Reda report: the 10 worst and the 5 best amendments

In January MEP Julia Reda presented a draft report on the implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (a.k.a the Copyright Directive). This draft report has proven to be hugely controversial and as a result 556 amendments (1,2) have been tabled in the Legal Affairs committee (JURI) alone. A helpful overview of the full parliamentary process can be found over at edri.org.

communia_worst_amendments

While the JURI committee is trying to arrive at compromise amendments ahead of the vote on 6 May we thought that it would be useful to highlight the best and worst amendments that have been tabled in reaction to the report. The main criteria for identifying the best/worst amendments are our 2011 policy recommendations and our recent position paper on the on the review of the EU copyright laws. As the vast majority of the amendments are attempting to reverse the positions expressed in Reda’s draft report, the 15 amendments highlighted below can only offer a glimpse of what is at stake. So while we are recommending to vote against the 10 worst amendments listed below, this is by no means a complete voting list as there are many others which are just as bad (and some that are slightly better).

The ten worst amendments…

#1 We don’t care for the Public Domain

AMs 252-257 Constance Le Grip, József Szájer (2x), Angel Dzhambazki, Sajjad Karim, Axel Voss, Therese Comodini Cachia, Eva Paunova, Pavel Svoboda, Marc Joulaud, Giovanni Toti, Luis de Grandes Pascual, Rosa Estaràs Ferragut, Sabine Verheyen
6. Calls on the Commission to safeguard public domain works, which are by definition not subject to copyright protection and should therefore be able to be used and re-used without technical or contractual barriers; also calls on the Commission to recognise the freedom of rightholders to voluntarily relinquish their rights and dedicate their works to the public domain;
delete

Easily the worst amendment (or rather set of amendments, since there are multiple identical versions of this one) is AM 252 that proposes to delete Paragraph 6 of the draft report.This paragraph calls on the Commission to safeguard the Public Domain and to recognise the freedom of rights holders to voluntarily relinquish their rights and dedicate works to the Public Domain. At least the first part of the original paragraph should be something that every participant in the discussion about the future of the EU copyright rules can agree with, unless there are really people who want to ensure that all culture and information is privately owned. Continue reading

Expand Public Domain and User Rights: COMMUNIA position paper on copyright reform

We are publishing today our position paper on copyright reform in Europe (PDF), as a statement in the ongoing debate that focuses on the reform of the Information Society Directive.

Our position is based on the 14 policy recommendations that are at the heart of our organisation, as well as on our previous policy documents. We start by defining three basic principles:

  1. Exclusive rights should be limited.
  2. The public domain should not be eroded by legal or technical means.
  3. Limitations and exceptions to copyright should continue playing their role of adapting copyright to technological changes.

Based on them, we formulate 12 positions on  the EU copyright framework reform. We will be using them as guidance for our own advocacy work – but we present them also as recommendations for policy makers.

These positions are result of a discussion on ways of translating a general principle of defending and expanding the public domain into recommendations that fit onto current policy debates in Europe.  In this light we are pleased to see that the majority of our positions have been covered by MEP Reda in her draft report on the implementation of of the InfoSoc directive.

London Manifesto: Copyright has to be fair

“We are calling for fair copyright that is fit for purpose and will benefit every European citizen” – that is the main message of the newly published manifesto, drafted by the Libraries and Archives Copyright Alliance (LACA), convened by the British Chartered Institute for Library and Information Professionals (CILIP). The London Manifesto is one more voice in support of a progressive copyright reform, raised in the ongoing European debate on copyright.

The London Manifesto (PDF) defines, in ten points, reforms that are necessary in order to make copyright fair for all stakeholders. These include:

  • Harmonised exceptions: Harmonisation and uniform application of copyright exceptions across all EU member states so that they apply regardless of media or technology.
  • Open norm: The addition of a new “open norm”, an open-ended exception subject to the three-step test, to avoid the current situation where European creativity and research cannot immediately benefit from technological innovations because copyright legislation is slow to catch up.
  • Right to lend: An automatic “right to lend” for libraries, to include the right to lend all digital media, including transferring digital files for a limited period.
  • Right to mine: An automatic right to perform computer analysis of copyright works for libraries, archives or their users whenever they have lawful access to the content. This recognises that the right to read includes the right to mine.
  • Mass digitisation: An automatic right for libraries, archives and museums to mass digitise their commercially unavailable research collections, and give online access across the whole of the EU without liability to compensate rightholders.
  • Standardised terms of protection for copyright: Swift and complete harmonisation of copyright durations across all member states.

The manifesto has been signed by 30 libraries and library associations, research institutions and organisations, including Communia.

The concept of a copyright system fair to all is an important one, and points to the need of more than just a balance of copyright norms. Fairness needs to be secured for all stakeholders, including those who are not in a privileged position in the copyright debate. We treat the manifesto as one more voice that opposes growing pressure from the cultural industry lobbyists, who believe that copyright reform should only serve to strengthen protection and increase financial gains for copyright owners.

Lisbon Council report shows economic value of flexible copyright

Lisbon Council has published the “2015 Intellectual Property and Economic Growth Index”, which aims to provide evidence for impact of different copyright regimes on economic growth. Positive relation between flexible copyright regimes and economic growth, including in the creative sectors, is the main finding of the report.

Paul Keller, from our member organisation Kennisland, has written an opinion about the report. Paul writes that:

[the report] does make one thing very clear: at least in aggregate, broader and more flexible exceptions and limitations to copyright do not undermine the ability of rights holders to generate income from their rights. In addition, countries with more flexible systems fare much better where it comes to growth of their ICT sectors. In other words, adapting the EU copyright rules by making them less restrictive and more flexible will in all likelihood not result in the collapse of the creative industries in the EU. Instead, such a move can be expected to have a positive impact on the economy of the EU.

Paul’s opinion is available on the Kennisland blog. The report is available at Lisbon Council site.

COMMUNIA position paper on EU Digital Single Market

The aim of this position paper is to respond to the call made by European Commission to open public discussion on digital single market and its expected shape in the coming years.

We fully agree with President Juncker that we need to “break down national silos in copyright”. As was noted by President Juncker in his opening statement, one of the challenges standing in front of the Digitial Single Market is a modernisation of the  copyright rules in the light of the digital revolution and changed consumer behaviour. We fully support this position, which considers copyright a fundamental regulatory mechanism for a modern economy.

The current system of IP protection is not only over-complicated, but also unclear to all its stakeholders. Thus one of the goals of this modernisation should be a simplification of rules, and in particular a harmonisation across Member States and jurisdictions. Typically, harmonisation is mentioned with regard to territoriality and market fragmentation that affects commercial content. We want to point out that it is just as important to harmonise copyright rules that create freedoms for public institutions, certain uses beneficial to society (for example, educational and research uses) or for individual citizens.

These issues are often, wrongly, seen as of secondary importance, because of the fact that they are exceptions, functioning largely in non-market environments. Yet in the context of the Digital Single Market it is necessary to point out that there is also significant economic potential related to these user freedoms – for example in areas related to education, research or health care, not to mention SMEs and entrepreneurs. Proper copyright exceptions and limitations lead not only to greater user freedoms, but are also themselves significant added value. A broadly understood public domain is in this aspect similar to Public Sector Information, which is well understood in Europe to be a raw material, on which added value is created through re-use (provided that we provide adequate reimbursement to right holders where necessary and protect privacy and personal data).

Due to a lack of such harmonised exceptions across Europe, we not only miss out on potential economic and social gains. Different legal rules between Member States lead to uncertainty for anyone attempting to engage in cross border activities. Massive open online courses (MOOCs) are but one example of educational enterprises that could benefit from greater legal clarity in this regard.

For those reasons, we urge the Commission to expand and adapt current copyright exceptions and copyright limitations so that they serve public benefit in the digital, online environment. Furthermore, we ask that the Public Domain, a body of knowledge and heritage that can be freely used, is protected, strengthened and widened. We also believe that an open provision that ensures flexibility with regard to digital technologies and social practices should be introduced to support innovative business and civic developments. The following pillars could be the base for Digital Single Market reforms:

1. HARMONISATION OF EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS. Europe should harmonise exceptions and limitations of the Copyright Directive among the Member States and open up the exhaustive list so that the user prerogatives can be adapted to ongoing technological transformations. The limited list of Exceptions and Limitations established by the Copyright Directive restricts the possibilities to adjust the copyright system to the rapid pace of technological innovation that shapes how we interact with copyright-protected works. This not only limits the abilities of citizens to gain access to our shared culture and knowledge but also imposes restrictions for innovative business models, and as a result, economic growth. In the absence of open-ended exceptions such as a fair use clause it is imperative that exceptions and limitations can be adjusted to the needs of society at large and innovative economic actors in particular.

2. TERM OF PROTECTION. The term of copyright protection should be reduced. The excessive length of copyright protection combined with an absence of formalities is highly detrimental to the accessibility to our shared knowledge and culture. There is no evidence that copyright protection that extends decades beyond the life of the author encourages the production of copyright protected works. Instead, there is compelling evidence that the requirement to obtain permission for works by authors that have long died is one of the biggest obstacles for providing universal access to our shared culture and knowledge.

3. REGISTRATION. In order to prevent unnecessary and unwanted protection of works of authorship, full copyright protection should only be granted to works that have been registered by their authors. Non-registered works should only get moral rights protection. One of the unintended consequences of the near universal access to electronic publishing platforms is an increase in the amount of works that are awarded copyright protection even though their authors do not require or desire such protection. This extension of protection threatens to undermine the value and effectiveness of protection for works where copyright protection is necessary and desired.

4. LEGAL UNCERTAINTY. As a prerequisite for unlocking the cultural, educational and economic potential of the public domain, identification of works in the public domain should be made easier and less resource-intensive by simplifying and harmonizing rules of copyright duration and territoriality. The rules for establishing the duration of the term of protection of individual works have become so complex that it is almost impossible to establish with certainty whether a work is protected by copyright (including all neighboring rights) or whether it is in the public domain. This complexity in the system makes it very difficult to automatically calculate the status of a work. Two factors have contributed to this situation: the divergence of legislation between the different Member States, and a large number of (national) exception clauses. This situation can only be remedied by intervention on the European level, preferably by simplifying the rules and harmonizing them across Europe. The work on public domain calculators has highlighted the incredible complexity of copyright term rules which makes it very difficult to determine the copyright status of individual works. This means that one of the biggest obstacles to positively identifying public domain works (and thus unlocking their cultural, educational and economic potential) lies in the cumbersome process of determining the term of copyright protection.

5. DIGITAL REPRODUCTIONS. Digital reproductions of works that are in the public domain must also belong to the public domain. Use of works in the public domain should not be limited by any means, either legal or technical. The Internet enables the widespread re-use of digital reproductions of works of authorship whose copyright protection has expired. The public domain status of these works means that there is no owner of the works who can impose restrictions on their re-use. At the same time the owners of the physical works (such as heritage institutions) often feel that they are entitled to control over digital reproductions as well and that they can impose restrictions on their re-use. However, digitization of public domain works does not create new rights over it: works that are in the public domain in analogue form continue to be in the public domain once they have been digitized.

6. PUBLIC FUNDING OF DIGITIZATION PROJECTS. Digitization projects that receive public funding must at the minimum ensure that all digitized content is publicly available online. Allowing for the free redistribution of digitized content should be considered since it is beneficial for the sustainability of the access to digitized cultural heritage. When public funding is used for digitization projects it needs to be assured that the public benefits from these efforts. At the minimum this means that digital versions need to be available online for consultation by the public that has paid for the digitization effort. Public funding bodies should prioritize digitization projects that will increase the amount of our shared and culture that is available to the public. Memory institutions that receive public funding should consider making available digitized collections with as little restrictions as possible. Free availability of collections which includes the free redistribution and re-use of the digital artifacts will result in wider availability and reduce the risks inherent to centralized storage.

We would like to express our true devotion to support the above mentioned recommendations.

Since the European Commission encourages also sharing of graphical and multimedia elements, we would also like to submit a set of thematic postcards. Each one combines a treasure of European cultural heritage with one of our policy recommendations. The postcards are available here.

Open letter calls for balanced representation of views in the EuroParl’s IPR Working Group

A balancing of viewpoints and interests in the European copyright debate has been a commonly shared goal since the 2013 “Licenses for Europe” stakeholder dialogue. A key outcome of last year’s EU consultation on copyright has been that the current copyright law is unbalanced – while rights holders and producers are satisfied with the status quo, institutions and end users are not (see are previous post on the matter, “Rightsholders are from Mars, Users are from Venus”).

A reform ensuring a more balanced copyright system will only be achieved, if we conduct a public debate that fairly presents all of the varied and sometimes conflicting viewpoints. The Working Group on IPR and Copyright Reform, led by Jean-Marie Cavada in the JURI Committee, is a key forum for this debate. The group regularly organizes meeting with stakeholders, and it’s invitation track record is far from balanced or neutral. In the last meeting on “Exchange of views on publishing and copyright issues on the digital environment”, the Working Group invited representatives of five rights holders, one library representative and no representatives from end users or intermediaries.

In reaction, a group of 24 organisations (including our association) have signed an open letter to Mr. Cavada, titled “Ensuring Balance” and expressing concern with regard to the lack of diversity of expert speakers and the corresponding representation of views:

“Making copyright rules future-proof requires a holistic approach. This can only be achieved if the full spectrum of stakeholders is adequately represented and given a chance to speak in front of Members of Parliament who will ultimately be tasked with passing new copyright legislation.”

The signatories call on the Working Group to make all views appropriately represented in upcoming meetings.

Poland restricts access to digitized cultural heritage

Soon the most valuable digital works of art and culture may be available all around Europe, free of charge, licenses, watermarks, and in open, machine-readable formats.  Together with their metadata they can be used to not only promote rich heritage of our culture, but also to build innovative applications, web services and boost the creative economy all across the Europe. This is the promise made by the European Union, as contained in the new Directive on the re-use of public sector information.

But establishing a single framework, which enables the cross-border offer of products and services is not an easy thing. According to the last report of the PSI Group, Member States are struggling with many challenges while implementing the Directive into domestic law. As might be expected, the correct choice of licensing, charging and redress mechanisms are especially hard to solve.

In the recent Communia policy paper on the re­use of public sector information in cultural heritage institutions, we were  concerned that if Member States are not careful, the implementation of the changes required by the new Directive could do more harm than good when it comes to access to digitized cultural heritage in Europe. Work on the implementation of the Directive into Polish law shows that this scenario can happen in Poland.

In November 2014, Poland has published a draft proposal of the new bill, which assumes that documents held by cultural heritage institutions are within the scope of the Directive only if they are in the public domain, either because they were never protected by copyright or because copyright has expired.

The problem, therefore, lies in the fact that the remaining resources, even if the institution owns the copyright, have been excluded from the scope of the proposed law. The Ministry of Culture and Digital Heritage, which has been in favour of this very narrow reading of the Directive, believes that it should not apply either to works created by employees of institutions or to works, for which third parties have transferred rights to cultural institutions. What does this mean in practice?

Most importantly, re-use rules will not apply to such important information as descriptive metadata, bibliographic and catalog data. Without metadata and descriptions heritage resources will become useless for those wanting to re-use digital cultural resources. Similarly, public cultural institutions – for example modern art galleries – will still be able to restrict access to the information that they hold, even though it has been produced with public funds.

And such an implementation is in our opinion [see our policy paper p. 4-6]  contrary to the very principle that inspired both the 2003 and 2013 Directives and could lead to the creation of unnecessary hurdles to the re­use of public sector information.

What is maybe even worse, Polish cultural institutions will also be able to impose additional conditions – restricting commercial use (promotion or advertising) or allowing only certain forms and scope of reuse. Even for works that are in the public domain.

This implementation has the combined support of collective management organizations, museums (which in general are much more conservative than libraries in their approach towards digitization and sharing of cultural objects) and the Polish Ministry of Culture and Digital Heritage. One of the concerns raised is that the private sector will be able to build competitive services, museum catalogues or images banks, to those provided by the museums. But wasn’t it the idea of new PSI Directive? In general, it is surprising to see these organizations favour an approach that limits as much as possible reuse of cultural works – since such sharing is explicitly defined as part of their public mission.

All around the world, public domain is treated as the information that is free from intellectual property barriers. Anyone can use and reuse it, remix, combine and translate without obtaining permission. For commercial and non-commercial purposes. But no one can ever own it. In theory. Observing the legislative process in Poland, it becomes clear that in some countries the implementation of the new PSI Directive can indeed not only do more harm than good with regard to access to cultural heritage, but even threaten the idea of the public domain.

We hope that ultimately the Ministry of Administration and Digital Affairs – which is responsible for drafting the bill – will propose a law that supports a modern approach to digital cultural heritage and protects the Public Domain.  And that with time the Ministry of Culture and Digital Heritage will adapt Poland’s cultural policy as well so that allowing access and reuse is seen as part of the public mission, and not as threat to culture.

The Little Prince: almost in the Public Domain

This week is Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of the law, and addressing what’s at stake, and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation. Today’s subject is the Public Domain.

Despite nearly 25 years of efforts to fully harmonise digital law in Europe, the road to a harmonised copyright system is certainly not a speedy highway. In fact, each Member State still has its own copyright system that applies within its own territory. One of the areas where this is most visible are the rules for determining when a particular work enters the public domain because the copyright term has expired.

The Little Prince 6th Antoine de Saint-Exupéry was killed in 1944, during a flight over the Mediterranean Sea. “The Little Prince”, his best-known book, is the third most popular novel in the world, translated into over 250 languages over more than 600 translations. More than 80 million copies have been printed. If you know a bit about the rules for determining when a work goes out of copyright, we can assume that on 1st January 2015 “The Little Prince” became part of the public domain. This is because in France copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. And since Saint-Exupéry died in 1944, this would put “The Little Prince” into the public domain in France.

However, the harmonization of the duration of copyright is not uniform. In France, works of authors who died for France during the First and Second World Wars benefit from additional copyright protection. Copyright for works created by these authors is extended for an additional 30 years to compensate for the losses and difficulties in the commercial exploitation of their works during the war.

Beginning this year, “The Little Prince” is in the public domain almost everywhere in Europe. But in France, the novel will pass into the public domain sometime between 1 May 2033 and 1 January 2045, depending on your interpretations of the rules! Interestingly, Canadians have been freely using “The Little Prince” for the last 20 years, as copyright expires there 50 years after the death of the creator.

The French exception may seem surprising to you, but it’s not an outlier. There are multiple other such exceptions present in various European countries. When such irregularities are combined with inconsistent terminology within the European Directives (not to mention differences in the ways the Directives are implemented at the national level) along with unreliable information on the dates of death of the authors, we see we’re a long way from sensible harmonization of copyright law across Europe.

Fortunately, there is good news: establishing a single European framework that enables cross-border flow of products and services is one of the priorities of Jean-Claude Juncker, the newly elected President of the European Commission. The recent report by MEP Julia Reda on the evaluation of the Copyright Directive (2001/29/EC), and tweets made by Commisioner Oettinger and Vice-President Ansip about the need of new copyright rules, are all hopefully signs of coming change. We hope that we’ll be able to report about it during Copyright Week 2016.

(Paul Keller wrote about “The Little Prince” and the public domain on this blog in 2012).

The Limits of Copyright: Text and Data Mining

This post was originally published on the Creative Commons blog under CC BY 4.0.

This week is Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of the law, and addressing what’s at stake, and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation.

Today’s topic is about supporting fair use, a legal doctrine in the United States and a few other countries that permits some uses of copyrighted works without the author’s permission for purposes such as parody, criticism, teaching, and news reporting. Fair use is an important check on the exclusive bundle of rights granted to authors under copyright law. Fair use is considered a “limitation and exception” to copyright.

One area of particular importance within limitations and exceptions to copyright is the practice of text and data mining. Text and data mining typically consists of computers analyzing huge amounts of text or data, and has the potential to unlock huge swaths of interesting connections between textual and other types of content. Understanding these new connections can enable new research capabilities that result in novel scholarly discoveries and critical scientific breakthroughs. Because of this, text and data mining is increasingly important for scholarly research.

Recently the United Kingdom enacted legislation specifically excepting noncommercial text and data mining from copyright. And as the European Commission conducts their review of EU copyright rules, some groups have called for the addition of a specific text and data mining exception. Copyright for Creativity’s manifesto, released Monday, urges the European Commission to add a new exception for text and data mining, in order to support new uses of technology and user needs.

Another view holds that text and data mining activities should be considered outside the purview of copyright altogether. Our response to the EU copyright consultation takes this approach, saying “if text and data mining would be authorized by a copyright exception, it would constitute a de facto recognition that text and data mining are not legitimate usages. We believe that mining texts and data for facts is an activity that is not and should not be protected by copyright and therefore introducing a legislative solution that takes the form of an exception should be avoided.” Similarly, there have been several actions advocating that “The right to read should be the right to mine.”

Whether text and data mining falls under a copyright exception or outside the scope of copyright, it is clearly an activity that should not be able to be controlled by the copyright owner. But unfortunately, that is exactly what some incumbent publishing gatekeepers are trying to do by setting up restrictive contractual agreements. One example of this practice is with the deployment of a set of “open access” licenses from the International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers (STM), many of which attempt to restrict text and data mining of the licensed publications. In jurisdictions such as the United States, users do not need to ask permission (or be granted permission through a license) to conduct text and data mining because the activity either falls outside of the scope of copyright or is squarely covered by fair use.

Ensuring that licenses give copyright owners no more control over their content than they have under copyright law is a fundamental principle of Creative Commons licensing. That’s why the CC licenses explicitly state that they in no way restrict uses that are under a limitation or exception to copyright. This means that users do not have to comply with the license for uses of the material permitted by an applicable limitation or exception (such as fair use) or uses that are otherwise unrestricted by copyright law, such as text and data mining in many jurisdictions.

Today’s topic of fair use rights reminds us that “for copyright to achieve its purpose of encouraging creativity and innovation, it must preserve and promote ample breathing space for unexpected and innovative uses.” To liberate the massive potential for innovation made possible by existing and future types of text and data mining, we need user-focused copyright policy that enables these new activities.

 

Copyright 4 Creativity releases copyright manifesto

Today Copyright 4 Creativity (C4C), a coalition of 35 organisations from the NGO, library and technology sectors (including a number of COMMUNIA members) is launching a copyright manifesto. The copyright manifesto is intended as a contribution to the ongoing review of the European Union’s copyright rules. With the manifesto, Copyright 4 Creativity wants to stress the importance of a copyright system that can ‘effectively promote innovation, access and creativity’.

The manifesto starts by outlining what is wrong with the current EU copyright framework and how this is negatively affecting users, businesses, innovators and – as a result – the competitiveness of Europe’s economy. In doing so, the manifesto touches on many concerns shared by COMMUNIA, including the fact that the current term of copyright protection is much too long and undermines access to knowledge and culture.

Based on the analysis of the status quo the manifesto calls for a substantial reform of the copyright rules in the EU and argues that such a reform needs to address 4 main issues. According to C4C the EU needs to: Continue reading