MEP Joulaud’s opinion resurfaces non-commercial freedom of panorama

Ivens & Co. Fotoartikelen. Amsterdam Spuistraat 216 Nijmegen, Groningen
Europe needs a broad freedom of panorama right
Licentie

Last week the Culture and Education Committee of the European Parliament (CULT) released its draft opinion on the European Commission’s proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. Rapporteur Joulaud highlights that the Commission’s proposal ignores many of the crucial concerns voiced by internet users, and offers some amendments to improve this situation. However, many of these changes do little to promote user rights and freedoms. Instead, he suggests a confusing change to the proposed ‘press publishers right’ by introducing a non-commercial clause, a push for an even stronger reliance on licensing instead of a broad education exception, renewed support for filtering of user uploaded content, and further restrictions on TDM activities.  

From our perspective, the issue of Freedom of Panorama—the legal right to take and share photos, video, and images of architecture, sculptures and other works which are permanently located in a public place—was not adequately addressed in the Commission’s proposal. In fact, it wasn’t included at all. We’ve urged the European Parliament to introduce a broad, EU-wide Freedom of Panorama right that applies to both commercial and noncommercial uses of all works permanently located in public spaces.

Continue reading

European Commission doesn’t want to say how the directive was conceived

The Birth of Minerva
does the directive come from one man's head?
Licentie

Wouldn’t we all want to know how the copyright reform proposal gained its current shape? Was it at a roundtable of sages? Did someone knock Commissioner Günther Oettinger’s head and the proposal sprung out? We have filed an access to documents request (FOIA) to find out what the EC legal services’ opinion was in this process.

Chances are we will not have full clarity on the evidence that substantiated the proposed directive on copyright in the digital single market. After European Digital Rights filed a request to access the correspondence between Commissioners, cabinets and services on the proposal for a copyright Directive in October 2016, the recent response was that there is 1 (ONE!) email that meets the criteria. It would seem that the Commission have a strong oral tradition and excellent collective memory if this is really the only recorded evidence to attest to the quality of the process.

To make things worse, the email cannot be revealed because “the disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the institution’s decision-making process, unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure”. We believe that the public interest in knowing how absurdities such as new rights for publishers or the upload filter found its way to the proposal is indeed overriding the secrecy of the only email that has ever been exchanged on the topic. Obviously EDRi has filed a confirmatory application to review the handling of the request that is yet to be considered by the EC.

To learn more about the legality of the most problematic parts of the proposal, Centrum Cyfrowe, COMMUNIA member, filed a FOIA to access the European Commission’s legal service opinion(s) on the drafts of the proposal on February 13, 2017. With the two processes, the Commission has a chance to make the right choice and spill the beans on their intel and sources. If the European Commission decides otherwise, we will be left wondering if the proposal is a result of some intense industry lobbying, or perhaps of unpreparedness of DG Connect to properly address challenges of the 21st century.

Refusal will give a bad name to the EC legal services that could have let out a really bad piece of lawmaking that contradicts existing regulation as well as the EU case law. Moreover, the Commission will prove again that it is one of the least transparent European institutions while keeping its finger on the trigger of change that will shape our digital lives for many years to come.

European Parliament opinion slams European Commission for unbalanced copyright proposal

Spotprent op het bedrog van de firma C. de Bruyn & Zonen
Users rights need to be part of the balance!
Licentie

Earlier today Marc Joulaud, the CULT rapporteur for the proposed Copyright in the Digital Single Market directive, published his draft opinion on the proposed directive. Joulands draft opinion is the first of many similar documents dealing with the Commission’s proposal that will emerge from the European Parliament in the next weeks and while it will likely undergo significant changes it is a really promising start of the parliamentary process.

The draft opinion contains 85 amendments to the text of the Commission’s proposal that deal with all aspects of the directive. Over the next few days we will provide more detailed analysis of his proposals for a number of the issues that COMMUNIA has been focussing on such as the proposed exceptions for TDM and education, the new right for press publishers and the content filtering obligation for user uploaded content.

