The European Parliament and its path toward a Digital Single Market Act

Children of the Sea
The call to abolish the failed database directive is the highlight of the report
Licentie

Creating a fully integrated Digital Single Market (DSM) is one of the main priorities of the current European Commission. The commission has outlined its general approach in last years Digital Single Market communication (which we have discussed here). In reaction to this communication the European Parliament has been working on a report. The report on achieving a Digital Single Market Act, as adopted jointly by ITRE and IMCO Committees on 14 December 2015, was discussed and voted on by the European Parliament on 19 January 2016.

Since the report deals with issues related to the copyright framework of the European Union (among many others, such as boosting access for consumers and businesses to digital goods and services, developing the conditions for digital networks and services to prosper, and making the best of the growth potential of digital economy) Communia perceives the discussion on the document as another step in the ongoing processes related to to tearing down digital boundaries that still exist in Europe. The document is also a “demand” for the what should be contained in the Commission’s 2016 legislative proposals.Continue reading

What the diary of Anne Frank can tell us about Text and Data mining

Allegorie op de scheikunde
Copyright must not be used to thwart scientific research
Licentie

Recently, everybody has been busy discussing the question of whether the Diary of Anne Frank will enter (or by now, has entered) the public domain on January 1st this year (Answer: It’s complicated). Surprisingly, the discussions surrounding the copyright in Anne Frank’s writings may shed some light on another contentious copyright policy issue: text and data mining. These insights are the result of a recent ruling by the District Court of Amsterdam in dealing with a dispute between the Anne Frank Stichting (owner of the physical diaries and operator of the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam) and the Anne Frank Fonds (owner of the copyrights in Anne Frank’s writings).

The Anne Frank Stichting announced plans to publish an edition of Anne Frank’s texts online after the presumed expiration of the copyright on January 1, 2016. In response, the Anne Frank Fonds sued the Stichting over what it considered unauthorised reproductions of Anne Frank’s writings. The reproductions had been made by the Stichting as part of its preparatory research for the on-line publication after the new year. Initially, this seemed to be an attempt by the Fonds to thwart or delay the Stichting’s plans for an online edition.

However, during the course of the legal arguments it became clear that under Dutch law (which governs uses made by the Stichting), Anne Frank’s original writings would not enter the public domain in 2016. This is due to a transitional rule in the Dutch copyright act which states that works posthumously published before 1995 will retain copyright—in this case large parts of the original writings will only expire in 2037.

While this means that the Stichting had to shelve its plan to publish an online edition, the Fonds continued to press charges related to the reproductions (XML-TEI files) made by the Stichting in order to carry out its textual and historical research. The Stichting was sued alongside their research partner the Dutch Royal Academy of Science (KNAW). Both upheld the position that it did not require permission for making reproductions solely intended to enable its internal scholarship, claiming that copyright law should not be used to thwart scientific research. Continue reading

Copyright Communication: the good, the bad, and the ugly

Het brood der toekomst wordt strijdend gewonnen
Copyright reform: the long struggle ahead
Licentie

Yesterday, the European Commission published its long awaited communication on copyright. The document titled ‘Towards a modern, more European copyright framework‘ doesn’t contain many surprises, which is both due to the fact that it is largely identical to a draft version that was leaked at the beginning of November, and that the Commission has opted for a safe approach that proposes minimal changes to the existing rules.

The latter is confirmed by the proposal for a regulation ‘on ensuring cross-border portability of online content services in the internal market’ that the Commission published alongside the Communication. In the light of the Commission’s earlier statements that it wants to create a digital single market, this proposal is a huge disappointment as it only covers access to online services while users are temporarily outside of their ‘Member State of residence’. It does nothing to address the much more important problem that copyright-protected works that are available to citizens of some member states are not available to users in other member states (the Commission promises to ‘address’ this issue in 2016 through a number of market led interventions, suggesting a slow policy crawl against geoblocking).

Ensuring that paid-for subscriptions to content continue to work once the paying customer travels to another member state is nice, but it does not constitute a digital single market. The proposed regulation on cross border portability will put an end to one of the most annoying consequences of a territorial copyright system. But by making the system a little more bearable the this move can also be expected to further entrench the reality of territorial markets.

The fact that enabling portability requires a legislative intervention on the EU level speaks as much to the growing imbalance of the copyright system as it does to the inability of the Commission to deliver on the digital single market promise. Even though this intervention seems to be rather minimal, rights holders are already complaining about the Commission’s proposal, and it will be interesting to see if the Commission will be able to make good on its intention to shepherd the proposal through Parliament and Council within the next year so that it can come into effect in 2017.

The rest the communication does not contain any concrete proposals, but rather identifies areas where the Commission is planning legislative (and non legislative) interventions in 2016. As mentioned above, the text of the communication is largely identical to the leaked draft which we have analysed here. In the following section we will highlight the good, the bad, and the ugly parts of what the Commission is planning for 2016.Continue reading

Leaked copyright communication: A more modern copyright framework for Europe?

