Wide education exception is the best case scenario to #fixcopyright in EU

BCS header imageLicentie

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!

Exception/Limitation: Education

Country: Estonia

 

03 - Education Share

What is an education exception?

  1. 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.
  2. The exception is justified by the public interest of access to education.

Continue reading

EU, #fixcopyright and adopt the parody exception across Europe

BCS header imageLicentie

The parody exception cultivates the French tradition of satire. When the goal is to make people laugh, anybody can freely create a distinctively different mockery of a protected work. This encourages creativity and freedom of expression.

Within the Best Case Scenarios for Copyright series, we present France as the best example for parody. Below you can find the basic facts and for more evidence check the Best Case Scenario for Copyright – Parody in France legal study. EU, it’s time to #fixcopyright!

Exception/Limitation: Parody
Country: France

02 - Parody Share

What is a parody exception?

  1. Rooted in ancient Greek, the term “parody” includes works of mockery, as well as quoting or referencing an older work in a modern interpretation of it. In France, parody implies adapting or borrowing from a work with the intention of having fun.
  2. The exception is justified by freedom of expression.

Continue reading

Time to #fixcopyright and free the panorama across EU

BCS header imageLicentie

Freedom of panorama is a fundamental element of European cultural heritage and visual history. Rooted in freedom of expression, it allows painters, photographers, filmmakers, journalists and tourists alike to document public spaces, create masterpieces of art and memories of beautiful places, and freely share it with others.

Within the Best Case Scenarios for Copyright series we present Portugal as the best example for freedom of panorama. Below you can find the basic facts and for more evidence check the Best Case Scenario for Copyright – Freedom of Panorama in Portugal legal study. EU, it’s time to #fixcopyright!

Exception/Limitation: Freedom of Panorama
Country: Portugal

Best Case Scenarios FoP

What is freedom of panorama?

  1. Derived from the German word Panoramafreiheit, freedom of panorama generally refers to the right to visually document works of architecture, sculptures, street art, or other copyrighted works, as long as they are permanently located in public spaces. In Portugal, the exception covers all sorts of documentation—not only photographs and video footage.
  2. The exception is justified by freedom of expression and public interest.

Continue reading

Best Case Scenarios for Copyright

Kaart van Europa, ingekleurd als koningin and Europa volgens de nieuwste verdeeling
EU, time to #fixcopyright
Licentie

The copyright was originally meant to promote creativity and innovation, but instead it’s become outdated, overly complicated, and even threatening to some users. Fortunately there are still ways to fix copyright and the EU is in a unique position to do it. The European Commission should look into best examples of national-level solutions and apply them within the current reform. We present several best examples of exceptions and limitations that should benefit citizens in their access to culture and education across Europe.

Time to #fixcopyright and free the panorama across EU

EU, #fixcopyright and adopt the parody exception across Europe

Wide education exception is the best case scenario to #fixcopyright in EU

Reform – the dealmaker or the dealbreaker for citizens?

The current copyright system fails us on so many levels that we know the forthcoming EU copyright reform won’t fix it all. Given the pressure from creative industries to introduce new rights in order to protect their existing business models, the outlook is not very good. Instead of engaging in discussions and actions that would rebalance copyright, users and public interest organizations engage in battles against bad policy ideas.

Best Case Scenarios

It is time to tell the EU that while it plays with the elusive vision of the Digital Single Market by inventing how to tax linking, there are some good solutions that already work in member states. Exceptions and limitations to copyright, so dreaded by many rights holders, do not break the creative industry in Portugal and France or the educational systems of Estonia and Finland. They simply work! To the benefit of creators, artists, students and users, reinforcing creativity, freedom of expression and providing good balance of the interests of rights holders and citizens.

Continue reading

Your voice counts – only 12 days left

A woman shouting into a man's ear-trumpet. Wood engraving.
Make your voice heard!
Licentie

The current European Commission public consultation is about ancillary copyright as well as the ‘panorama exception’. We encourage you all to show support for a strong, mandatory freedom of panorama exception in Europe and to say “no” to ancillary copyright. COMMUNIA has already submitted their feedback, and you can let your voice be heard as well. Responses to the Commission’s survey must be received by June 15, and you can check out how to answer the questions with the guide at http://youcan.fixcopyright.eu/.

Why are these issues important for you?

