Polish Copyright Collection Societies and Their Financial Data

Copyright Collection Societies (CCSs) are organisations traditionally set up by authors, performers, and other kinds of rightholders to collectively manage their rights. Nowadays, there are more than 250 CCSs in the EU. Copyright Collection Societies collect around €6 billion in royalties in the EU every year. The vast majority of this income feeds into the approximately 70 EU CCSs managing authors’ rights, representing over one million authors. Most of this income is derived from musical creations — more than 80% in the case of authors’ societies.


Since the role of CCSs in collective rights management and shaping of copyrights is crucial, the European Union adopted the Directive 2014/26/EU on collective rights management and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses in February 2012 (see our previous coverage here). The transposition date for Member States was April 2014. The directive sets up a common framework for financial reporting. CCSs have to draw up and publish an annual transparency report including detailed accounts, financial information, and a special report on the use of the amounts deducted for purposes of social, cultural, and educational services.

Poland is an example of member state that introduced the obligation of disclosing the CCS financial data long before the directive implementation deadline: the first reports were submitted in 2011. Centrum Cyfrowe, a member organization of COMMUNIA, conducted the analysis of the financial and narrative reports of Polish CCSs for the years of 2010-2013. The CCSs were obliged to disclose these reports for the study. Continue reading

Research confirms: new Spanish ancillary copyright is actually good for no one

It is generally accepted wisdom that if you do not want something to be noticed you can best announce it on a Friday afternoon. Presenting a study right before the start of the summer holidays is a variation of this. Seen in this light, it is a bit unfortunate that the Spanish Association of Publishers of Periodical Publications (AEEPP) decided to release a study on the impact of the Spanish ancillary copyright on the 9th of July when half of Europe was already in (pre)vacation mode (which is why we are covering the study 3 months after its release—for your post vacation enjoyment).


Spain’s ancillary copyright law came into effect on January 1, 2015,  after extensive lobbying by the Association of Publishers of Spanish Newspapers and in spite of opposition from other industry players and civil society groups (including us) who were concerned that the new rights would have a negative impact on media diversity and the ability to access news and other information. As a first casualty of the new, unwaivable right, Google closed its Google News service in Spain.

The new study, which was commissioned by the AEEPP and carried out by NERA consulting, confirms most of the concerns raised by opponents of the ancillary right. Based on comScore data for the first 3 months of 2015 the study finds that the closing of Google News (and a number of smaller news aggregation services) that followed the introduction of the new law has led to a (predictable) decline of internet traffic directed at Spanish newspapers: Traffic to newspaper sites has dropped more than 6% on average and 14% for small publications. Continue reading

EDRi and Communia team up for the organisation of “School of Rock(ing) EU Copyright”



Communia is partnering up with EDRi,  organising the “School of Rock(ing) EU Copyright” in Warsaw, Poland, November 5-6th. COMMUNIA advocates for policies that strengthen the public domain and increase access to and reuse of culture and knowledge, and we believe that a strong network of activists for European copyright reform is crucial for this.  Events such as this 2-day course are essential to train future policy influencers and to strengthen the network of copyright reform advocates.

EDRi offers travel support for 20 participants, applications should be in before September 6. 

EDRi offers a stipendum of maximum 300 EUR to cover transport and accommodation costs for up to 20 participants of the School of Rock(ing) EU Copyright and the CopyCamp conference in Warsaw. Non-funded participants will also be welcome, of course.

If you’re interested, please apply by sending an email to brussels@edri.org with the title “Application for The School of Rock(ing) EU Copyright” stating in no more than 200 words why you are interested in attending CopyCamp and the School of Rock(ing) EU Copyright, why you should be selected. We’re looking for people who have experience and/or plan to prepare campaigns on a national level, who can help building online campaigning tools, who have the ability to create networks with similar organisations on national and international levels and general knowledge of the main problems in the current EU copyright system.

From the full announcement over at the EDRi website:

For the first time in nearly a generation, the EU will update its copyright framework. This is a unique opportunity to reform and modernise Europe’s creaking, outdated, ill-adapted rules. Activists interested in taking up on this opportunity will get a crash course in effective copyright activism at a workshop in Warsaw on 5-6 November.

To help prepare activists for the challenge facing all of us, we are cooperating with Communia to organise an event and look for participants for this two-day EU copyright educational workshop – the School of Rock(ing) EU Copyright.

The School of Rock(ing) EU Copyright will take place 5 and 6 November in Warsaw, following the CopyCamp 2015 event which will take place 4 November.

The goals of the School of Rock(ing) EU Copyright are to:

  • inform the participants on the current state of play of the EU copyright reform;
  • provide the tools that can be used to campaign on national level;
  • deepen the understanding of copyright activists of the EU legal and decision-making frameworks;
  • inform participants on how it is possible to influence decision-making in the EU;
  • identify possibilities for sharing of resources and talents such as translation and technical skills;
  • create networks (and develop existing ones) of civil society activists to work together on common goals to reform
  • copyright, in order to have a stronger voice and avoid duplicate efforts.


Should you have any questions, don’t hesitate to contact EDRi at brussels@edri.org.


On the need to protect copyright exceptions from contractual interference

One of the positive points contained in the recently adopted Reda report that we have not discussed here before is the freedom to exercise copyright exception and limitations (although this is not a new topic – see Treaty Proposal on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives). In paragraph 61 of the report the members of the European Parliament stress that ‘the effective exercise of exceptions or limitations, and access to content that is not subject to copyright or related rights protection, should not be waived by contract or contractual terms’.


The Directive 2001/29/EC (so-called the Infosoc Directive) introduced 21 exceptions and limitations to copyright, making only one of them mandatory (transient or incidental acts of reproduction), and leaving the remaining 20 optional for national legislators to implement.

This has led to cherry-picking by countries in their implementation of the optional exceptions and limitations, and it has created a situation where users in different EU member states have different rights when it comes to their interaction with copyright-protected materials. Even worse is the fact that the existing legislation does not contain rules that protect users from a contractual or technological override of the exceptions and limitations available within current EU system. As a result, rightsholders and intermediaries are essentially able to limit or modify exceptions or limitations, thus reducing the potential benefit of the copyright exceptions for the public. Continue reading

The Rhetoric of Copyright Extremism

In the end, nothing happened. When the European parliament adopted a compromise version of MEP Julia Reda’s evaluation report of the EU copyright directive, the attempt of MEP Jean-Marie Cavada to restrict the right to publish pictures of buildings and artworks permanently installed in public places (“freedom of panorama”) was voted down by a huge margin. The majority that had supported the Cavada amendment in the legal affairs committee vanished under a storm of protest, spearheaded by Wikipedians fighting for their right to include pictures of buildings and artworks in their free encyclopedia.

However, while the final version of the report did not suggest restricting freedom of panorama, it did not include a specific provision to protect it, either. Instead, member countries would still be free in whether and how to implement such a limitation into their respective national copyright laws. In a way, this outcome is a typical example of the widespread copyright extremism in Europe, which blocks even the most sensible and moderate copyright reform proposals.

The overall spectrum of opinions in current copyright debates ranges from abolitionism, that is, proposals to discard copyright altogether, to copyright extremism on the other side. Copyright abolitionism is a position sparsely mentioned in regulatory conversations. While authors Joost Smiers and Marieke van Schindel, for instance, have managed to create some buzz around their book “No Copyright”, the attention was only short-lived and the discussion left no real lasting mark on the conversation overall. And abolitionist positions brought forward by libertarian researchers such as Michele Boldrin, David K. Levine and their colleagues have only played a very marginal role in scientific discourse, as well.

However, we observe that rhetoric around ratcheting up extreme copyright protections plays a major role in the mainstream of regulatory conversations around copyright, while rarely recognized and called out as extremism. Rather, even the most far reaching positions are considered perfectly legitimate when brought forward in committee hearings, policy papers or campaigns. In a way, current copyright discourse is heavily skewed towards the side of copyright extremism, which makes any moderate and balanced reform of copyright laws difficult, if not impossible. Taking a closer look at the relentless rhetoric of copyright extremism might therefore help to identify and address this problem. Continue reading

Alternative Compensation Systems only work if adopted by all sides


This post was written by Lisette Kalshoven and Katarzyna Rybicka.

Fifteen years ago, the explosive growth of the file sharing network Napster changed the music industry forever. It was a simple response to the difficulty of finding, downloading and sharing music over the web. Since then, policy makers and stakeholders have been trying to resolve the ongoing challenge of unauthorised copying, without much success. In many instances copyright enforcement turns out to be either ineffective, or is applied in such a way that violates fundamental rights such as the right to information, freedom of expression or privacy and protection of personal data.

Last Saturday in Amsterdam, the renowned institute for research on intellectual property rights, IViR (Institute for Information Law) held a symposium on Alternative Compensation Systems (ACS) for cultural goods. An ACS can be described as a legal mechanism which permits the reproduction, downloading, sharing and sometimes even modification of copyrighted works. This can be done without the need for an opt in from users (mandatory ACS) or with an opt in (voluntary ACS), but with both options giving compensation to the creators and copyright owners of those works.

The IViR researched the non-commercial use of cultural goods online for two years. The results suggest that consumers are dissatisfied with the existing legal access channels. As a consequence, different forms of ACS were supported by the majority of the Dutch population questioned.

One of the interesting results of the study was that if implemented, a monthly compensation system fee of only ca. €1.74–collected via a surcharge on existing Dutch Internet subscriptions–would raise the same amount of revenues for rights holders as the current market for recorded music, which is ca. €144 million per year. In addition, the researchers examined the amount the respondents said they would be willing to pay for participating in a compensation system covering recorded music, which is €9.25 per month for a mandatory ACS.

If this holds true, it means that a well-designed ACS for recorded music would mean bigger revenue in the recording industry (and thus more income for creators) while still within the acceptable range that consumers would be willing to pay. Interestingly, the biggest (voluntary) subscription-based music service now, Spotify, has a monthly subscription fee of €9.99, slightly higher than what users said they’d be willing to pay when asked by the IViR researchers.

“It shimmers, it’s yellow, it might be even gold,” said Dr. Christian Handke, the co-author of the report, during his presentation at the conference. But the economic panel raised important questions, such as who should be responsible for the distribution of revenues, who should bear the operating and enforcement costs, and how would a mandatory ACS be implemented without inhibiting innovation in the music industry. These are still questions without clear answers. In short, the results are promising, but it seems we are far from implementing a mandatory ACS.

The panel on user involvement in copyright policy had intriguing panelists, including MEP Julia Reda, Agustín Reyna from BEUC and Jim Killock from Open Rights Group. They discussed, among other things, how an ACS could be adopted within European policy.

There were two important take-aways from the panel on the adoption of a mandatory ACS. First, it needs to be tested on a smaller scale before it can be implemented at the national (or Europe-wide) level. IViR realises this and is designing an experiment in The Netherlands with relevant stakeholders.

Second, Reda pointed out that such a system would never come into being if rights holders and consumers are not on the same page. Past experience has shown that consumers and citizens are more likely to get involved with copyright policy if they sense a potential negative change in how they’re able to interact with copyrighted materials, as opposed to lending their voices for a positive campaign without an immediate observable threat. The recent media attention for the freedom of panorama in the EU illustrates her point. This is a challenge, and one that we should try to overcome. We need to get citizens more involved in copyright reform in a way that makes it better suited for the digital age. We welcome discussion on how to overcome this challenge.

European Parliament adopts Reda report, fails to demand real copyright reform

Yesterday the European Parliament approved MEP Julia Reda’s evaluation report of the copyright directive. With the report the European Parliament gives a clear signal that the European Copyright rules need to be modernised. This puts the ball in the court of the Commission, which needs to come up with concrete legislative proposals for a copyright reform – which it promised to deliver before the end of the year. Both Commissioners Oettinger and Ansip have reacted positively to the Report, while its author, Pirate Party MEP has expressed the hope that the Commission’s proposal will be more ambitious than the EPs report, which has been watered down considerably through a large number of amendments.

So while the report is a clear signal that MEPs want to see a modernisation of the EU copyright rules that date back to 2001, it is much less clear what shape these modernised rules should take. Most of the report is based on compromises that MEP Reda has brokered between all major political groups represented in the EP. As a result, the report does not outline a clear plan for reforming copyright. Still, it is possible to distill from it a number of things that MEPs clearly both want and don’t want to see in the reform proposal. It is also clear that pressure from civil society – related to such issues as Freedom of of Panorama, hyperlinking or ancillary copyright, helped avert worst amendments to the report.

MEPs do not want to see further limitations of user rights.

Attempts have  been made to include language that would limit the rights of end users. Fortunately all of these attempts failed. The majority of MEPs is clearly unwilling to further limit the ability of citizens and other users to interact with copyright protected material. Continue reading

European Parliament must not open the door to ancillary copyright for press publishers

Tomorrow the European Parliament will vote on the Reda report on the implementation of the 2001 copyright directive, which has been approved by the legal affairs committee on the 16th of June. One of the most contentious issues during the vote in the legal affairs committee was an amendment by proposed by the German EPP MEP Angelika Niebler that would have encouraged the Commission to introduce an new ancillary copyright for press publishers on the EU level.

In a last minute departure from the already agreed on compromises, both EPP and ALDE insisted that this amendment should be voted on separately, clearly hoping that this manoeuvre would somehow succeed in getting the desired language into the text of the report. Unfortunately for the proponents of the ancillary copyright, this move backfired and the legal affairs committee voted the amendment down with a relatively clear majority.

Quality journalism or ancillary copyright?

A couple of days ago it emerged that the proponents of the ancillary copyright for press publishers have mounted another last minute attempt, this time attempting to insert language calling for the introduction of an EU-wide ancillary copyright for press publishers into the report via another amendment tabled by MEP Niebler. This amendment will be voted on during the plenary vote on Thursday. The amendment proposes to add a new paragraph (57a) to the report:

Calls on the Commission to evaluate and come forward with a proposal on how quality journalism can be preserved also in the digital age in order to guarantee media pluralism, in particular taking into account the important role journalists, authors and media providers such as press publishers play with regard thereto.

While the text of the amendment does not explicitly talk about an ancillary copyright for press publishers, it is clear that this language is intended to give the Commission an excuse to come forward with a proposal that would introduce such a right. Continue reading

Simple is beautiful. Copyright exceptions for education


Being a teacher in 2015 is both easier and more difficult than it was 30 years ago. It can be more difficult as there is pressure to follow new trends in online and digital technologies, the Internet of things, social media, and a push to adopt a more interactive approach to teaching. But there are new tools and and practices to ease these new expectations. Almost any educational materials that teachers wish to use are now at their fingertips. No longer do educators need to spend their lives searching through physical libraries or collecting stacks of CDs or DVDs for viewing in their classes. Today, much of this content is available online with a simple click. But therein lies another difficulty. Copyright. Even though almost anything is now available to view, not everything can be legally used. Or–perhaps even worse–it is not clear whether a teacher or student can use it, or under what circumstances.


What teachers legally can and cannot use is defined by educational exceptions and limitations within national copyright laws. Set out by the EU InfoSoc Directive, exceptions and limitations are not a mandatory rule within EU member states, which means member states can choose to adopt the exception or not, and within reason interpret the exception to conform to their own ideas. Since the early 2000s, the InfoSoc Directive rule of “use for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research” has been implemented in various different ways. Some countries literally translated the provision into their legal system, while others allowed some creativity in its implementation. But to be sure, 28 member states means 28 different legal regimes. This raises several questions. What is the reason why in 2015 teachers in Poland enjoy a different set of rights than teachers living in Slovenia, Finland or Portugal? Continue reading

BEUC highlights consumer confusion in everyday uses of copyrighted material

BEUC, The European Consumer Organisation, has released an interesting fact sheet pertaining to confusion and uncertainty in consumer use of copyrighted materials. BEUC surveyed relevant stakeholders about the current copyright reform debates in the EU. These stakeholders ranged from collecting societies to academics and government ministries, and the conclusions drawn from their answers are both predictable and problematic: it seems no one can agree on the legality of using copyrighted content.

john from BEUC making a video

BEUC took simple and everyday examples on how consumers interact with copyrighted material (for example, making private copies of DVDs, selling an ebook online, or using a VPN to access your Netflix account while on holiday) and asked the stakeholder whether they believed the act was legal or not. Continue reading