34 Amendments of Andrea BOCSKOR related to 2016/0280(COD)
Amendment 95 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) In the fields of research, education and preservation of cultural heritage, digital technologies permit new types of uses that are not clearly covered by the current Union rules on exceptions and limitations. In addition, the optional nature of exceptions and limitations provided for in Directives 2001/29/EC, 96/9/EC and 2009/24/EC in these fields may negatively impact the functioning of the internal market. This is particularly relevant as regards cross-border uses, which are becoming increasingly important in the digital environment. Therefore, the existing exceptions and limitations in Union law that are relevant for scientific research, teaching, libraries and preservation of cultural heritage should be reassessed in the light of those new uses. Mandatory exceptions or limitations for uses of text and data mining technologies in the field of scientific research, illustration for teaching in the digital environment and, for preservation of cultural heritage, for user-generated content and for the reproduction of works permanently situated in public places should be introduced. For uses not covered by the exceptions or the limitation provided for in this Directive, the exceptions and limitations existing in Union law should continue to apply. Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC should be adapted.
Amendment 99 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) In the fields of research, education and preservation of cultural heritage, digital technologies permit new types of uses that are not clearly covered by the current Union rules on exceptions and limitations. In addition, the optional nature of exceptions and limitations provided for in Directives 2001/29/EC, 96/9/EC and 2009/24/EC in these fields may negatively impact the functioning of the internal market. This is particularly relevant as regards cross-border uses, which are becoming increasingly important in the digital environment. Therefore, the existing exceptions and limitations in Union law that are relevant for scientific research, teaching, libraries and preservation of cultural heritage should be reassessed in the light of those new uses. Mandatory exceptions or limitations for uses of text and data mining technologies in the field of scientific research, illustration for teaching in the digital environment and, for preservation of cultural heritage, for user-generated content and for the reproduction of works permanently situated in public places should be introduced. For uses not covered by the exceptions or the limitation provided for in this Directive, the exceptions and limitations existing in Union law should continue to apply. Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC should be adapted.
Amendment 133 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) There is no need to provide forRightholders may be compensationed 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 minimale mandatory nature of the exception and the consequent investments that will be required by rightholders to make technically possible and facilitate the wide use of text and data mining techniques under the scope of the exception, which cause sufficient harm to justify such compensation.
Amendment 138 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
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. To prevent unjustified dissemination of the content necessary for text and data mining, research organisations should destroy the content reproduced for the purpose of text and data mining once all the acts necessary for the research have been performed. Research organisations should also benefit from the exception when they engageter into public-private partnerships provided that the text and data mining acts performed relate directly to the purpose of the research carried out in the partnership concerned.
Amendment 159 #
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. In order to ensure the availability and accessibility of such licences for beneficiaries, Member States are encouraged to develop appropriate tools, such as a single portal or database.
Amendment 164 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17 a (new)
Recital 17 a (new)
(17 a) In order to guarantee legal certainty when a Member State decides to subject the application of the exception to the availability of adequate licences, it is necessary to specify under which conditions an educational establishment may use protected works or other subject- matter under the exception and, conversely, when it should act under a licensing scheme.
Amendment 166 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) There is no need to provide forRightholders should be compensationed 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 minimale mandatory nature of the exception and the consequent investments that would be required by rightholders to make technically possible and facilitate the wide use of text and data mining techniques under the scope of the exception, which cause sufficient harm to justify such compensation.
Amendment 176 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) Member States should therefore be required to provide for an exception to permit cultural heritage institutions to reproduce works and other subject-matter permanently in their collections for preservation purposes, for example to address technological obsolescence or the degradation of original supports. Such an exception should allow for the making of copies by the appropriate preservation tool, means or technology, in the required number and at any point in the life of a work or other subject-matter to the extent required in order to produce a copy for preservation purposes only. Such an exception should cover both cultural heritage institutions holding the works or other subject-matter and third party cultural heritage institutions or service providers, which may be requested to perform the act of reproduction on behalf of a cultural heritage institution within the scope of the exception.
Amendment 186 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 a (new)
Recital 21 a (new)
(21 a) Digital tools allow citizens to make and disseminate easily reproductions of works located permanently in public places, such as sculptures or monuments, for their private or non-commercial uses. Such practices are not detrimental to rightholders and are widely accepted across the Union, though not always recognised officially in national law. Therefore, it is necessary to provide citizens in the Union with clear legal certainty for such uses. As such, Member States should be required to provide an exception authorising at least the reproduction of works permanently located in public places and the communication to the public and distribution of such copies for non- commercial purposes.
Amendment 188 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 b (new)
Recital 21 b (new)
(21 b) Technological developments mean that publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments, museums or archives frequently operate with secure electronic networks, making dedicated on- the-premises terminals obsolete and no longer adapted to consumer behaviour. As such, Member States should, on a voluntary basis, be entitled to provide that these institutions may communicate or make available, for the purposes of research or private study, to individual members of the public works and other subject-matter contained in their collections, through secure electronic networks in lieu of dedicated terminals. Directive 2001/29/EC should be amended accordingly.
Amendment 197 #
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. 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 classroomwhere the teaching activity is physically provided, including where it takes place outside the premises of the educational establishment and online uses through 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 204 #
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. In order to ensure the availability and accessibility of such licences for beneficiaries, Member States are encouraged to develop appropriate tools, such as a single portal or database.
Amendment 208 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17 a (new)
Recital 17 a (new)
(17 a) In order to guarantee legal certainty when a Member State decides to subject the application of the exception to the availability of adequate licences, it is necessary to specify under which conditions an educational establishment may use protected works or other subject- matter under that exception and, conversely, when it should act under a licensing scheme.
