Civil society groups have placed a lot of hope in the European Commission to limit the dangers to fundamental rights caused by upload filters through the Commission’s Article 17 guidance, which is supposed to help member states implement Article 17 of the DSM directive in a fundamental rights-preserving manner. But with less than two months to go before the implementation deadline, the guidance is still nowhere to be seen. In an open letter published today, twenty user rights organisations are therefore calling on the Commission not to undermine elements of the guidance that would protect users’ fundamental rights by limiting the use of automated upload filters to manifestly infringing content.
Late last week, the CJEU unexpectedly postponed the Advocate General opinion in the Polish case challenging the fundamental rights compliance of Article 17 of the DSM directive by almost three months. Knowing that the upcoming Commission guidance was discussed extensively at the CJEU hearing on the Polish case in November, the postponement could very well mean that the Advocate General wants to see the document before issuing an opinion.
While the Commission has been hinting at the imminent release of the guidance for a few months now, the timing indicates that the Commission precisely wanted to avoid giving the Advocate General time to study the guidance. This does not bode well for the fundamental rights safeguards the Commission is planning to present. Signals are mounting that the delays are the result of intense behind-the-scenes political wrangling aimed at undermining the user rights safeguards to be included in the guidance.
That’s why, together with 20 other users’ rights organisations who have participated in the EU stakeholder dialogue on the implementation of Article 17, we have sent an open letter to the Commission, raising our concerns about the handling of the final phase of this process. The letter urges the Commission “not to weaken its guidance through open ended exception clauses that seem to benefit particular rightsholders at the expense of users’ fundamental rights” and stresses that “strong ex-ante fundamental rights protections are necessary to meet the obligation of result to protect users’ fundamental rights.”
The letter further highlights the fact that, by issuing guidance that substantially diverges from the position taken before the CJEU, the Commission would indicate that it is ultimately lacking the political will to ensure that the required fundamental rights protections will be included in national implementations of the directive.
Today we are publishing an updated version of our position paper on Article 13 of the European Commission’s proposal for a directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. Since we have published our original position paper in January of this year, Article 13 has generated an enormous amount of discussion and has emerged as the most contested part of the Commission’s proposal. The discussions within the parliament and among the Member States are still ongoing and so far there is no clear indication where these talks will end.
In the updated policy paper we re-iterate our concerns (a few of them have recently been taken up by a group of Member States in a set of questions to the legal services of the Council), analyse proposals for amending the Commission’s proposal that have been adopted in the European Parliament, and provide a set of recommendations. Our key recommendation remains to delete article 13 from the proposal as it addresses a problem that lacks empirical evidence confirming its existence. Article 13, as drafted by the Commission, would limit the freedom of expression of online users and create legal uncertainty that has the potential to undermine the entire EU online economy. As such it is unworthy of being included in a Directive proposal that is intended to modernize the aging EU copyright framework.
Read the updated position paper below. If you are familiar with the issues at hand and/or the previous version you may want to jump straight to the updated part.
Position paper: EU copyright should protect users’ rights and prevent content filtering
Article 13 of the European Commission’s proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market attempts to address the alleged disparity in revenues generated by rightsholders and platforms from online uses of protected content (the so called “value gap”). The proposed article attempts to do 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 are highly problematic as they violate fundamental rights of users, contradict the rules established by 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
Summer is nearly over, and the European Parliament Committee on Culture and Education (CULT) has published their final opinion on the draft Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. The opinion comes following the committee vote on 11 July.
We were hopeful that CULT could deliver some helpful (and much needed) changes to the Commission’s proposal, including broadening the education exception, permitting cultural heritage institutions to share their collections online, deleting the dangerous press publishers right, and opposing upload filters for online platforms.
Regarding text and data mining (TDM), we wished for CULT to push for expanding the exception so TDM could be conducted by anyone, for any purpose. Instead, CULT has doubled down on their backward approach to Article 3.
(With Teresa Nobre).