Routekaart voor de beroemde plekken in Ise
Copyright quo vadis?
Licentie

On Tuesday the European Commission published a roadmap outlining the next steps in their effort to modernize the EU copyright rules. The (not entirely unexpected) main takeaway from this roadmap is that the Commission is retreating from its earlier announcement that it will present a comprehensive legislative proposal for copyright modernisation before the end of 2015.

Instead the Commission will address the modernisation of copyright via a series of interventions, starting in December with a “Communication on copyright which will provide a comprehensive overview of the main issues to be tackled in order to ensure the proper functioning of the copyright marketplace, in particular in the online environment and in a cross-border context”. This communication will come together with two legislative proposals, the first dealing with the (long overdue) implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty, and the other about cross-border portability of content. In a second phase – currently promised for ‘Spring 2016’ – the Commission plans to present additional measures, including legislative updates of the InfoSoc directive.

Announcements about announcements

The rest of the roadmap consists of a fairly unstructured discussion of what might possibly be contained in the December consultation, and an extensive description of the available evidence, including the highly contentious outcomes of the 2013/2014 copyright consultation and the ongoing consultations on online platforms and the SatCab directive. But at its core the roadmap does not constitute much more than an announcement of the December communication, which in turn will be an announcement of legislative and non-legislative interventions.

Fortunately, we can ignore the rather vague roadmap and jump straight to a leaked draft of the actual communication published on Thursday by the IPkat. The draft appears to be fairly recent and is scheduled to be adopted by the Commission on the 9th of December. It is also a much more coherent document that provides us with a relatively clear overview of the Commission’s ideas of how ‘a modern, more European copyright framework’ should look. Continue reading

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

More licenses are not the solution for text and data mining

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

Earlier this week  LIBER released a response to the STM Association’s statement about text and data mining (TDM). The STM Association asserts that legal certainty already exists for TDM via publishers’ licences, and that creating copyright exceptions for text and data mining activities would undermine the investment incentives for ensuring that high-quality content is available.

LIBER refutes these claims. First, they say that publishers’ licenses for TDM are not straightforward or easy to understand.

Licences could never be described as simple; they are highly complex and can take months or even years to complete. They often refer to laws in other jurisdictions and in most European countries they can override the flexibilities that exceptions are intended to provide. Many licences explicitly forbid TDM associated activities such as crawling of content and the depositing of data in institutional repositories.

Second, LIBER argues that forcing researchers to acquire licenses to engage in text and data mining will divert investment money away from conducting important research, and instead will be used to pay for license compliance and monitoring activities. Instead, they say that a copyright exception for TDM would actually promote investment, not inhibit it. Continue reading

Hague Declaration calls for IP reform to support access to knowledge in the digital age

Today COMMUNIA joins over 50 organizations in releasing the Hague Declaration on Knowledge Discovery in the Digital Age. The declaration is a collaboratively-created set of principles that outlines core legal and technical freedoms that are necessary for researchers. The principles would allow them to be able to take advantage of new technologies and practices in the pursuit of scholarly research, including activities such as text and data mining. The drafting of the declaration was led by LIBER, the Association of European Research Libraries. It was developed through contributions from dozens of organizations and individuals. COMMUNIA is an original signatory to the declaration.

One of the key principles recognized in the declaration is that intellectual property law does not regulate the flow of facts, data, and ideas–and that licenses and contract terms should not regulate or restrict how an individual may analyze or use data. To realize the massive, positive potential for data and content analysis to help solve major scientific, medical, and environmental challenges, it’s important that intellectual property laws–and private contracts–do not restrict practices such as text and data mining.Continue reading

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

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.

 

Communia response to Science 2.0 consultation

Today the European Commission concluded a consultation on ‘Science 2.0’: Science in Transition. The objective of the consultation is “to better understand the full societal potential of ‘Science 2.0’ as well as the desirability of any possible policy action.” Science 2.0 is defined as the “on-going evolution in the modus operandi of doing research and organising science.” COMMUNIA responded to the questionnaire because there were issues relevant to how scientific research and data could be made available under open licenses or as a part of the public domain. One question asks respondents to rank the specific areas in which they feel a need for policy intervention. We noted that a few opportunities for policy development are open access to publications and research data, and increased attention to policies that support text and data mining. From our submission:

Open access to publication and research data as either in the public domain or under an open license aligned with the Open Definition would help work towards the goals of Science 2.0. Such a policy would be especially important when public funds are expended for scientific research and publications. COMMUNIA policy recommendation #12 states, “all publicly funded research output and educational resources must be made available as open access materials.” Interest in text and data mining is increasing, and traditional gatekeepers of science scholarship (namely commercial publishers) are attempting to restrict this activity through the adoption of custom licenses and/or contractual terms. We think that text and data mining should be considered as outside of the scope of copyright protection, and instead should be considered as an extension of the right to read (see “Right to Read is the Right to Mine”). Text and data mining should not be treated with a contractual approach which would try to license for a fee this usage in addition to the right of access. Terms of use prohibiting the lawful right to perform data mining on a content accessed legitimately should be considered an abuse of exclusive rights.

Here’s our responses to the questionnaire. The Commission’s background paper on the Science 2.0 consultation is here.