BETA

38 Amendments of Constance LE GRIP related to 2016/0280(COD)

Amendment 87 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4 a (new)
(4a) The establishment of hyperlinks is at the heart of how the internet functions in that it offers the opportunity to gain access to content from other content by using a clickable link and thus facilitates the genuine circulation of information online, including for making copyright- protected works or other objects available. In this context, and in order to ensure legal certainty for the public, it should be recalled that a hyperlink ought not to constitute an act of communication with the public only in cases where, having been established for a non-commercial purpose, it guides the user to an online service where the work or other protected subject-matter is accessible without restriction, without any use however having been made of techniques, which, like framing, make the content appear on the site from which the hyperlink originates, and on condition that the person who has established it did not know, and had no valid reasons to believe, that the work or other protected subject- matter had been published without authorisation on the online service of destination.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 88 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4 a (new)
(4 a) For the purpose of the application of Union law in the field of copyright, in particular of this directive, and in order to guarantee a strong level of protection for rightholders, it should be recalled that an act of communication to the public and/or of making available occurs whenever an access is given to a protected work or any other subject-matter to people outside the normal circle or who do not belong to the closest social acquaintances of the family of the person providing such an access, irrespective of whether these people are at the same place or in different ones, or whether they perceive the protected works or other subject-matters at the same time or in different ones.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 128 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
(9) Union law already provides certain exceptions and limitations covering uses for scientific research purposes which may apply to acts of text and data mining. However, those exceptions and limitations are optional and not fully adapted to the use of technologies in scientific research. Moreover, where researchers have lawful access to legally acquired content, for example through subscriptions to publications or open access licences, the terms of the licences may exclude text and data mining. As research is increasingly carried out with the assistance of digital technology, there is a risk that the Union's competitive position as a research area will suffer unless steps are taken to address the legal uncertainty for text and data mining.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 142 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
(10) This legal uncertainty should be addressed by providing for a mandatory exception to the right of reproduction and also to the right to prevent extraction from a database. The new exception should be without prejudice to the existing mandatory exception on temporary acts of reproduction laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, which should continue to apply to text and data mining techniques which do not involve the making of copies going beyond the scope of that exception. Research organisations should also benefit from the exception when they engage into public-private partnerships, provided that private partners involved in such partnerships operate on a non-for-profit basis.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 165 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
(13) There is no need to provide for compensation for rightholders as regards uses under the text and data mining exception introduced by this Directive given that in view of the nature and scope of the exception the harm should be minimal. However, where rightholders are providing research organisations with normalised information enabling mining, they should be able to seek compensation related to the cost of the normalisation process.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 207 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
(17) Different arrangements, based on the implementation of the exception provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC or on licensing agreements covering further uses, are in place in a number of Member States in order to facilitate educational uses of works and other subject-matter. Such arrangements have usually been developed taking account of the needs of educational establishments and different levels of education. Whereas it is essential to harmonise the scope of the new mandatory exception or limitation in relation to digital uses and cross-border teaching activities, the modalities of implementation may differ from a Member State to another, to the extent they do not hamper the effective application of the exception or limitation or cross-border uses. This should allow Member States to build on the existing arrangements concluded at national level. In particular, Member States could decide to subject the application of the exception or limitation, fully or partially, to the availability of adequate licences, covering at least the same uses as those allowed under the exception. This mechanism wshould, for example, allow giving precedence to not hamper the use of licences for materials which are primarily intended for the educational market and sheet music. In order to avoid that such mechanism results in legal uncertainty or administrative burden for educational establishments, Member States adopting this approach should take concrete measures to ensure that licensing schemes allowing digital uses of works or other subject-matter for the purpose of illustration for teaching are easily available and that educational establishments are aware of the existence of such licensing schemes.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 286 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
(31) A free and pluralist press is essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens' access to information. It provides a fundamental contribution to public debate and the proper functioning of a democratic society. In the transition from print to digital, publishers of press publications are facing problems in licensing the online use of their publications and recouping their investments, in a context where news aggregators and search engines are increasingly making profit out of press publications, without contributing to their development and without fairly remunerating their creators. In the absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, licensing and enforcement in the digital environment is often complex and inefficient.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 303 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
(32) The organisational and financial contribution of publishers in producing press publications needs to be recognised and further encouraged to ensure the sustainability of the publishing industry. It is therefore necessary to provide at Union level a harmonised legal protection for press publications in respect of digital uses. Such protection should be effectively guaranteed through the introduction, in Union law, of rights related to copyright for the reproduction and making available to the public of press publications in respect of digital uses.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 316 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
(33) For the purposes of this Directive, it is necessary to define the concept of press publication in a way that embraces only journalistic publications, published by a service provider, periodically or regularly updated in any media, for the purpose of informing or entertaining. Such publications would include, for instance, daily newspapers, weekly or monthly magazines of general or special interest and news websites. Periodical publications which are published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, should not be covered by the protection granted to press publications under this Directive. This protection should notably apply where the content is automatically generated by, for example, news aggregators but does not extend to acts of hyperlinking which do not constitute communication to the public as it may be the case with acts of hyperlinking.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 336 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