Last week, the Committee on Culture and Education (CULT) of the European Parliament voted on its final opinion concerning the Commission’s Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. Copyright law in the shape proposed by the CULT MEPs would spell disaster for educators and educational institutions across Europe.
This post aims to provide educators with an overview of the changes to the draft Directive proposed by rapporteur Marc Joulaud, a French MEP from the EPP group, and then through amendments by the members of CULT. We start with an analysis of two clashing logics visible in the CULT debate, followed by an overview of key decisions made during the vote. We finish with advice on next steps in the ongoing fight to secure an educational exception that meets the needs of educators.
If you want to learn more, we have been covering the policy process from the start, with a focus on how the new law will affect educators.
Copyright and education: two clashing views
There are two clashing viewpoints in the ongoing debate on the new educational exception, and each represents a different approach for how to achieve the goals defined by the Commission in its Communication on the DSM strategy and subsequent Directive. These goals include “facilitating new uses in the fields of research and education” and providing a “modernised framework for exceptions and limitations”—which will result in a situation where “teachers and students will be able to take full advantage of digital technologies at all levels of education”.Continue reading
Last week the Culture and Education Committee (CULT) and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) voted on their final opinions on the Commission’s Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. As our friends at EDRi have highlighted, both committees voted for measures that would make the Commission’s already bad proposal even worse. The ITRE and CULT (not published yet) opinions are particularly bad regarding the question of new rights for publishers.
The introduction of a new right for press publishers (aka the “link tax”) to extract fees from search engines for incorporating short snippets of – or even linking to – their content in article 11 is one of the most controversial issues of the proposed directive. Adopting this type of ancillary right at the EU level would have a strong negative impact on all stakeholders, including publishers, authors, journalists, researchers, online service providers, and readers.
We know that previous experiments with ancillary copyright in Spain and Germany have failed, a fact that was already known to the Commission because it is acknowledged in its impact assessment leading up to the release of the original proposal. We’ve argued that a new right for press publishers would undermine the intention of authors who wish to share without additional strings attached, especially creators that use Creative Commons licenses to share their works. We urged that the provision be removed from the directive.
In recent months there seemed to be an increasing focus on neutralizing this contentious provision. MEPs such as IMCO Rapporteur Catherine Stihler and former Legal Affairs Committee Rapporteur Therese Comodini had gathered support for deleting the press publishers right. Despite of this, last month the new right was retained in the opinion of the IMCO Committee. The opinion removes the clause of the Commission’s proposal which would retroactively apply the publishers right to anything published in the last twenty years. Continue reading
Tomorrow the Members of the Culture and Education Committee of the European Parliament (CULT) will vote on their position on the proposal on Copyright in the Digital Single Market directive. This will be the second vote in the European parliament after last month’s vote in the IMCO committee. While the CULT committee is nominally responsible for Culture and Education it seems rather likely that tomorrow’s vote will result in an one sided opinion that would support the key elements of the flawed directive, making them worse in many areas. Below is a quick rundown of what is on the table during tomorrow’s vote. We have listed voting recommendations for CULT MEPs interested in enacting real copyright reform that will foster Europe’s cultural and educational sectors:
Expand the scope of the text and data mining exception
We have argued many times that Text and Data mining should not be covered by copyright at all. A TDM exception such as the one proposed by the Commission would then be unnecessary. Any TDM exceptions enacted in spite of this would need to be as broad as possible both in terms of beneficiaries and in terms of purpose. Unfortunately the compromise amendment on the issue does nothing to broaden the scope of the proposed exception and merely reaffirms the Commission’s backwards looking proposal. MEPs should reject the compromise amendment and vote for AMs 337, 356, 360, 362 and 364 Instead.
Broaden the education exception to fit the needs of education in the 21st century
On the proposed education exception the Culture and Education committee seems intent to abandon the needs of 21st century educators. Instead of improving the Commission’s half-baked proposal, the compromise amendment reaffirms or worsens the most problematic elements of the proposal: Continue reading
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.