As we’ve written before, ancillary copyright is good for no one. Everyday Internet users and consumers of news and articles would then have a harder time finding the news and information they were looking for, and would potentially face more constraints in quoting, linking to, aggregating, or otherwise using works protected by a new ancillary right for press publishers.

Even more worrying is adopting additional rights on top of a copyright system that is fundamentally broken. This is neither contributing to the Commission’s objective of modernizing the EU copyright framework nor adapting it to the challenges of a fast-evolving digital environment. Creating new rights (which are next to impossible to retract) is not a suitable method for managing the relationship between different market segments and the public. The ancillary copyright will cause substantial collateral damage to education and access to knowledge. Continue reading

Lisbon Council calls for broad text and data mining exception to promote EU research competitiveness

De zanderij
The right to read is the right to mine!
Licentie

Yesterday the Brussels-based think tank The Lisbon Council published the policy brief Text and Data Mining for Research and Innovation: What Europe Must Do Next. It was written by Sergey Filippov and Paul Hofheinz. In the paper, the authors analyse contemporary text and data mining (TDM) trends, and make recommendations for how European policymakers can better support researchers who wish to engage in TDM activities.

The authors observe that Europe has fallen behind other parts of the world in text and data mining research. One reason is due to the ambiguous legal environment in Europe surrounding TDM. In 2014 the United Kingdom adopted a copyright exception for text and data mining for non-commercial research purposes, but the situation for other countries in Europe is not so clear. The European Commission has not been entirely helpful, either. In their December 2015 communication on copyright, they said they would consider introducing an exception for TDM. However, instead of recommending a robust exception that would truly support text and data mining as an increasingly important research tool, the Commission suggested a narrow interpretation that would restrict TDM only to those affiliated with a “public interest research institution”, and only for “scientific research purposes.”

In their paper, Filippov and Hofheinz say that European researchers may be “hesitant to perform valuable analysis that may or may not be legal”, and that scholars “are forced, on occasion, to outsource their text-and-data-mining needs to researchers elsewhere in the world.” They recognize that some of the language in play—such as “public interest research organisation”, “scientific research purposes”, and “non-commercial”—could be open to misinterpretation, or even be at odds with the underlying public policy intention.

Continue reading

The Copyright Joke

Cure of Folly (Extraction of the Stone of Madness)
EUIPO's Q&A on copyright
Licentie

How many European lawyers does it take to explain copyright? Start with 28 and add another dozen, because opinions vary. Even a basic project of explaining key copyright issues to EU citizens in 15 Q&As demonstrates that not only is European copyright fragmented into 28 incompatible systems but also that explaining the law is time-consuming and sometimes plainly ridiculous.

Continue reading

Guestpost: Looking beyond Google for online access to EU culture and knowledge

Stilleven met boeken
Europe needs a fair, legal framework
Licentie

Last month the US Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from US authors who attempted to overturn a prior decision that Google’s scanning of millions in copyright books amounted to “fair use”. This refusal marks the end of a decade long legal fight about the Google books project. This means that in the US Google is free to scan and index in copyright protected books, in order to allow internet users to search the contents of the books.

The fact that Google is allowed to do this has received much criticism, not only from authors in the US but also from rights holders and media in Europe. Much of this criticism has been directed to the fact that the ruling allows a commercial entity to provide access to the full corpus of literature published in the US, but misses a much more important point.

As Ellen Euler, the Deputy Managing Director for Finance, Law, Communication of the Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek points out in her guest contribution below, this means that internet users in the US have access to a much broader body of knowledge and culture than the internet users in the EU. According to Euler we should not see Google Books as a threat to culture but rather as a reminder that Europe urgently needs to create a legal framework that enables access to the collections of our libraries, archives and museums, preferably by allowing them to make their collections available via their own online platforms.

Looking beyond Google for online access to EU culture and knowledge

by Ellen Euler

In the the digital and networked 21st century, cultural heritage institutions have an extended mandate: they must not only provide local access to culture and knowledge, but are also expected to make their collections available via the internet. As we spend an increasing amount of our time online, expect to be able to view and enjoy the the rich collections of our libraries, museums, and archives. And it’s important to provide online access to enable the discovery and innovative reuse of our shared cultural commons. As Tim Berners-Lee, one of the inventors of the web, sums up: “What’s not on the Net, is not in the world”.

