BETA

52 Amendments of Victor NEGRESCU related to 2016/0280(COD)

Amendment 83 #
Proposal for a directive
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.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 89 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4 a (new)
(4a) This Directive and its provisions do not concern and do not constitute a legal barrier to the activity of search engines and distributors of digital content.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 90 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4 b (new)
(4b) This Directive recognises the rights of users of digital services to use facilities providing access to online content free of charge.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 119 #
Proposal for a directive
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 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 requiredby any natural or legal person with lawful access.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 183 #
Proposal for a directive
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, as well as organizations such as libraries and other cultural heritage institutions providing non-formal 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.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 289 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
(31) A free and pluralist press is essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens' access to information. It provides a fundamental contribution to public debate and the proper functioning of a democratic society. In the transition from print to digital, publishers of press publications are facing problems in licensing the online use of their publications and recouping their investments. In the absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, lLicensing and enforcement in the digital environment is often complex and inefficient.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 290 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
(31) An open Internet and free and pluralist press is essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens' access to information. It provides a fundamental contribution to public debate and the proper functioning of a democratic society. In the transition from print to digital, publishers of press publications are facing problems in licensing the online use of their publications and recouping their investments. In the absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, licensing and enforcement in the digital environment is often complex and inefficient.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 298 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
(32) The organisational and financial contribution of journalists and 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 usesnews production.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 312 #
Proposal for a directive
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.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 326 #
Proposal for a directive
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.deleted
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 340 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
(35) The protection granted to publishers of press publications under this Directive should not affect the rights of the authors and other rightholders in the works and other subject-matter incorporated therein, including as regards the extent to which authors and other rightholders can exploit their works or other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated. Therefore, publishers of press publications should not be able to invoke the protection granted to them against authors and other rightholders. This is without prejudice to contractual arrangements concluded between the publishers of press publications, on the one side, and authors and other rightholders, on the other side.deleted
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 365 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
(37) Over the last years, the functioning of the online content marketplace has gained in complexity. Online services providing access to copyright protected content uploaded by their users without the involvement of right holdersonline services enabling users to upload works and to make them accessible to the public have flourished and have become mainimportant sources of access to content online. This affects rightholders' possibilities to determine whether, and un and of creativity. At the same time, when protected content is uploaderd which conditions, their without priork and other subject-matter are used as well as their possibilities to get an appropriate remuneration for ituthorisation from right holders, they have generated challenges.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 366 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
(37) Over the last years, the functioning of the online content marketplace has gained in complexity. Online services providing access to copyright protected content uploaded by their users without the involvement of right 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 i, allowing for diversity and creation of new content, while stimulating the revenues of the creative sector to grow in the digital environment.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 385 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Where an information society service is providers store and provide access to the public to copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users, thereby going beyond the mere provision of physical facilities and performing an ad that consists of the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service and providers of the service enable users to upload works in such as a way as to make them available to the public and obtains knowledge after receiving notification by the rightholders that the work is used in an unauthorised manner and subject tof communication to the public, they are obliged to conclude licensing agreements with rightholders, unless they arpyright and related rights, those providers are obliged to take that content down in order to be eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council34 . _________________ 34 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1–16). However, it is in the interests of all parties involved that the content remain online. Therefore, the possibility of concluding a licensing agreement between rightholders and the service providers on fair and reasonable terms for that purpose should be enabled. In order to ensure that notifications of works subject to copyright and related rights are valid, rightholders should provide service providers with an accurate identification of both the protected works and the uploaded content deemed to be unauthorised, including its exact location. To prevent misuses or abuses of notifications, and protect freedom of information and expression and the limitations and exceptions to copyright law, users should have access to redress and complaint mechanisms.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 390 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Where information society service providers store and provide access to the public to copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users, thereby going beyond the mere provision of physical facilities and performing an act of communication to the public, they are obliged to conclude licensing agreements with rightholdeworks uploaded by their users, they should conclude agreements with rightholders that ensure appropriate remuneration for authors, unless they are eligiblequalified for the liability exemptions provided in Article 14s 12, 13, 14 and 15 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, . Such agreements should take into consideration the interests of authors, performers, all end-users and information society services. To avoid multiple licensing for the use of the same work on the same information society service providers, which would lead to fragmentation of the Digital Single Market, rightholders should offer a single agreement or license covering the Internal Market (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1–16)relevant copyrighted works and should offer pan- European licence for the use of their work covered by this recital.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 401 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
In respect of Article 14, it is necessary to verify whether the service provider plays an active role, including by optimising the presentation of the uploaded works or subject-matter or promoting them, irrespective of the nature of the means used therefor.deleted
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 402 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
In respect of Article 14, it is necessary to verify whether the service provider plays an active role, including by optimising the presentation of the uploaded works or subject-matter or promoting them, irrespective of the nature of the means used therefor.deleted
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 413 #
Proposal for a directive
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.deleted
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 416 #
Proposal for a directive
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.deleted
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 435 #
Proposal for a directive
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 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.deleted
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 444 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
(39) Collaboration between information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users and rightand right holders is essential to facilitate the accurate identification of unauthorised works online. Appropriate safeguards shoulders is essential for the functioning of technologies, such as content recognition technologies. In such cases, rightholders should provide the necessary data to allow however be put in place where they agree on the introduction of voluntary measures to ensure that the services to identify their content and the services should be transparent towards rightholders with regard to the deployed technologies, to allow the assessment of their appropriateness. The services should in particular provide rightholders with information on the type of technologies used, the way they are operated and their success rate for the recognition of rightholders' content. Those technologies should also allow rightholders to get information from the information society service providers on the use of their content covered by an agreemen do not infringe the fundamental rights of users, namely their right to protection of their personal data and their freedom to receive or impart information, in accordance with Articles 8 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union, in particular their rights to the use of works made in accordance with an exception or limitation to copyright.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 492 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. Except in the cases referred to in Article 6, this Directive shall leave intact and shall in no way affect existing rules laid down in the Directives currently in force in this area, in particular Directives 96/9/EC, 2000/31/EC, 2001/29/EC, 2006/115/EC, 2009/24/EC, 2012/28/EU and 2014/26/EU.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 495 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. Except in the cases referred to in Article 6, this Directive shall leave intact and shall in no way affect existing rules laid down in the Directives currently in force in this area, in particular Directives 96/9/EC, 2000/31/EC, 2001/29/EC, 2006/115/EC, 2009/24/EC, 2012/28/EU and 2014/26/EU.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 496 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The processing of personal data carried out within the framework of this Directive shall be subject to Directive 95/46/EC and the General Data Protection Regulation.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 510 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2
(2) 'text and data mining' means any automated analytical technique aiming to analyse text and data in digital form in order to generate information such ascomputational technique which analyses works and other subject matter in digital form in order to generate information including, but not limited to, inferences, insights, attributes, patterns, trends and correlations;
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 511 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2
(2) 'text and data mining' means any automated analytical technique aiming to analyse text and datawhich analyses works and other subject matter in digital form in order to generate information such as, including, but not limited to, patterns, trends and correlations;.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 532 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Article 2, 3 and 4 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 organisatiany natural or legal persons in order to carry out text and data mining of works or other subject- matter to which they have person performing such acts has lawful access, and for the purposes of scientific researchincidental inclusion of such works and other subject matter in other material in accordance with fair practice.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 543 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Articles 2, 3 and 4 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 researchas long as the body performing these acts has lawful access.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 555 #
3. Rightholders shall not be allowed to apply measures to ensure the security and integrity of the networks and databases where the works or other subject-matter are hosted. Such measures shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.prevent or to hinder beneficiaries from benefiting from the exception provided in paragraph 1
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 561 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall encourage rightholders and research organisationbeneficiaries to define commonly-agreed best practices concerning the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 3.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 580 #
Proposal for a directive
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:
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 591 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) takes place on the premises of an educational establishment or other educational venue, such as cultural heritage institutions, or through a secure electronic network accessible only by the educational establishment's pupils or students and teaching staff;