Users’ rights need to be a part of the debate

While we certainly do not agree with all of his positions, Joulaud’s draft opinion deserves to be praised. In line with our own analysis of the Commission’s proposal, Joulaud observes that the proposed directive is out of balance as it ignores many of the most pressing concerns of internet users:

It is the Rapporteur’s view that the proposal does not acknowledge the position consumers, as service users, now occupy in the digital environment. No longer playing a mere passive role, they have become active contributors and are now both a source and recipient of content in the digital ecosystem. […] digital practices of users do not benefit from legal certainty under the current copyright rules, in particular the exceptions and limitations, and therefore require a specific approach, a fourth pillar within this Directive.

Continue reading

Great news! Quality journalism doesn’t need the snippet levy

A woman shouting into a man's ear-trumpet. Wood engraving.
no new rights for publishers!
Licentie

As we vocally oppose the proposed new rights for press publishers, we’re often asked what could be done instead to ensure the quality of journalism in the digital era. The good news is there are examples of how good journalism could be assisted. The even better news is that these solutions do not require such level of protectionism as the European Commission seem to think they do.

Scaling up a horrible idea

To recap the issue: the new rights for publishers, called also the ancillary copyright or the snippet levy, would require online services to pay for linking to articles that are up to twenty years old. Almost every news link with an explanatory extract (a snippet) placed in a search engine would be subject to a fee. This measure included in the proposed directive on copyright in the digital single market, despite a spectacular failure of similar mechanisms in Spain in Germany, is heavily backed by powerful media outlets. Their argument: aggregators such as Google news make money on ads placed by the content they aggregate, while the newspapers suffer from the disruption technology brought.

In January 2017 we know better than ever that we need quality journalism as one of driving forces behind democratic debate and choices people make casting election ballots. And we all know it costs. But the assumption that the snippet levy will work if enough countries are bullied into adopting it through a European directive is the textbook example of insanity – it is employing the method that had already failed and expecting a different result. Instead, we should be looking into other European countries where non-regulatory measures improving business models are adopted, and search for an inspiration from places where that level of public interventionism does not happen and publishers have to adapt to the digital age in other ways.

Continue reading

Evidence-based copyright policymaking should be a no-brainer

Adreskaart voor boekhandel Scheltema en Holkema
Beware, evidence-free policymaking ahead
Licentie

It’s Copyright Week and today’s topic is “Transparency and Representation”. Copyright policy must be set through a participatory, democratic, and transparent process. It should not be decided through backroom deals, secret international agreements, or unilateral attempts to apply national laws extraterritorially. Unfortunately, in many aspects the European Union is not meeting such standards.

The European Union began to consider updating its copyright rules in 2013. In September of last year the European Commission released its proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. Unfortunately, the plan fails to deliver on the promise for a modern copyright law in Europe. It also does not take into account results of consultations that the Commission has conducted.  

It’s obvious to us that any legislative proposal should be developed from reliable, impartial economic and policy research whose foundation is based on evidence and facts. This information should be broadly available for public inspection, and public institutions should solicit and fairly incorporate feedback from a wide range of stakeholders. The process undertaken by the Commission hasn’t lived up to these expectations.

Representation does not work if the consultation process is broken

The Commission released its copyright plan simultaneously with the long-overdue results of the public consultation on the panorama exception, and the press publisher’s right. This is a prime example of lack of commitment to transparency nor representation. As written in an earlier post:

The public consultation on freedom of panorama and ancillary copyright ended on 15 June. We think that the public input should have been analyzed by the Commission and released to the public long before any public release of a Directive in which those topics are discussed. Doing so would have demonstrated reasonable and responsible policy-making on behalf of the Commission. But by releasing the summaries of these consultations at the same time as the Directive—when it was far too late for the public to understand the Commission’s thinking, let alone advocate for other changes—only reinforces the EC’s disingenuousness in having a public consultation in the first place.

But looking beyond process considerations, it’s clear that a large swath of substantive feedback was mostly ignored by the Commission. We and many other respondents urged the Commission to introduce a broad, EU-wide Freedom of Panorama right that applies to both commercial and noncommercial uses of all works permanently located in public spaces. The Commission decided not to include it in their proposal.