(34) The rights granted to the publishers of press publications under this Directive should have the same scope as the rights of reproduction and making available to the public provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC, insofar as digital uses are concerned. They should also be subject to the same provisions on exceptions and limitations as those applicable to the rights provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC including the exception on quotation for purposes such as criticism or review laid down in Article 5(3)(d) of that Directive.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 370 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37 a (new)
(37 a) Despite the fact that more creative content is being consumed today than ever before, on services such as user- uploaded content platforms and content aggregation services, yielding significant profits, the creative sectors have not seen a comparable increase in revenues from this increase in consumption. The value of cultural and creative works has been diverted away from the authors, artists, producers and others rights holders, generating an unsustainable "value gap". This transfer of value, due to the lack of clarity regarding the status of these online services under copyright and e-commerce law, undermines the efficiency of the online market, distorts competition and drives down the overall value of cultural content online. It also limits consumer choice for new and innovative legitimate services in the European Digital Single Market and puts at risk cultural and creative industries that create significant jobs and growth for EU economy, as underlined by the European Parliament resolution of 13 December 2016 on a "coherent EU policy for cultural and creative industries (2016/2072(INI))"
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 376 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37 b (new)
(37 b) Digital platforms are means of providing wider access to cultural and creative works and offer great opportunities for cultural and creative industries to develop new business models; consideration is to be made of how this process can function with more legal certainty and fairness and respect for right holders; importance of transparency and of ensuring a level playing field is necessary; in this regard, protection of right holders within the copyright and intellectual property framework is necessary in order to ensure recognition of values and stimulation of innovation, creativity, investment, to guarantee the success of a Digital Single Market, offering all diverse and quality cultural and creative works.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 379 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37 c (new)
(37 c) This is why liability exemptions can only apply to genuinely neutral and passive online service providers, and not to services that play an active role in distributing, promoting and monetising content at the expense of creators.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 396 #
Where information society service providers store and provide access to the public to copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users, thereby going beyond the mere provision of physical facilities and performing an act of communication to the public and/or an act of reproduction, they are obliged to conclude licensing agreements with rightholders requiring so, unless they are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council34 . _________________ 34 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1–16).
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 418 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
In order to ensure the functioning of any licensing agreement, information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject- matter uploaded by their users, should take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure protection of works or other subject-matter, such as implementing effective technologies. This obligation should also apply when the information society service providers are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC. Such licence agreements should also cover the content uploaded by users of these services, as well as their liability, including where they perform an act of reproduction and/or of communication to the public, insofar they act on a non-professional basis.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 448 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
(39) Collaboration between information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users and rightholders is essential for the functioning of technologies, such as content recognition technologies. In such cases, rightholders should provide the necessary data to allow the services to identify their content and the services should be transparent towards rightholders with regard to the deployed technologies, to allow the assessment of their appropriateness. The services should in particular provide rightholders with information on the type of technologies used, the way they are operated and their success rate for the recognition of rightholders' content. Those technologies should also allow rightholders to get information from the information society service providers on the use of their content covered by an agreement.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 459 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 40
(40) Certain rightholders such as authors and performers need information to assess the economic value of their rights which are harmonised under Union law. This is especially the case where such rightholders grant a licence or a transfer of rights in return for remuneration. As authors and performers tend to be in a weaker contractual position when they grant licences or transfer their rights, they need information to assess the continued economic value of their rights, compared to the remuneration received for their licence or transfer, but they often face a lack of transparency. Therefore, the sharing of adequate information by their contractual counterparts or their successors in title is important for the transparency and balance in the system that governs the remuneration of authors and performers. The obligation to provide information must be transmitted with the rights and must therefore accompany the work however it is used and irrespective of who is using it or the location.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 466 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 41
(41) When implementing transparency obligations, the specificities of different content sectors and of the rights of the authors and performers in each sector should be considered. Member States should consult all relevant stakeholders as that should help determine sector-specific requirementwill ensure that the representative organisations of all relevant stakeholders determine sector-specific requirements and establish standardised procedures and formats for presenting the information in each sector, promoting automated processing making use of digital technologies and international identifiers of works. Collective bargaining should be considered as an option to reach an agreement between the relevant stakeholders regarding transparency. To enable the adaptation of current reporting practices to the transparency obligations, a transitional period should be provided for. The transparency obligations do not need to apply to agreements concluded with collective management organisations as those are already subject to transparency obligations under Directive 2014/26/EU.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 476 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 42