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 617 #
Proposal for a directive
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.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 643 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Member States shall provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive, permitting cultural heritage institutions or educational facilities, to make copies of any works or other subject-matter that are permanently in their collections, 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.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 651 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States shall recognise that once a work is in the public domain because the copyright and other related rights therein have expired or never existed, accurate reproductions in full or in part of that work shall not be subject to copyright or related rights.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 731 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11
Protection of press publications 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. 2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall leave intact and shall in no way affect any rights provided for in Union law to authors and other rightholders, in respect of the works and other subject- matter incorporated in a press publication. Such rights may not be invoked against those authors and other rightholders and, in particular, may not deprive them of their right to exploit their works and other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated. 3. Articles 5 to 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC and Directive 2012/28/EU shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of the rights referred to in paragraph 1. 4. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall expire 20 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.Article 11 deleted concerning digital uses
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 796 #
Proposal for a directive
Chapter 4 – title
Certain uses of protected content by the users of online services.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 801 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – title
Use of protected content byin certain information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 802 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – title
Use of copyright protected content byuploaded by users of information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 816 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amouinformation provided by a recipients of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on ervice and enable users to upload works in such a way as to make them available to the public shall, upon obtaining knowledge or awareness that an uploaded work subject to copyright and otheir services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matterrelated rights is used in an unauthorised manner, act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the content, except where service providers conclude a licensing agreement with rightholders enabling the content to remain available.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 832 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. In order to be valid, the notification of an unauthorised protected content shall include, in particular, the identification by the right holder of the work subject to copyright and related rights claimed to have been infringed and the identification of the uploaded work, including its exact location, that is considered to be using work subject to copyright and related rights.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 839 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1. These mechanisms shall in particular ensure that where the removal of the content referred to in paragraph 1 is not justified, the content in question shall be reinstated online within a reasonable time. As a last resort, Member States shall ensure the possibility of judicial redress.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 850 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. In order to ensure uniform protection of users and right holders across the Union, the European Commission shall develop guidelines on the conditions that need to be met for the validity of the notification referred to in paragraph 1a and for the complaint and redress mechanisms referred to in paragraph 2.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 853 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Member States shall ensure that users have access to a court or other relevant judicial authority.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 857 #
Proposal for a directive
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 and their effectiveness in light of technological developments.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 859 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission, in cooperation with Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers referred to in paragraph 1, users and right holders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, am for the implementationg others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developmentsf paragraph 1.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 864 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Member States shall ensure that where service providers take voluntary measures, these measures do not infringe the fundamental rights of users, namely their right to protection of their personal data and their freedom to receive or impart information, in accordance with Articles 8 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular their rights to the use of works made within an exception or limitation to copyright.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 871 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13 a Modification to Directive 2001/29/EC Directive 2001/29/EC shall be amended as follows: The following Article shall be added: Article 5(3) bis User Generated Content Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights set out in Articles 2, 3 and 4 for the use by natural persons of an existing work or other subject-matter in the creation of a new work or other subject-matter, provided that: (a) the work or other subject-matter has already been lawfully made available to the public; (b) the source, including, if available, the name of the author, is indicated; (c) there is a certain level of originality in the new work. This exception is without prejudice to the exceptions and limitations provided for in Article 5.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 896 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Copyright holders and intermediaries are responsible for taking concrete action to avoid the dissemination of content in violation of copyright.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 897 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Copyright holders and intermediaries are responsible for integrating verification codes and automatic verification systems into the content disseminated.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 961 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 a (new)
Article 15 a Member States shall ensure that contracts include a rights reversion mechanism, allowing authors to terminate a contract in cases of unsatisfactory promotion, remuneration or lack of transparency.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI