Well that was quick: just two days after Commissioner Ansip delivered a non-denial denial that “this Commission does not have any plans to tax hyperlinks” Statewatch published a draft of the Commission’s own Impact assessment on the modernisation of EU copyright rules which clearly states that the Commission will indeed propose the introduction of an EU wide ancillary copyright for news publishers.
While nobody expected the EU commission to come forward with a proposal for a literal “link tax”, the “introduction in EU law of a related right covering online uses of news publications” is exactly what civil society groups like Save the Link are criticising as a link tax.
The term “link tax” is being used to point to the fact that granting news publishers’ additional rights will likely result in limitations on how Internet users and online platforms can interact with news content that has been published online. Over the last few years Spain and Germany have both introduced ancillary copyrights for press publishers, with the explicit purpose of allowing publishers to charge aggregation platforms and search engines for providing links to their content. Even though both attempts have failed in achieving this objective (something that the Commission concedes in the impact assessment), the publishers have clearly managed to convince the Commission that they should be granted a german-style ancillary copyright on the EU level. Continue reading
We happily invite you to the event Copyright Reform: Unlocking copyright for users? that will take place on September 8 in Brussels. The event is hosted by MEP Therese Comodini Cachia and MEP Carlos Zorrinho, and co-organised by COMMUNIA and EDRi.
Join us to discuss key aspects of the current EU copyright reform including the freedom to use copyrighted works (exceptions and limitations) as well as some of the failures of the existing legal framework (copyfails). After the event we invite you to lunch in Jan 3q Brasserie.
Copyright Reform: Unlocking copyright for users? – agenda
11:15 – 11:20 Introduction
Anna Mazgal, Communia
11:20 – 11:25 Welcome
MEP Therese Comodini Cachia (EPP)
11:25 – 11:35 How to understand the L&E practice better?
Launch of copyrightexceptions.eu – Maarten Zeinstra, Kennisland
11:35 – 11:45 What doesn’t work?
The #copyfails and ways out of the copy mess – Diego Naranjo, EDRi
11:45 – 11:55 What works?
Presentation of the Best Case Studies – Teresa Nobre, Communia
11:55 – 13:00 Questions and discussion
facilitated by Anna Mazgal, Communia
13:00 – 13:05 Commentary
MEP Carlos Zorrinho (PASD)
13:05 – 13:15 Closing remarks
MEP Therese Comodini Cachia (EPP)
13:15 – 14:00 Lunch
Brasserie Jan 3q Continue reading
We are impatiently awaiting the European Commission’s communication on the copyright reform that should happen on September 21st. We have a list of issues we think it should cover and together with EDRi we want to talk about what doesn’t work and should be changed as well as what does work and should be further reinforced.
On September 8th in Brussels MEPs Therese Comodini Cachia (EPP) and MEP Carlos Zorrinho (PASD) will host an event co-organized by COMMUNIA and EDRi on the possible future scenarios for copyright.
Our friends at EDRi will talk about the copyright deficiencies and areas for change based on their fascinating Copyfails series. We will talk about the need to reinforce users’ rights through the harmonization of limitations and exceptions based on our Best Case Scenarios for Copyright. Kennisland, a Communia member, will present the copyrightexceptions.eu, which collects and visualises where limitations to copyright are implemented in EU member states.
Regardless of the text of the EC Communication we will have our eyes set on the reform that should both protect users’ rights and adjust copyright for the 21st century. We are grateful that MEP Comodini and MEP Zorrinho are hosting this event and help spread this message.
We will publish the agenda of the event and registration info in mid-Agust. Meanwhile, please save the date for this important debate. See you on September 8th, 11:00-13:15 in the European Parliament, Brussels.
Last week we saw another Advocate General (AG) opinion published that deals with the position of cultural heritage institutions within the EU copyright framework. Hot on the heels of AG Szpunar’s opinion on e-lending, AG Wathelet weighed in on the question of whether the French system for making out-of-print books available online is aligned with the EU copyright directive. His opinion in the case C‑301/15 Soulier en Doke is that the French scheme, which assigns the digital reproduction and performance rights for out-of-print books to a collecting society that then licenses them, is incompatible with the InfoSoc directive. Such an opinion effectively undermines the idea that Extended Collective Licensing (ECL) can serve as a solution for the copyright problems created by mass digitisation of cultural heritage collections.
