This week, we launched our Guidelines for the Implementation of the DSM Directive. This is part of a series of blogposts dedicated to the various provisions analysed in our guidelines. Today we give a quick explanation of the mandatory exception for digital and cross-border education contained in the new Copyright Directive.
Just one month after the new Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive went into force, the Dutch government has shared their proposal for its implementation, through an amendment of their existing copyright law. The proposal is currently in a public consultation phase.
We would like to provide here an overview of the Dutch proposal to implement locally the new EU educational exception (article 5 in the final version of the Directive). This is the beginning of our effort to track how countries across Europe will implement, over the coming two years, this mandatory exception to copyright for educational purposes.
We are in particular interested in three issues that have been our concern during the legislative debate on this exception:
- Are Member States introducing the controversial article 5(2), through which they have the option to make the exception no longer applicable and available to educational establishments if “suitable licenses are easily available on the market (what we call the issue of “license priority”);
- What is the scope of the exception:
- How are educational institutions and staff defined?
- Will the educational community be able to rely on email, cloud services and other password-protected environments, or will these not be considered “secured electronic environments” under the exception?
- Will Member States define a priori the extent to which a work can be used, leading to different quantity limits in different countries, or will they let practice and courts (relying on the three-step test) define what is balanced in a given situation?
Choices made on these issues will determine, how broadly – or narrowly – can the exception be depended on. Taken together, they will also create either a harmonized or fragmented legal landscape for teachers and learners across the Union.
- Are Member States changing remuneration rules for educational uses? Currently, 17 Member States do not remunerate most or all of the used permitted under their existing education exceptions – will this change with the new exception?
The Dutch proposal is a simple amendment that adds two paragraphs to the existing educational exception (article 16 of the Dutch Copyright Law). In relation to our issues of particular concern, we note that the Dutch government:
- decided not to use the article 5(2) backdoor to hack the new educational exception and make it partially or fully not applicable in the Netherlands, which we applaud (because we believe – along with the CJUE – that users should have the right to benefit from the copyright exceptions that were created for their benefit at all times, and not only when there are no market options for them to get a license for those minimum uses that are protected by the exception);
- could do more to provide as broad a scope for the exception as possible, within the boundaries set by the Directive;
- has proposed not to change its approach to remuneration – use of content under the exception requires fair compensation (art. 16.1.5°).
Additionally, the proposal includes an explicit provision against contractual override (art. 16.6), which implements another important element of the new EU educational exception.
We will be working with our Dutch partners in the consultation phase, both to provide feedback on the government’s proposal, and to monitor other responses to the proposal. The consultations are open until 2 September 2019.
When the European Commission proposed to grant the same minimum rights for digital educational activities in every EU Member State, we applauded the initiative. The proposal had flaws, but there was room for public discussion at the European Parliament, which could have led to an improvement of the proposal. Unfortunately, the improvements introduced by the Parliament were gutted during the trilogue debates, which were conducted behind closed doors.
Let’s recall the improvements introduced by the Parliament: (i) on the issue of licensing, where the EC proposed to allow the exception to be switched off if unilateral licensing offers were made available to schools, the EP suggested to give priority only to bilateral licensing agreements that the schools had agreed on; (ii) on the issue of beneficiaries, where the EC proposed to cover only the activities run by formal educational establishments, the EP suggested to include museums and other cultural heritage institutions as beneficiaries of the exception; (iii) on the issue of contractual overrides, where the EC had done nothing to protect the exception against contracts, the EP proposed to prevent contractual overrides of the education exception, and (iv) on the issue of technologies, where the EC proposed to make the exception function only on the school’s closed networks, the EP attempted to cover more means of communication by replacing the word “networks” with “environments”.
Unfortunately, the European Council did not engage in the same type of public discussions with regard to new European law proposals and, maybe because of that, it’s version of Article 4 did not include similar improvements. What is worse: it made the prospects of having an improved and harmonized landscape for educational activities in Europe even less likely.
For several months, the Commission, the Council and the Parliament discussed, behind closed doors, the fate of the new Directive, and as far as we are aware there was little interest in discussing the education exception because there were other pressing issues that required their attention. As a result, the positive amendments contained in the Parliament version were not retained in the Trilogues.
Below, we explain three negative changes made to the text of the educational exception in this final phase of the legislative process. Changes made without public consultation, transparency or due review of evidence. These include denying teachers the right to benefit from the exception when there are licenses available in the market for them to buy; excluding the educational programs run by museums and libraries from the scope of the exception; and allowing Member States to fragment the exception, by defining different proportions to which a work can be used.Continue reading
Today we are launching a new minisite called “Internet is for the people” that provides an overall assessment of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. Our assessment takes into consideration all the key parts of the Directive.