(42) Certain contracts for the exploitation of rights harmonised at Union level are of long duration, offering few possibilities for authors and performers to renegotiate them with their contractual counterparts or their successors in title. Therefore, without prejudice to the law applicable to contracts in Member States, there should by could institute a remuneration adjustment mechanism for cases where the remuneration originally agreed under a licence or a transfer of rights is disproportionately low compared to the relevant revenues and the benefits derived from the exploitation of the work or the fixation of the performance, including in light of the transparency ensured by this Directive. The assIt is essment of the situation should take account of the specific circumstances of each case as well as of the specificities and practices of the different content sectorsial that the contractual position of authors and performers be strengthened so that they can enjoy fair, non-assignable remuneration and so as to avoid power imbalances between the parties. Such a provision would apply only to the parties directly linked contractually. Where the parties do not agree on the adjustment of the remuneration, the author or performer should be entitled to bring a claim before a court or other competent authority or to terminate his or her contract.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 541 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive for reproductions and extractions made by research organisations in order to carry out text and data mining of works or other subject-matter to which they have acquired lawful access for the purposes of scientific research.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 573 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive in order to allow for the digital use of works and other subject- matter, or extracts of it, with the exception of sheet music and materials primarily intended for the educative market, for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching, to the extent and duration justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, provided that the use:
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 613 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Member States may provide that the exception adopted pursuant to paragraph 1 does not apply generally or as regards specific types of works or other subject- matter, to the extent that adequate licences authorising the acts described in paragraph 1 are easily available in the market.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 672 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. Accessing content covered by an exception provided for in this Directive shall not confer on users any entitlement to use it pursuant to another exception. 2. Article 5(5) and the first, third, fourth and fifth subparagraphs of Article 6(4) of Directive 2001/29/EC shall apply to the exceptions and the limitation provided for under this Title.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 741 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – title
Protection of press publications concerning digital uses
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 753 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall provide publishers of press publications and press agencies with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the digital use of their press publications.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 757 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the digital use of their press publications.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 781 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 4
4. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall expire 2015 years after the publication of the press publication. This term shall be calculated from the first day of January of the year following the date of publication.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 795 #
Proposal for a directive
Chapter 3 a (new)
Chapter 3 a Protection of sport event organizers Member States shall provide sport event organizers with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3 (2) of Directive 2001/29/EC and Article 7 of Directive 2006/115/EC.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 806 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – title
Use of protected content by information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 810 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take meaMember States shall ensures to ensure the functionhat any licencing of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter. between information society service providers, that store and provide to the public access to protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users, and rightholders, shall include :
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 826 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point a (new)
(a) an obligation for the information service provider to take measures, such as the use of content recognition technologies, to ensure the effective functioning of the agreement concluded for the use of the protected works or other subject-matters;
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 827 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point b (new)
(b) the coverage of the content uploaded by the users, as well as their liability, including where they perform an act of reproduction and/or of communication to the public, insofar they act on a non-professional basis.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 829 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Member States shall ensure that in the absence of a licencing agreement as referred to in paragraph 1, either because it was not required by rightholders or because the information society service provider is eligible to the liability exemption regime set out in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC, information service providers shall take measures to prevent the availability on their services of protected works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 836 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. The measures, referred to in paragraphs 1 and 1a shall be appropriate and proportionate.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 837 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1 c (new)
1 c. For the purpose of ensuring a proper application of the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 1a : a) rightholders shall provide information society service providers with all relevant and necessary information in order to identify protected works and other-subject matter available on their services, and b) the service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 1a, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 846 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 1a.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 876 #
Proposal for a directive
Chapter 4 a (new)
CHAPTER 2a PROTECTION OF AUDIOVISUAL AUTHORS FOR THE MAKING AVAILABLE OF THEIR WORKS Article -14 1. Member States shall provide that when an audiovisual author or performer has transferred his/her making available to the public right to a producer, that author or performer shall retain the right to obtain equitable remuneration that is proportionate to the revenues generated by the exploitation of the work, provided that these measures are not included in the initial contract. 2. That right to equitable and proportional remuneration shall be non-transferable and may not be waived.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 933 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that authors and performers are entitled to request additional, appropriate remuneration from the party with whom they entered into a contract for the exploitation of the rights when the remuneration originally agreed is disproportionately low or unexpected compared to the subsequent relevant revenues and benefits derived from the exploitation of the works or performances, provided that these measures are not included in the initial contract. Member States may provide that this right expires if it is not exercised within a reasonable period from the act of exploitation in question.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI