Activities of Anneleen VAN BOSSUYT related to 2016/0280(COD)
Plenary speeches (1)
Copyright in the Digital Single Market (debate) NL
Amendments (15)
Amendment 73 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Rapid technological developments continue to transform the way works and other subject-matter are created, produced, distributed and exploited, and relevant legislation must be future proof so as to not restrict technological development. New business models and new actors continue to emerge. The objectives and the principles laid down by the Union copyright framework remain sound. However, legal uncertainty remains, for both rightholders and users, as regards certain uses, including cross-border uses, of works and other subject-matter in the digital environment. As set out in the Communication of the Commission entitled ‘Towards a modern, more European copyright framework’26 , in some areas it is necessary to adapt and supplement the current Union copyright framework. This Directive provides for rules to adapt certain exceptions and limitations to digital and cross-border environments, as well as measures to facilitate certain licensing practices as regards the dissemination of out-of- commerce works and the online availability of audiovisual works on video- on-demand platforms with a view to ensuring wider access to content. In order to achieve a well-functioning marketplace for copyright, there should also be rules on rights in publications, on the use of works and other subject-matter by online service providers storing and giving access to user uploaded content and on the transparency of authors' and performers' contracts. _________________ 26 COM(2015) 626 final. COM(2015) 626 final.
Amendment 109 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Research organisations across the Union encompass a wide variety of entities which carry out research, including the public sector and cultural heritage institutions, the primary goal of which is to conduct scientific research or to do so together with the provision of educational services. Due to the diversity of such entities, it is important to have a common understanding of the beneficiaries of the exception. Despite different legal forms and structures, research organisations across Member States generally have in common that they act either on a not for profit basis or in the context of a public- interest mission recognised by the State. Such a public-interest mission may, for example, be reflected through public funding or through provisions in national laws or public contracts. At the same time, organisations upon which commercial undertakings have a decisive influence allowing them to exercise control because of structural situations such as their quality of shareholders or members, which may result in preferential access to the results of the research, should not be considered research organisations for the purposes of this Directive.
Amendment 125 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) While distance learning, e-learning and cross- border education programmes are mostly developed at higher education level, digital tools and resources are increasingly used at all education levels, in particular to improve and enrich the learning experience. The exception or limitation provided for in this Directive should therefore benefit all educational establishments in primary, secondary, vocational and higher education to the extent they pursue their educational activity for a non-commercial purpose. The organisational structure and the means of funding of an educational establishment are not the decisive factors to determine the non-commercial nature of the activity.
Amendment 128 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The exception or limitation should cover digital uses of works and other subject-matter such as the use of parts or extracts of works to support, enrich or complement the teaching, including the related learning activities to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved. The amount of a work that can be copied may vary according to the type of work and its use. Member States should be able therefore to set out appropriate limits in their national law to address this variation, as long as these limits strike a fair balance between the needs of users and rightholders. The use of the works or other subject-matter under the exception or limitation should be only in the context of teaching and learning activities carried out under the responsibility of educational establishments, including during examinations, and be limited to what is necessary for the purpose of such activities. The exception or limitation should cover both uses through digital means in the classroom and online uses through e- learning and the educational establishment's secure electronic network, the access to which should be protected, notably by authentication procedures. The exception or limitation should be understood as covering the specific accessibility needs of persons with a disability in the context of illustration for teaching.
Amendment 138 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
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 would, for example, allow giving precedence to licences for materials which are primarily intended for the educational market. 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.
Amendment 241 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Where information society service providers store and provide accessare actively involved in the making available, promoting and curating to the public to copyright protected works or other subject-matterdigital content uploaded by their users, thereby going beyond the mere provision of physical facilities and performing an act of communication to the public, they are obliged to conclude licensing agreements with rightholders, 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 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).
Amendment 259 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
In order to ensure the functioning of any licensing agreement, information society service providers storing and providing accessactively involved in the making available 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 their value and size 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/ECin accordance with technological developments.
Amendment 273 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) Collaboration between information society service providers storing and providing accesactively involved in the making available of copyright protected works 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.
Amendment 298 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 42
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 bMember States may decide to introduce a remuneration adjustment mechanism for cases of unexpected success where the remuneration originally agreed under a licence or a transfer of rights is disproportionately low compared to the relevant net 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 assessment 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 sectors. 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.
Amendment 312 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 3
Article 2 – paragraph 3
(3) ‘cultural heritage institution’ means a publicly accessible library or, museum, gallery or educational establishment, an archive or a film or audio heritage institution or public broadcaster;
Amendment 334 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. Rightholders shall be allowed to apply targeted, proportionate, reasonable and non-discriminatory measures to ensure the security and integrity of the networks and databases where the works or other subject-matter are hosted. Such measures shall be reasonable and efficient, not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective, or unnecessarily hamper text and data mining.
Amendment 345 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
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 for the sole purpose of illustration for teachingeducational purposes, to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, provided that the use:
Amendment 421 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11
Article 11
Amendment 519 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that authors and performers who are in a contractual relationship where there are ongoing payment obligations receive on a regular basis and taking into account the specificities of each sector, timely, adequate and sufficient information on the exploitation of their works and performances from those to whom they have licensed or transferred theire party with whom they entered into a contract for the exploitation of rights, notably as regards modes of exploitation, revenues generated and remuneration due.
Amendment 547 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensurmay decide that authors and performers are entitled, in case of an unexpected success, 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 compared to the subsequent relevant net revenues and benefits derived from the exploitation of the works or performances.