Link tax and evidence-free policymaking

But perhaps the Commission’s approach to the press publisher’s right (also known as ancillary copyright, linktax, etc.) is a better example of evidence-free policymaking. In opposition to much of the public feedback on this measure, the Commission still introduced the press publisher’s right within their copyright proposal. Their summary report on the public consultation does not communicate that there were nine times as many users, consumers, and citizens who opposed the introduction of the right than press publishers who supported it. The logical conclusion as to why the Commission doesn’t mention this—or provide any sort of numerical breakdown of respondents ‘for’ and ‘against’—is because it would plainly show that there is massive opposition to the introduction of a right for press publishers.

But even if we look beyond public opinion, there’s obvious and direct evidence that a press publisher’s right does not work. Similar rules have already failed to achieve their primary goals in Germany and Spain. A new right will not only fail to increase publisher revenues, but also decrease competition and innovation in the delivery of news, limit access to information, and create widespread negative repercussions for related stakeholders.

Continue reading

New study explores possible effects of counterproductive press publisher’s right

Spotprent op de uitgever Jobard te BrusselLicentie

At the end of December we published a position paper on the Commission’s proposal to introduce new rights in publications available to press publishers for control over the digital use of their content. The right would apply for 20 years, and would also apply retroactively to content already published. From our perspective, the press publishers’ right will not only fail to increase publisher revenues, but also decrease competition and innovation in the delivery of news, limit access to information, and create widespread negative repercussions for related stakeholders. For this reason we argue that Article 11 (“Protection of press publications concerning digital uses”) should be removed from the proposal.

Today, OpenForum Europe published a paper written by Prof. dr. Mireille M.M. van Eechoud which analyses the press publisher’s right (they call it “PIP”, for short). The study examines the justifications for the proposed press publisher’s right, and assesses how it would fit in the EU copyright framework. (Read full paper here)

The report echoes the skepticism (and dearth of evidence) about whether an additional right would even be able to address the challenges faced by press publishers today:

Neither the Impact Assessment nor the Commission Communication explains in what way the introduction of an additional layer of rights would facilitate the clearing of rights for online uses and reduce transaction costs for all stakeholders concerned. The claims that are made about the causal relationship between the introduction of a publisher’s intellectual property right, increasing revenues and a sustainable press leading to media diversity, are not substantiated with data.

Continue reading

EU copyright should protect users’ rights and prevent content filtering

Woman approaching a windmill
Content filtering violates fundamental rights
Licentie

Today we are publishing the fifth in a series of position papers dealing with the various parts of the European Commission’s proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (the previous papers dealt with the education exception, text and data mining, the press publisher’s right and freedom of panorama). The paper deals with article 13 of the Commission’s proposal which introduces a filtering obligation on online platforms that allow users to upload content (such as facebook, youtube flickr and many other online services). The proposal fails to establish clear rules for internet users that make it clear how they can share and remix content legally. Instead it introduces a filtering requirement for online platforms that can potentially serve as a censorship machine and will violate users’ fundamental rights and distort the existing legal framework. From our perspective article 13 and the related recitals should be deleted from the proposal (You can download a pdf version of the position paper here).

Position paper: Use of Protected Content by Information Society Service Providers

Article 13 of the European Commission’s proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market attempts to address the disparity in revenues generated for rightsholders and platforms from online uses of protected content. The proposed article attempts this by introducing an obligation for “Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works” to filter user uploads. It would also require these providers to set up licensing agreements with rightsholders.

These proposed measures, however, do not address the issue adequately; instead, they violate fundamental rights of users, contradict the E-Commerce Directive, and go against CJEU case law.

The measures proposed in the Commission’s proposal stem from an unbalanced vision of copyright as an issue between rightsholders and ‘infringers’. The proposal chooses to ignore limitations and exceptions to copyright, fundamental freedoms, and existing users’ practices. In addition, the proposal fails to establish clear rules with regard to how citizens can use protected works in transformative ways—such as remixes and other forms of so-called “user-generated content” (UGC). As a result, a system of this kind would greatly restrict the way Europeans create, share, and communicate online.