This opinion comes at a crucial time when the EU Commission is finalising its copyright reform proposal, which is scheduled to be published in September. As part of this proposal the Commission has promised to propose measures that will “make it easier to digitise out-of-commerce works and make them available”. While the Commission has so far been silent on the mechanism that it would propose to achieve this goal, it is generally understood that there are two different approaches on the table:
The Death of Extended Collective Licensing?
While AG Wathelet’s opinion only concerns the specific question referred to the CJEU by the French court, it has much wider-ranging consequences. Should the CJEU rule in agreement with the opinion (note that a decision is not expected until after the September publication of the Commission’s proposal), then Extended Collective Licensing is effectively dead as a solution for the copyright problems created by mass digitisation. In this sense, this opinion supports the position expressed by cultural heritage institutions that the only real solution for their issues is an update of the relevant exceptions in the InfoSoc directive. Continue reading
With the Best Case Scenarios for Copyright series we have proved that copyright has a brighter side for users. For satire and critique, in teaching, research and journalism, even while preserving memories of beautiful spaces – copyright exceptions help artists, audiences, students, and tourists alike benefit from access to culture and education.
What is important, the copyright exceptions do not break creative markets and don’t put creators out of business. On the contrary – which poet wouldn’t want her poems to be translated in class? Which architect wouldn’t want his building to become a landmark everybody recognizes? Such a massive spread of cultural tropes is possible through the exceptions we have presented: freedom of panorama in Portugal, parody in France, education in Estonia and quotation in Finland.
So what are the mechanisms and tricks that make exceptions great? Any copyright exception needs to balance legitimate interests of both the users and the rights holders. When that balance is achieved we can have more than 4 best case scenarios for copyright.
We have identified 6 magic ingredients that make copyright exceptions and limitations great. Here is how to mix them to #fixcopyright:
The right to quote is a pivotal element of science, study, critique, and art. By evoking somebody else’s words and creations we are able to enter into an intellectual dialog that is a foundation of our culture. Quotations substantiate scientific discourse and discovery of new knowledge. They are used widely in memes that have become a signature feature of social media.
Within the Best Case Scenarios for Copyright series, we present Finland as the best example for quotations. Below you can find the basic facts and for more evidence check the Best Case Scenario for Copyright – Quotations in Finland legal study. EU, it’s time to #fixcopyright!
What is a quotation exception?
- A quotation exception to copyright refers to citations or other uses of protected works as a way to support intellectual creation.
- The exception is justified by the freedom of intellectual creation.
One of the more remarkable aspects of the Commission’s communication “Towards a modern, more European copyright framework” from last december was how much attention it paid to issues faced by Cultural Heritage Institutions. In the communication the Commission announced no less than four different interventions aimed at modernizing those aspects of the copyright framework that govern how Libraries, Archives and Museums can operate in the digital environment. These include the introduction of a new exception for Text and Data mining, updates to the exception for the preservation and research and private copy exceptions and the ambition to make ‘it easier to digitise out-of-commerce works and make them available‘.
As we have argued here before, Europe’s cultural heritage institutions deserve copyright rules that allow them to fully embrace the opportunities offered by the digital environment. And as we have noted before we are not alone with this opinion. Both the European Parliament (in the form of the Reda report) and prominent cultural heritage institutions from across Europe (in this open letter) have made the point the Libraries, Museums and Archives should benefit from exceptions and limitations that also apply online.
While it is unclear at this point how the commission intends to make good on its announcements from December there is some legitimate concern that heeding to pressure from publishers and other rightsholders the Commission will propose only minimal updates to the existing system and instead suggest ‘solutions’ based on (extended collective) licensing.
In this situation LIBER, IFLA, EBLIDA, Europeana and Libraries2020 have joined forces and have issued a joint statement with a list of recommendations to adapt Exceptions to Digital and Cross-border Environments. In addition to arguing for updated exceptions the five organisations also point out that currently the rights granted by exceptions and limitations are routinely overridden by contracts and/or technical measures:
The library and broader cultural heritage community supports a balanced copyright framework that not only recognises citizens’ right to information, but also respects authors’ rights to fair remuneration for their work. However, libraries and audio-visual collections in particular are witnessing first-hand how fragmented implementation of exceptions under EU copyright legislation is an increasing barrier to cross-border access to content, preventing progress in particular for students and pan-European research projects. To compound this, in all but four European Member States (Belgium, Ireland, Portugal and the United Kingdom), contract terms can override existing copyright exceptions, which further undermines the goal of a coherent European copyright framework. […]
The education exception benefits teachers, students, and researchers who need access to all types of educational and informational resources that are often protected by copyright. This exception balances the right to education with the rights of authors. Maintaining the balance is never easy, and some issues still await their interpretation in Estonia. Still, Estonia enjoys the widest education exception provisions among all EU member states.
Within the Best Case Scenarios for Copyright series, we present Estonia as one of the best examples for education. Below you can find the basic facts and for more evidence check the Best Case Scenario for Copyright – Education in Estonia legal study. EU, it’s time to #fixcopyright!
What is an education exception?
- An education exception to copyright relates to cases where protected works of all types are used for educational purposes or scientific research, both offline and online.
- The exception is justified by the public interest of access to education.
While the European Commission is still busy determining what changes to propose to the EU copyright framework this fall, some stakeholders have decided that instead of waiting for an update of the EU copyright rules (that is at least four years away), they are better of attempting to expand the existing rules. Last year the Dutch Association of Public Libraries (VOB) started a legal procedure against the Dutch organization tasked with distributing to authors the remuneration that libraries pay for lending out books (Stichting Leenrecht).
In addition to paper books, the VOB wants to lend out e-books, but is concerned that the EU directive on the rental and lending rights of books does not cover digital lending. Instead of waiting for an update to the directive, the VOB decided to go to court to clarify the issue. The Dutch Court subsequently referred the case to the the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and asked it to answer the question if digital lending is covered by the Rental and Lending Rights Directive.
While the court’s decisions in the VOB vs Leenrecht case is not expected until late this year, Advocate General (AG) Maciej Szpunar delivered his opinion last Thursday. In its opinion AG Szpunar advises the CJEU to rule that art 1(1) of the Rental and Lending Rights Directive must be interpreted to include the right to lend electronic books included in a library’s own collection. While AG opinions generally offer a good indication of how the Court will decide, they have no direct effect and it is important to remember that the court can also come to a different conclusion than the AG. This of course is exactly the outcome that the VOB had hoped for and as such this AG opinion represents an important step in the fight of libraries to be allowed to adopt their activities to the digital environment. Continue reading
The European Commission’s public consultation on a neighbouring right for publishers and on the freedom of panorama closed on Wednesday. While the Commission has yet to publish the results of the consultation, Copyright 4 Creativity and Save the Link – who have both been providing tools that encouraged internet users to respond to the consultation – have published data on the responses that they have forwarded to the Commission.
The 2819 responses collected by Copyright 4 Creativity show a very clear picture. According to C4C, 96% of the respondents indicated that the introduction of new rights for publishers (either in the form of an ancillary copyright for press publishers or of a generic neighbouring right for all publishers) would have a strong negative impact on publishers, authors and other rightsholders, educators, researchers, online service providers and end users. This is a pretty resounding NO! to the misguided notion that the problems of the publishing sector can be solved by creating rights out of thin air.
Open Media, the organisation behind the Save the Link campaign, gathered more than 35.000 signatories (including 9937 from the EU) supporting the following statement:
a new ‘neighbouring right’ limited to [press] publishers and the creation of a new neighbouring right covering publishers in all sectors, will each have a strong negative impact on consumers, end-users, and EU citizens.
Now both C4C and Save the Link have both targeted internet users who are critical of an expansion of copyrights. It is therefore not really surprising that that these number show strong opposition to the introduction of new rights that provide publishers and other rights holders with more control over the internet. However, it is relatively hard to imagine that the other responses that the commission has received will change the overall picture of strong opposition to the idea of a neighbouring right for publishers.Continue reading