Marc Joulaud, the rapporteur for the Culture and Education Committee of the European Parliament, points out in his draft opinion issued last week that the Commission’s copyright proposal ignores many of the most pressing concerns of internet users. At the same time, he fails to deliver adequate solutions to these problems. In this post we discuss his proposed amendments concerning the exception for user-generated content (UGC), and Article 13. The inclusion of a UGC exception is a step in the right direction. But the proposed amendments to Article 13, the section which introduces a filtering obligation for online platforms that allow users to upload content, make the already-harmful article even worse for users.
Adding a vague definition of ‘digital content platforms’
Joulaud recognizes that the scope of services potentially affected by Article 13 is quite unclear.
It is the Rapporteur’s opinion that the proposal does not define with enough precision the scope of services falling under the requirements of Article 13 of this Directive, creating legal uncertainty and a potential broader effect.
However, the solutions he proposes do not strengthen the legal certainty for those entities who might be covered under the article; they make it worse. Joulaud proposes a new definition of entities obliged to use upload filters called ‘digital content platforms’. This definition is aimed to center around the principle purpose of services instead of the activity of storing. The draft opinion is unclear regarding which information society service providers would count as ‘digital content platforms’, and it’s also uncertain whether these platforms would still receive the protection of the liability limitations of the eCommerce Directive. Just like the Commission’s proposal—which remains vague on how it will affect the safe harbor protection—Joulaud’s suggested amendment doesn’t provide any more clarity to the situation.
Upload filters don’t—and can’t—respect user rights
The most important flaw of the draft opinion is that even though Joulaud seems aware of the importance of user rights, he still tries to reconcile ‘effective’ content recognition technologies with user rights, including exceptions and limitations and freedom of expression. This is an impossible task. Continue reading
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 rightly shows that the Commission’s proposal ignores many of the crucial concerns voiced by internet users, and offers some amendments to rectify the situation. At the same time, the opinion suggests an ill-advised change to the proposed ‘press publishers right’ by introducing a non-commercial clause. In addition, CULT pushes for an even stronger reliance on licensing, instead of supporting a broad copyright exception for education.
But perhaps the area of the draft CULT opinion that is most detrimental to users and the Digital Single Market is in the suggested amendments to the text and data mining (TDM) exception. The Commission’s original proposal was nothing to write home about. Instead of championing a progressive policy to boost scientific discovery and innovation in the EU by introducing a TDM exception that would apply to anyone for any purpose, the Commission decided to limit the scope of the exception to only not-for profit research organisations, and only for purposes of scientific research.
The draft CULT opinion goes even further in restricting the ability to engage in TDM in the European Union. Continue reading
Last week we started discussing the the draft opinion of the Culture and Education Committee of the European Parliament, presented by rapporteur Marc Joulaud. While he rightly points out how unbalanced the proposal is as it ignores many of the most pressing concerns of internet users, he does not help the discussions surrounding the ‘press publishers right’ by introducing a murky non-commercial clause. Today we discuss his amendments for education. In short: it does not spell good news for educational stakeholders. In a move that on the surface aims to provide greater clarity, Joulaud pushes for even stronger reliance on licensing for educational uses. Furthermore, he proposes to make remuneration for digital teaching uses mandatory. We opposed both these changes from the very beginning of the discussion on the scope of the copyright reform.
It is worth noting that the issue of exceptions (in particular for education) has not received as much attention as the link tax (art 11) or the content filter (art 13) in the whole debate on the proposed directive. Yet it is crucial from the viewpoint of a Committee that deals with education, and Joulaud rightly sees it as one of four key issues.
Joulaud, in the justification to the opinion, and in an opinion piece published by the Parliament Magazine, declares support for a balanced approach:
If the protection of intellectual property is a fundamental right, it should not be a disproportionate obstacle to the use of works for public interest.
[…] for instance by threatening existing and perfectly viable ecosystems, like commercial licenses for data mining or educational licensing schemes.
This is reasonable as a general statement, but we’ll see that it leads Joulaud to propose amendments that are hardly balanced.