text and data mining.
Amendment 340 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 345 #
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 teachingeducational purposes, to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, provided that the use:
Amendment 374 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Member States may provide for restrictions on the amount of a work that can be copied in accordance with fair practice. Such restrictions shall take into account the needs of both users and rightholders.
Amendment 379 #
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, to make copies of any works or other subject-matter that are permanently in their collections or use the facilities of third parties to do so, in any format or medium, for the sole purpose of the preservation of such works or other subject-matter and to the extent necessary for such preservation.
Amendment 404 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(ca) (d) Member States shall, in consultation with rightsholders, collective management organisations and cultural heritage institutions, evaluate the effectiveness of such licensing solutions.
Amendment 418 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that information that allows the physical 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 11
Article 11
Amendment 440 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Article 11 – paragraph 4
4. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall expire 20 yearsix months 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 464 #
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 amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperwhose users upload copyright protected content without the authorisation withof rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning ofif that authorisation is required, shall endeavour to achieve, where appropriate, 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-mattergoverning this content, unless they are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and the Council. The implementation of such agreements shall respect users' fundamental rights and Article 15 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and the Council. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the implementation of such agreements.
Amendment 490 #
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 measureimplementation of such agreements referred to in paragraph 1.
Amendment 503 #
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 for the implementation of paragraph 1 in a manner that is proportionate and efficient, 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 506 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Hyperlinking to an already publicly available content does not constitute a communication to the public of that source, where the hyperlink only contains information necessary to find and/or request the source's contents.
Amendment 516 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shallmay ensure that authors and performers who are in a contractual relationship where there are ongoing payment obligations 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 theire party with whom they entered into a contract for the exploitation of rights, notably as regards modes of exploitation, revenues generated and remuneration due.
Amendment 519 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Amendment 537 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Article 14 – paragraph 3
3. Member States may decide that the obligation in paragraph 1 does not apply when reporting obligations have been agreed by the parties or when the contribution of the author or performer is not significant having regard to the overall work or performance.
Amendment 547 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensurmay decide that authors and performers are entitled, in case of an unexpected success, 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 net revenues and benefits derived from the exploitation of the works or performances.
Amendment 557 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Member States shallmay provide that disputes concerning the transparency obligation under Article 14 and the contract adjustment mechanism under Article 15 may be submitted to a voluntary, alternative dispute resolution procedure.
Amendment 574 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Amendment 575 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. The provision in Article 15 shall apply only to circumstances where the remuneration has become disproportionate due to cases of unexpected success after [the date mentioned in Article 21(1)].
Amendment 731 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11
Article 11
Amendment 995 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 2