Activities of Emma McCLARKIN related to 2016/0280(COD)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market
Amendments (26)
Amendment 94 #
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 not to 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 98 #
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. This is particularly relevant as regards cross-border uses, which are becoming increasingly important in the digital environment. Therefore, the existing exceptions and limitations in Union law that are relevant for scientific research, teaching and preservation of cultural heritage should be reassessed in the light of those new uses. Mandatory exceptions or limitations for uses of text and data mining technologies in the field of scientific research, 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 text and data mining 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 118 #
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 text and data mining exceptions in Member States. Research organisations should also benefit from the exception when they engage into public- private partnerships.
Amendment 149 #
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. 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 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 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 281 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
In order to ensure the functioning of any licensing agreement, information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject- matter uploaded by their users should takeagree with rightholders appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure protection of works or other subject-matter, such as implementing effective technologies in order to facilitate effective, transparent reporting in these agreements. 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 284 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Recital 38 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Large amounts of copyright-protected works or other subject matter should be understood to signify large amounts of works or subject matter within the same category or categories. The notion of category should be interpreted broadly to include such categories as music, broadcasts, films, or computer games. Consequently, the obligations in Article 13 should only apply to information society service providers in relation to the categories of works and other subject matter that the service stores and provides access to in large amounts and not to other categories.
Amendment 291 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) CIn specific reference to musical works and other musical subject matter, 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 thto ensure the effective functioning of appropriate technologies, such as content recognition technologies. In such cases, rightholders, in order to address the significant value gap affecting the music industry. In such cases, rightholders of musical works and other musical subject matter should provide the necessary data to allow the services to identify their content and the services should be transparent towards those rightholders with regard to the deployed technologies, to allow the assessment of their appropriateness. The services should in particular provide those rightholders with information on the type of technologies used, the way they are operated and their success rate for the recognition of the content of those rightholders' content. Those technologies should also allow those rightholders to get information from the information society service providers on the use of their content covered by an agreement.
Amendment 295 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39 a (new)
Recital 39 a (new)
(39 a) Since the measures and technologies implemented by information society service providers necessary to apply this Directive could have a negative effect on legitimate content that is uploaded or displayed by users, in particular where the content concerned is covered by an exception, information society service providers should be required to offer a complaints mechanism for the benefit of users whose content has been affected by these measures. Information society service providers and right holders should process any complaints as soon as possible and take corrective action where measures prove to be unjustified. Such complaint and redress mechanisms should prescribe minimum standards for complaints to ensure that rightholders are given sufficient information to assess and respond to complaints.
Amendment 307 #
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 importantnecessary for the transparency and balance in the system that governs the remuneration of authors and performers.
Amendment 311 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 41
Recital 41
(41) When implementing transparency obligations, the specificities of different content sectors and of the rights of the authors and performers in each sector should be considered. Member States should consultundertake appropriate consultation with all relevant stakeholders as that should, since this will help determine sector-specific requirements. CWhere collective bargaining is not already established practice, it should be considered as an option to reach an agreement between the relevant stakeholders regarding transparency. To enable the adaptation of current reporting practices to the transparency obligations, a transitional period should be provided for. The transparency obligations do not need to apply to agreements concluded with collective management organisations, as those are already subject to transparency obligations under Directive 2014/26/EU, or where agreements concluded with individual authors or performers are based on or subject to collective bargaining agreements.
Amendment 315 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 42
Recital 42
Amendment 335 #
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 341 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 3
Article 2 – paragraph 3
(3) ‘cultural heritage institution’ means a publicly accessible library or museum, museum, gallery or educational establishment, an archive or a film or audio heritage institution, or a public service broadcaster;
Amendment 366 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 4
Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall encourage rightholders and research organisations to work together to define commonly-agreed best practices concerning the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 3.
Amendment 410 #
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 416 #
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, or beneficiary institutions using the facilities of a third party in another Member State, 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.
Amendment 493 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shallmay 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 501 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Article 11 – paragraph 4
4. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall expire 203 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 519 #
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 cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure theeffective and transparent 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. In respect of musical works and other musical subject- matter identified by rightholders, these measures may include, through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effectivebetween those rightsholders and the service providers, preventing the availability of musical works and other musical subject matter on the service through tools, such as content recognition technologies,. Such measures shall be appropriate and proportionate, proportionate and evidence-based in order to avoid forming barriers to entry for emerging information society service providers. The service providers shallould provide rightholders with adequate and timely 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 reporting, which shall include data relating to those works held, matched, and used. Alongside such measures, Member States shall continue to encourage industry-led solutions to address sector- specific issues and the effective enforcement of existing measures to tackle piracy, including raising awareness of more legal routes to copyright protected content.
Amendment 533 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shallmay 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 and affordability of the technologies, and their effectiveness in respect of the range of types of content and in light of technological developments.
Amendment 550 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that authors and performers receive on a regular basis and taking into account the specificities of each sector, timely, adequate and sufficient information on the exploitation of their works and performances from those to whom they have directly licensed or transferred their rights, notably as regards modes of exploitation, revenues generated and remuneration due.
Amendment 560 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Article 14 – paragraph 3
3. Member States may decide that tThe obligation in paragraph 1 doesshall 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 565 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 14 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Where they exist, collective bargaining agreements shall take precedence over the obligations referred to in paragraph 4.
Amendment 570 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that authors and performersmay provide that authors and performers, where such rights are not managed by a collective management organisation or subject to a collective bargaining agreement and where existing provisions for modification or annulment of contracts for the exploitation of rights do not already exist, are entitled to request additional, appropriate and equitable remuneration from the party with whom they entered directly into a contract for the exploitation of the rights when. This shall only apply in cases where the author or performer demonstrates that the remuneration originally agreed is manifestly and disproportionately low compared to the subsequent relevant net revenues and benefits directly derived from the exploitation of the works or performancesparticular author or performer's works or performances. Member States may provide that this right expires if it is not exercised within a reasonable period from the relevant exploitation.
Amendment 589 #
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 609 #
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 in circumstances where the remuneration has become manifestly disproportionate after [the date mentioned in Article 21(1)].