When we digitize content from cultural heritage institutions, we begin the process of opening those materials to the world. As Armand Marie Leroi, a humanist and professor of evolutionary biology once said, “digitisation transforms them from caterpillars into butterflies”. Digitized texts allow us to pose entirely new questions and acquire new knowledge based on full-text searches and via other analytical tools and methods. This type of information mining is no longer restricted only to texts. Image recognition tools, combined with standardised metadata and geographical data, make it possible to interrogate other types of content too. We can use new quantitative research methods to test hypotheses and create linkages between bodies of knowledge. We can create virtual research environments to enable the contextualisation of collections within a broader framework.Continue reading

Ancillary Copyright: bad for both end-users and creators

Spotprent op de uitgever Jobard te Brussel
No additional copyrights for publishers!
Licentie

The Commission’s public consultation on whether to grant additional rights to press publishers is aimed at audiences beyond the publishers themselves, to include a wide range of stakeholders – including end users, consumers, and citizens. In this third post of our series on the consultation, we highlight what the introduction of an additional right for publishers would mean for end-users of news and online information, as well as content creators. We encourage everyone to make their views known to the Commission by answering the consultation questionnaire by 15 June.

[If you have not read our introductory post that deals with the more general problems of granting additional rights to publishers, you may want to read that first.]

Bad for end-users

We’ve already argued that granting new rights to press publishers is a fool’s errand. The adoption of an EU-wide ancillary copyright would have significant negative consequences for end-users of online news and information.  And users would encounter additional hurdles in finding the news and content they were looking for. In addition, these users would potentially face more constraints in quoting, linking to, aggregating, or otherwise finding and using works. Many users that rely on curated news aggregators like Google News or even RSS readers or other apps that reproduce snippets of content from news articles. If an additional right for press publishers is enacted, users would find that these existing news products and services will likely be disrupted, their prices increased, or even discontinued altogether (as we’ve seen in Spain with Google News).

The creation of an ancillary copyright for press publishers can have far reaching effects with regard to access to information beyond the traditional new aggregation services. For example, popular social networking apps and websites used by hundreds of millions of people could be affected too. Think about sites like Facebook and Twitter that permit anyone to post links and short pieces of text. Under a system where publishers are granted an additional right to such snippets, those publishers would be able to extract fees from social networking sites (who of course would likely pass on that cost to their users) in order to allow for open linking to content.

Bad for creators

The adoption of an ancillary copyright for press publishers would also harm content creators.  The data show that granting additional rights for press publishers does not lead to higher compensation for creators. Instead, it frustrates end-users and results in big content aggregators like Google News threatening to discontinue operations if they would be required to pay royalties to publishers for linking to content or providing short snippets to publishers’ content. Even if a system could be arranged where publishers would be compensated for the reproduction of short snippets or links, it’s not clear how (or if) that money would flow back to the authors of the original content.

In addition, an ancillary copyright for press publishers would run afoul of the intentions of creators who wish to share without additional strings attached because the right could be interpreted as unwaivable. For example, the Spanish ancillary right did not treat openly-licensed content differently from content under all rights reserved copyright. Content publishers sharing under Creative Commons licenses, which is increasingly popular, would still be subject to the ancillary copyright, as we wrote then: “By making the right unwaivable aggregators are required to pay fair remuneration to a collective rights management organisations even if a creator has chosen to apply a Creative Commons license that allows the free reuse of her creation.”

Make your voice heard

If you are are content creator, or end-user, we encourage you to make your voice heard and let the Commission know why introducing new rights for publishers is a terrible idea that will damage the European news landscape, social media platforms and more. You can respond directly to the consultation on the Commission’s site, or through an easy tool on youcan.fixcopyright.eu.

We will continue this series next week by highlighting the importance of securing a broad freedom of panorama across the EU.

Short videos explaining ancillary copyright and freedom of panorama

Gdynia, the Polish winter sea
Complex legal concepts explained
Licentie

The European Commission recently decided to consult stakeholders on their views about two hot topics in the copyright reform discussions in Brussels: ancillary copyright and freedom of panorama. Copyright for Creativity (C4C), has released two short videos to explain what Ancillary Copyright (AC) and Freedom of Panorama (FoP) are about, and why they are important. We found these videos useful in explaining these complex legal concepts to general public. We encourage you to watch and share them.

Ancillary Copyright:

Freedom of Panorama:

The discussion around copyright reform is summarised in the third movie “#FixCopyright: Copy (aka copyright) – Draw My Life”.

Answers to the Commission’s consultation on FoP and AC must be received by 15 June. You can find a answering guide to help you navigate these issues here: http://youcan.fixcopyright.eu/.