Amendment 216 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
Amendment 221 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) Member States should therefore be required to provide for an exception to permit cultural heritage institutions to reproduce works and other subject-matter permanently in their collections for preservation purposes, for example to address technological obsolescence or the degradation of original supports. Such an exception should allow for the making of copies by the appropriate preservation tool, means or technology, in the required number and at any point in the life of a work or other subject-matter to the extent required in order to produce a copy for preservation purposes only. Such an exception should cover both cultural heritage institutions holding the works or other subject-matter and third party cultural heritage institutions or service providers, which could be requested to perform the act of reproduction on behalf of a cultural heritage institution within the scope of the exception.
Amendment 222 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
Amendment 231 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
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 and whose credibility for the public relies to a certain extent on their specific brand name. 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 does not extend to acts of hyperlinking, whichere such acts do not constitute communication to the public under Directive 2001/29/EC.
Amendment 258 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Where information society service providers store and provide access to the publicprovide a platform, referred to as a digital content platform, whose main purpose is to give the public direct access to user-generated content, to copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded or displayed by their users, thereby going beyond the mere provision of physical facilities and performing an act of communication to the public, they arshould be obliged to conclude licensing agreements with rightholders, unless rightholders do not deem it necessary or they are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council34 . The obligation to conclude licencing agreements should not extend to search engines, as defined by Directive 2016/1148/EU, and should only encompass rightholders whose category of works is significantly present on the concerned platform. In respect of Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC and eligibility for the liability exemption provided therein, it is necessary to verify the extent of the role played by the platform provider. Where the provider plays a sufficiently active role, including through the optimisation of the presentation of the uploaded or displayed works or subject- matter or through their promotion, irrespective of the nature of the means used therefor , the provider should no longer be considered to be merely hosting such user-generated content, works or other subject-matter. In order to ensure the functioning of any licensing agreement, platform providers whose main purpose is to provide the public with access to significant amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded or displayed 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 those providers are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC. _________________ 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).
Amendment 276 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) To facilitate the licensing of rights in audiovisual works to video-on-demand platforms, this Directive requires Member States to set up a negotiation mechanism managed by a designated existing or newly established national body allowing parties willing to conclude an agreement to rely on the assistance of an impartial body. Where the negotiation involves parties from different Member States, they should agree beforehand on the Member State competent, should the negotiation mechanism be required at some point in their negotiation. The body should meet with the parties and help with the negotiations by providing professional and external advice. Against that background, Member States should decide on the conditions of the functioning of the negotiation mechanism, including the timing and duration of the assistance to negotiations and the bearingdivision of theany costs arising. Member States should ensure that administrative and financial burdens remain proportionate to guarantee the efficiency of the negotiation forum.
Amendment 283 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
Amendment 292 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
Amendment 344 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Amendment 347 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 4 a (new)
(4a) 'digital content platform' means an information society service as defined in Article 2(a) of Directive 2000/31/EC, the principal purpose of which is to provide the general public, via electronic communications networks within the meaning of point (a) of Article 2 of Directive 2002/21/EC, with a significant amount of user-generated content, copyright-protected works or other subject-matter uploaded or displayed by its users, with or without the consent or knowledge of rightholders.
Amendment 368 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Member States may provide for fair compensation for the harm incurred by rightholders due to the use of their works or other subject-matter pursuant to paragraph 1.
Amendment 398 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new)
For the purposes of applying paragraph 2, Member States shall actively assist in facilitating dialogue between rightholders and educational establishments with a view to establishing specific licences authorising the acts described in paragraph 1. Member States are encouraged to ensure the visibility of the licences authorising the acts described in paragraph 1 through appropriate tools, such as a single portal or database accessible to educational establishments, where the available licences shall be listed and kept up-to-date.
Amendment 453 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
A work or other subject-matter shall be deemed to be out of commerce when the whole work or other subject-matter, in all its translations, versions and manifestations, is not available to the public through customary channels of commerce and cannot be reasonably expected to become so in the Member States where the cultural heritage institution is established.
Amendment 486 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11
Article 11
Amendment 520 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Amendment 550 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Research organisations shall delete the reproductions of the works or other subject-matter made pursuant to paragraph 1 once the text and data mining acts necessary for the purposes of scientific research have been carried out.
Amendment 566 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Member States may provide for fair compensation for the harm incurred by rightholders due to the use of their works or other subject-matter pursuant to paragraph 1.
Amendment 622 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. For the purposes of applying paragraph 2, Member States shall actively assist in facilitating dialogue between rightholders and educational establishments with a view to establishing specific licences authorising the acts described in paragraph 1. Member States may be encouraged to ensure the visibility of the licences authorising the acts described in paragraph 1 through appropriate tools, such as a single portal or database accessible to educational establishments, where the available licences shall be listed and kept up-to- date.
Amendment 649 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. For the purpose of enjoying the exception under the first paragraph of this Article, cultural heritage institutions may request that another cultural heritage institution or a service provider perform on their behalf the act of copying or digitising the works or other subject- matter that are permanently in the collection of the requesting cultural heritage institution, provided that no such copies shall remain available by the requested institution or service provider.
Amendment 699 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
A work or other subject-matter shall be deemed to be out of commerce when the whole work or other subject-matter, in all its translations, versions and manifestations, is not available to the public through customary channels of commerce and cannot be reasonably expected to become so in the Member States where the cultural heritage institution is established.
Amendment 733 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11
Article 11