Continue reading

Cultural Heritage Institutions: Commission’s Copyright Proposal fails to address our needs

Adreskaart voor boekhandel Scheltema en Holkema
Unlock Europe's cultural heritage now!
Licentie

Last week a number of Europeana organisations representing libraries and other cultural heritage organizations released a joint response to the Commission’s copyright proposals. The paper, issued by LIBER, EBLIDA, IFLA, Public Libraries 2020 and Europeana, deals with those elements of the EU copyright framework that are directly relevant to cultural heritage institutions.

This includes four issues addressed in the Commission’s Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (the exceptions for Text and Data Mining, Education, and Preservation copies, and the measures aimed at improving access to out-of-commerce works), and a number of issues that the Commission’s proposal fails to address, such as on-site access to collections and online document supply.

Exceptions are too narrow

The paper underlines that from the perspective of cultural heritage institutions, EU copyright reform needs to focus on updating and harmonizing copyright exceptions:

We believe that overall welfare is best served by a robust and mandatory set of copyright exceptions which facilitate access to knowledge.

Given this general approach it is not surprising the cultural heritage institutions share many of the same concerns we raised in our analysis of the Commission’s proposal. Continue reading

EU copyright should protect photography in public spaces

Ivens & Co. Fotoartikelen. Amsterdam Spuistraat 216 Nijmegen, Groningen
photography is overlooked in the proposal
Licentie

Today we are publishing the fourth in a series of position papers dealing with the various parts of the European Commission’s proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (see our papers on the education exception, text and data mining exception, and press publisher’s right). Today’s paper deals with the Commission’s handling of what is commonly known as “Freedom of Panorama”—the legal right to take and share photos, video, and images of architecture, sculptures and other works which are permanently located in a public place (you can download a pdf version of the paper here). From our perspective this issue was not adequately addressed in the Commission’s proposal, and we ask the European Parliament to introduce a broad, EU-wide Freedom of Panorama right that applies to both commercial and noncommercial uses of all works permanently located in public spaces.

Position paper: Copyright Reform to Protect the Rights of Photographers and Painters

Public spaces in our cities and countrysides are a functional part of the commons, the places accessible to all members of society. These belong to the public and are not owned privately. The right to take and re-use pictures of our public spaces is critical for the arts, preservation of culture, and education. It is also highly relevant to freedom of expression. It forms the foundation upon which many European photographers, painters, and visual artists create art and earn a living.

The European Commission ran a consultation on this right, known commonly as “Freedom of Panorama”. The results of the consultation confirm that consumers, institutional users, service providers, professional photographers, and architects believe that making this right mandatory across the EU will have a positive impact on their activities.

In its communication published alongside the EU copyright reform proposal, the European Commission “confirms the relevance of this exception” and “strongly recommends that all Member States implement this exception.” Both Vice-President Ansip and Commissioner Oettinger have since publicly confirmed that there is a majority in the Council for such a mandatory right. Continue reading

Commission’s proposal on new rights for press publishers: A terrible solution good for no one

Adreskaart voor boekhandel Scheltema en Holkema
won't help publishers, won't help users
Licentie

Today we are publishing the third in a series of position papers dealing with the various parts of the European Commission’s proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (see our other papers on the education exception, text and data mining). Today’s paper deals with the Commission’s proposal to introduce new rights in publications available to press publishers for control over the digital use of their content (you can download a pdf version of the paper here). From our perspective, this new right will not only fail to increase publisher revenues, but also decrease competition and innovation in the delivery of news, limit access to information, and create widespread negative repercussions for related stakeholders. For this reason we argue that Article 11 (“Protection of press publications concerning digital uses”) should be removed from the proposal.

Position paper: New Rights for Press Publishers

Copyright already provides rightsholders with a broad range of protections over their creative works, typically lasting for the life of the author plus 70 years. However, the European Commission has proposed new rights in publications available to press publishers for control over the digital use of their content. This new right has been called many things, including a publisher’s right, ancillary copyright, link tax, Google tax.

The Commission’s proposal to introduce a right for press publishers falls outside the EU mandate to establish a Digital Single Market. The case for EU intervention is weak, as it does not meet the requirements of subsidiarity and proportionality. If adopted, the new right for press publishers will decrease competition and innovation in the delivery of news, limit access to information, and create widespread negative repercussions for related stakeholders. Continue reading