Our aim, with this project, is to present how the Directive will either empower or hurt users and creators in the digital age. The rules that regulate creativity and sharing must be fair and take into account contemporary online activities and digital practices. Essentially, the internet needs to be for the people, and key legislation needs to be based on this principle.
In order to do this, we analysed nine different issues that are included (or have not been included) in the proposal for the Directive: Upload Filters, the Press Publishers Right, Text and Data mining, access to Cultural Heritage, Education, the protection of the Public Domain, a Right to Remix, Freedom of Panorama and Fair Remuneration for Authors and Performers. Each issue was then scored, allowing us to provide an overall score of the Directive based on an understanding of all elements of the proposal.
Too often, the Directive is reduced just to a few controversial issues: content filtering or a new right for publishers. These are clearly crucial issues, but it is important to understand that the Directive includes other rules that can also have massive effects on Europe’s research and science, education, cultural, or AI industry–just to name a few.
We decided to analyse the Directive through a particular lens: of the potential to either empower or hurt users and creators in the digital age. We are critical of views that the Directive simply attempts to regulate business relationships between two sectors, and that therefore the policy debate should be left to them. The Directive will have tremendous impact on all European citizens, who depend in all aspects of their lives on communication systems and digital tools that copyright law regulates.
The internet needs to be for the people. This means that core policies, like copyright law, need to be “for the people” by design. As our analysis shows, the final proposal for the Directive will likely be a legislative mixed bag. A range of positive developments concerning exceptions and limitations – rules that grant people the freedoms to use content for personal needs or public interest goals – are offered alongside other regulatory proposals that will have extremely adverse effects across all spheres of European society.
On Monday policy makers will have one more chance to fix some of the shortcomings of the proposed directive. Based on the current state of affairs it seems extremely unlikely that this will fundamentally alter the our negative overall assessment of the directive: Seen as a whole, the proposed Directive is bad, and will not make the internet work for European citizens.
The Court of Justice of the European Union has not had many opportunities to review the EU legal framework for exceptions and limitations to copyright, and in the few cases where it had to interpret an EU exception, it has not always adopted positions that are favourable to the beneficiaries of the exceptions. Yet, there is one case, a landmark case for user rights, involving the Technical University of Darmstadt and publisher Eugen Ulmer KG, where the Court exemplary defended the position of such beneficiaries against the rights holders. Now the EU lawmakers want to adopt a law that fundamentally undermines the protection granted by that CJEU ruling to user rights.
How did the CJEU ruling protect user rights?
The TU Darmstadt case revolved around the EU exception that allows public libraries and other institutions to digitize works in their collections and make them available in dedicated terminals located in the libraries reading rooms or elsewhere on their premises (art.5(3)(n) of the InfoSoc Directive). The dispute had several legal issues, but the one important for the analysis of art 4, paragraph 2 of the proposed Directive for Copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSM Directive) is whether the libraries could rely on said exception even if publishers were offering to license a digital version of the books.
The EU exception embodied in art.5(3)(n) of the InfoSoc Directive covers “works and other subject-matter not subject to purchase or licensing terms”. Publishers argued that the mere fact that the rightholder offers to conclude a licensing agreement with a library is sufficient for ruling out the exception. The CJEU considered, however, that, if the mere act of offering to conclude a licensing agreement were sufficient to rule out the application of the exception, such interpretation would:
- Be difficult to reconcile with the aim of the exception, which is “to maintain a fair balance between the rights and interests of rightholders, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, users of protected works who wish to communicate them to the public for the purpose of research or private study undertaken by individual members of the public.”
- Imply that “the rightholder could, by means of a unilateral and essentially discretionary action, deny the establishment concerned the right to benefit from that limitation and thereby prevent it from realising its core mission and promoting the public interest”.
- Be “liable to negate much of the substance of the limitation provided for in that provision, or indeed its effectiveness”, since the limitation would apply only to those increasingly rare works of which an electronic version is not yet offered on the market.
Communia has endorsed the Civil Society Proposed Treaty on Copyright Exceptions and Limitations on Education and Research Activities (TERA), and asks others to follow suit, ahead of the 37th session of WIPO’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR). SCCR/37 will take place from 26 – 30 November in Geneva, and civil society advocates will propose that the treaty’s provisions be considered as a model for future text-based work by the committee.
The proposed treaty is the result of an extensive consultation process with various stakeholders (including Communia), which culminated with its adoption at the 5th Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest on September 27, 2018. Institutions and individuals are both welcome to endorse the treaty.
Last month the notorious EU Parliament vote approved almost all of the worst measures of the proposed Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. It was a significant setback for user rights and the open internet.
Recap: 12th September Parliament vote
The Parliament voted in favor of Article 13, which even though it didn’t mention explicitly, would in practice force online platforms that host significant amounts of user-uploaded works to filter all content for copyrighted materials and prevent the upload of those works unless a license has been agreed to. If the platforms don’t do this, they would be liable for copyright infringements of their users.
They approved Article 11, which gifts a new copyright-like right to press publishers that will allow them to control how we access and reference press publications and news stories online.
The text and data mining provisions of Article 3 pretty much stayed the same, with a mandatory exception carrying through, but only one which can be taken advantage of by not-for-profit research organisations, and only for the more limited scope of scientific research. An optional addendum would permit an expanded exception applicable to all, but only if the rights holders in the underlying works don’t object to it, or arrange their own licensing requirements.
Article 4, the copyright exception for education applying to digital and cross-border teaching activities, while being seriously improved over the Commission version, still contains the fatal flaw that the mandatory exception can be essentially ignored if there is appropriately licensed content made available in a Member State.
To add insult to injury, the Parliament doubled down on their rights giveaway bonanza, approving Article 12a to grant sports events organizers to prohibit anyone from sharing photos or other recordings of sports events. And the new Article 13b requires that image search engines to obtain licenses for even the smallest preview images that they display as search results.
Yesterday, together with our co-signatories Education International and ETUCE, we shared a letter highlighting concerns about the proposed exception for education with the members of the European Parliament.
We shared suggestions on three main issues that we want to change in the Commission-text on the education exception, which will be the basis of the vote on 12 September:
#1: Support a broad definition of educational establishments
Unfortunately, the European Commission’s proposal does not include all organisations where educational activities take place, as only formal educational establishments are covered by the exception. We note that the European lifelong-learning model underlines the value of informal and non-formal education including continuous professional development conducted in the workplace. This takes place in collaboration with, among others, cultural heritage institutions and NGOs. All these are excluded from the education exception.
We therefore ask members of the European Parliament to support amendments that clarify that all organisations where educational activities, both formal and non-formal, take place are covered by the education exception.
With the EU and other states looking to modernise copyright law for the digital era, education exceptions in copyright law are a hot topic. Particularly, the second paragraph of Article 4 of the proposed directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market that gives room to educational licenses is being contested by educators, learners, and educational organisations. Canadian copyright law includes the doctrine of “fair dealing” — a unique version of a common exception. The European approach sees legal concepts determined by rightsholders through license agreements. Anxious to protect their position of power, representatives of rightsholders in Europe have often pointed at the Canadian exception as a dangerous example that has negatively impacted the educational publishing industry in Canada. These statements do not hold any merit. The Canadian doctrine offers both a solution to the legal question of how copyright exceptions can be drafted to the benefit of education and should inspire countries around the world who want to improve education exceptions. Continue reading
This morning the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament (JURI) voted on the report on the proposed Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive. You can read a broader analysis here.
JURI gave educators across the EU a gift in the shape of an improved educational exception – with a poison pill inside. The Compromise Amendment (CAM6) proposed by Rapporteur Voss was accepted. We are happy that the Commission’s flawed proposal for an exception that secures digital uses for education purposes has been fixed. Educators are given clarity about uses in digital environments, and the scope of the exception has been increased beyond educational establishments and their premises. There is also improved text that makes a contractual override of the exception impossible.
Yet, the poison pill remains: the Commission’s proposal in article 4(2) to give priority to licenses over the exception was adopted. We managed to secure improvement in the phrasing of this license priority: the licenses have to be tailored to the needs and specificities of the educational establishments. Nevertheless, a Member State can decide to switch off the exception, provided that a licensing scheme is in place in a given country. This means that over the coming years we could benefit from a new exception only to see it disappear – which would leave educators depending on remunerated licensing schemes.
Problems with license priority go beyond education
Licensing priority spells problems, not just for educators. It creates a precedent for overrides to any public interest copyright law exceptions. As such, it is a great victory for rightsholders. This reminds us of the “Licenses of Europe” process, in which the Commission and rightsholders tried to convince everyone that licensing is a much better tool for securing user rights than exceptions to copyright. While they failed to do so then, they seem to have won some ground in the copyright directive.
This dangerous precedent for users’ rights is even more alarming when we consider that it goes against the CJEU ruling on the issue of license priority. The Court of Justice of the European Union knew that giving priority to license offers was indefensible, as it would negate much of the substance and effectiveness of the exception or limitation and it would deny the user the right to benefit from the exception. Thus, the Court decided that the 3-step test did not require them to allow rightsholders to unilaterally force users to stop relying on the copyright exception when those rightsholders offered to conclude a licensing agreement with them. This decision represented a major win for users’ rights, and more so because in the US users may not be able to rely on fair use when reasonable licensing options are available.
If we round up today’s vote for education we are happy about the improvements to the exception but mourn what could have been and fear the consequences of this license priority. The fight is not over yet. There will possibly – likely – be a plenary vote in the Parliament where this article, as well as the other disappointing results on articles 11 & 13, could still be challenged.