Activities of Gilles LEBRETON related to 2016/0280(COD)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (60)
Amendment 73 #
Proposal for a directive
Citation 1
Citation 1
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 11467 thereof,
Amendment 75 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The Treaty provides for the establishment of an internal market and the institution of a system ensuring that competition stipulates that the Union, while respecting the powers of the Member States, must contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting the internal market is not distortedir national and regional diversity. Harmonisation of the laws of the Member States on copyright and related rights should contribute further to the achievement of those objectiveshelp to preserve this cultural diversity.
Amendment 77 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The constitutional traditions of the Member States and the European directives which have been adopted in the area of copyright and related rights have the aim of provideing for a high level of protection for rightholders and of createing a framework wherein the exploitation of works and other protected subject-matter can take place. This harmonised legal framework contributes to the good functioning of the internal market; itshould make it possible to preserve cultural heritage and to promote the cultural and creative industries, with the purpose of stimulatesing innovation, creativity, investment and production of new content, also in the digital environment. The protection provided by this legal framework also contributes to the Union's objective of respecting and promoting cultural diversity while at the same time bringing the European common cultural heritage to the fore. Article 167(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union requires the Union to take cultural aspects into account in its action.
Amendment 82 #
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. New business models and new actors continue to emerge. The objectives and the principles laid down by the Union copyright frameworknational legal systems and taken over by the Union with regard to copyright 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 the 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 copyrightstriking a balance between respect for rightholders' rights or rights related to copyright, which are responsible for financing cultural creation, and ensuring wider access to content. In order to ensure legal certainty for all stakeholders, 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.
Amendment 94 #
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 already taken into account by certain Member States but are not clearly covered by the current Union rules on exceptions and limitations. In addition, the optional nature ofcertain exceptions and limitations are already 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 and preservation of cultural heritage should be reassessed in the light of those new uses. MandatoryOptional 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 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 105 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The exceptions and the limitation set out in this Directive should seek to achieve a fair balance between the rights and interests of authors and other rightholders on the one hand, and of users on the other. They canIt should be possible for them to be applied only in certain special cases which doand not to conflict with the normal exploitation of the works or other subject- matter and do notor unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholders.
Amendment 116 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) New technologies enable the automated computational analysis of information in digital form, such as text, sounds, images or data, generally known as text and data mining. TWhile those technologies allow researchers to process large amounts of information to gain new knowledge and discover new trends. Whilst text and data mining technologi, their uses are prevalent across the digital economy, there is widespread acknowledgment that text and data mining can in particular benefit the research community and in so doing encourage innovation. However, in the Union, research organisations such as universities and research institutes are confronted with legal uncertainty as to the extent to which they can perform text and data mining of contentquire a legal framework and should be limited to non-commercial uses, particularly as regards the analysis of data. Although text mining may prove profitable in the field of research and innovation, it must not disproportionately damage copyright in a context in which profit takes the place of the educational objective. In certain instances, text and data mining may involve acts protected by copyright and/or by the sui generis database right, notably the reproduction of works or other subject- matter and/or the extraction of contents from a database. Where there is no exception or limitation which applies, an authorisation to undertake such acts would be required from rightholders. Text and data mining may also be carried out in relation to mere facts or data which are not protected by copyright and in such instances no authorisation would be required.
Amendment 130 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Some national legal systems and Union law already provides certain exceptions and limitations covering uses for scientific research purposes which may apply to acts of text and data mining. HowevIn order, those exceptions and limitations aro preserve the integrity of the coptional and not fully adapted toyright principle, the use of technologies in scientific research. Moreoexceptions should remain optional. However, where researchers have lawful access to contentobtained content lawfully, for example through subscriptions to publications or open access licences, it should be possible for the terms of the licences may exto include 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 of EU Member States as a research area will suffer from a possible impossibility to undertake text mining unless steps are taken to address the legal uncertainty for text and data miningsurrounding it.
Amendment 144 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) This legal uncertainty should be addressed by providing for a mandatoryn optional 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.
Amendment 169 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) There is no needIt is necessary 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, as the principle of compensation is central to the concept of copyright.
Amendment 171 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) The national legal systems of some Member States, as well as Article 5(3)(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC, allows Member States to introduce an exception or limitation to the rights of reproduction, communication to the public and making available to the public for the sole purpose of, among others, illustration for teaching. In addition, Articles 6(2)(b) and 9(b) of Directive 96/9/EC permit the use of a database and the extraction or re-utilization of a substantial part of its contentsextracts from works or content from them for the purpose of illustration for teaching. The scope of those exceptions or limitations as they apply to digital uses is unclear. In addition, there is a lack of clarity as to whether those exceptions or limitations would apply where teaching is provided online and thereby at a distance. Moreover, the existing framework does not provide for a cross-border effect. This situation may hamper the development of digitally- supported teaching activities and distance learning. Therefore, the introduction of a new mandatory exception or limitation is necessaryTherefore, this optional exception or limitation should be extended to digital teaching to ensure that educational establishments benefit from full legal certainty when using extracts from works or other subject-matter in digital teaching activities, including online and across borders.
Amendment 199 #
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 theextracts from 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 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 206 #
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 mandatoryile this new optional exception or limitation in relation to digital uses and cross-border teachin an educational context may apply ing activitill Member States, 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 extracts from 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 211 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) An act of preservation may require a reproduction of a work or other subject- matter in the collection of a cultural heritage institution andor libraries, which sometimes preserve the regional and/or national heritage, and may consequently require the authorisation of the relevant rightholders. Cultural heritage institutions are engaged in the preservation of their collections for future generations. Digital technologies offer new ways to preserve the heritage contained in those collections but they also create new challenges. IAn view of these new challenges, it is necessary to adapt the current legal framework by providing a mandatory exception to the right of reproduction in order to allowoptional exception may enable Member States to act in a proportionate manner, consistently with national legal traditions, with those actsim of preservationing the cultural heritage.
Amendment 216 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Different approaches in the Member States for acts of preservation by cultural heritage institutionArticle 1(h) of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, to which a number of Member States, and also the Union, are parties, reaffirms 'the sovereign rights of States to maintain, adopt and implement policies and measures thamper cross-border cooperation and the sharing of means of preservation by cultural heritage institutions in the internal market, leading to an inefficient use of resourcest they deem appropriate for the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions on their territory'. Accordingly, to comply with legal requirements, it is imperative that this directive should not conflict with obligations under international law to protect and preserve the cultural heritage.
Amendment 225 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) Member States should therefore be required tohave the option of provideing for an exception to permit cultural heritage institutions and libraries 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.
Amendment 231 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) For the purposes of this Directive, works and other subject-matter should be considered to be permanently in the collection of a cultural heritage institution or library when copies are owned or permanently held by the cultural heritage institution, for example as a result of a transfer of ownership or licence agreements.
Amendment 248 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) Cultural heritage institutions or libraries should benefit from a clear framework for the digitisation and dissemination, including across borders, of out-of-commerce works or other subject-matter. However, the particular characteristics of the collections of out-of-commerce works mean that obtaining the prior consent of the individual rightholders may be very difficult. This can be due, for example, to the age of the works or other subject- matter, their limited commercial value or the fact that they were never intended for commercial use. It is therefore necessary to provide for measures to facilitate the licensing of rights in out-of-commerce works that are in the collections of cultural heritage institutions and thereby to allow the conclusion of agreements with cross- border effect in the internal marketor libraries.
Amendment 260 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) Considering the variety of works and other subject-matter in the collections of cultural heritage institutions and libraries, it is important that the licensing mechanisms introduced by this Directive are available and can be used in practice for different types of works and other subject-matter, including photographs, sound recordings and audiovisual works. In order to reflect the specificities of different categories of works and other subject- matter as regards modes of publication and distribution and to facilitate the usability of those mechanisms, specific requirements and procedures may have to be established by Member States for the practical application of those licensing mechanisms. It is appropriate that Member States consult rightholders, users and collective management organisations when doing so.
Amendment 267 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) Information regarding the future and ongoing use of out-of-commerce works and other subject-matter by cultural heritage institutions or libraries on the basis of the licensing mechanisms provided for in this Directive and the arrangements in place for all rightholders to exclude the application of licences to their works or other subject- matter should be adequately publicised. This is particularly important when uses take place across borders in the internal market. It is therefore appropriate to make provision for the creation of a single publicly accessible online portal for the Union to make such information available to the public for a reasonable period of time before the cross-border use takes place. Under Regulation (EU) No 386/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council33 , the European Union Intellectual Property Office is entrusted with certain tasks and activities, financed by making use of its own budgetary measures, aiming at facilitating and supporting the activities of national authorities, the private sector and Union institutions in the fight against, including the prevention of, infringement of intellectual property rights. It is therefore appropriate to rely on that Office to establish and manage the European portal making such information available. _________________ 33 Regulation (EU) No 386/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 April 2012 on entrusting the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) with tasks related to the enforcement of intellectual property rights, including the assembling of public and private-sector representatives as a European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights (OJ L 129, 16.5.2012, p. 1–6)Member States are therefore asked, if necessary, to establish a portal to provide information on the subject.
Amendment 273 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29
Recital 29
(29) On-demand services have the potential to play a decisive role in the dissemination of European works across all Member States of the European Union. However, agreements on the online exploitation of such works may face difficulties related to the licensing of rights. Such issues may, for instance, appear when the holder of the rights for a given territory is not interested in the online exploitation of the work or where there are issues linked to the windows of exploitation.
Amendment 279 #
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 requirescommends that Member States to set up a negotiation mechanism allowing parties willing to conclude an agreement to rely on the assistance of an impartial body. 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 bearing of the costs. Member States should ensure that administrative and financial burdens remain proportionate to guarantee the efficiency of the negotiation forum.
Amendment 291 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) A free and pluralist press is essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens' access to information for citizens of the Member States. 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 the absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, licensing and enforcement in the digital environment isare often complex and inefficient.
Amendment 299 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
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 nrecessary to provide at Union level a harmonisedommended that Member States take measures to ensure optimal legal protection for press publications in respect of digital uses. SAccordingly it is suggested that such protection should be effectively guaranteed through the introduction, in Union law,where necessary, into national legal systems of rights related to copyright for the reproduction and making available to the public of press publications in respect of digital uses.
Amendment 334 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
(34) The rights which may possibly be granted to the publishers of press publications by Member States that so decide 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.
Amendment 348 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
(35) The protection granted to publishers of press publications by Member States which so wish under this Directive should not affect the rights of the authors and other rightholders in the works and other subject-matter incorporated therein, including as regards the extent to which authors and other rightholders can exploit their works or other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated. Therefore, publishers of press publications should not be able to invoke the protection granted to them against authors and other rightholders. This is without prejudice to contractual arrangements concluded between the publishers of press publications, on the one side, and authors and other rightholders, on the other side.
Amendment 426 #
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 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, which will make it possible to guarantee the sharing of value online, should also apply when the information society service providers are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC.
Amendment 485 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 44
Recital 44
(44) The objectivesGiven that an EU copyright framework is already in place, Union action on the subject is justified by the aim of this Directive, namely theo modernisation of certain aspects of the Union copyrighte aspects of the framework to take account of technological developments and new channels of distribution of protected content in the internal market, cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States but can rather, by reason of their scale, effects and cross-border dimension, be better achieved at Union level. Therefore, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.
Amendment 486 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 45
Recital 45
(45) This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Uns provided for by the Member States’ constitutional traditions. Accordingly, this Directive should be interpreted and applied in accordance with those rights and principles.
Amendment 489 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1
Article 1 – paragraph 1
1. This Directive lays down rules which aim at further harmonisingaims to modernise the Union law applicable to copyright and related rights in the framework of the internal market, taking into account in particular digital and cross-border uses of protected content. It also lays down rules on exceptions and limitations, and on the facilitation of licences as well as rules aiming at ensuring a well-functioning marketplace forthat the interests of all the stakeholders in the exploitation of works and other subject- matter are properly balanced.
Amendment 512 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 2
(2) ‘text and data mining’ means any automated analytical technique aiming to analyse text and data in digital form in order to generate information such as patterns, trends and correlations;
Amendment 528 #
Proposal for a directive
Title 3
Title 3
MEASURES TO ADAPT EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS TO THE DIGITAL AND CROSS-BORDER ENVIRONMENT
Amendment 530 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – title
Article 3 – title
Text and data mining
Amendment 544 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shallmay 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 lawful access for the purposes of scientific research.
Amendment 571 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – title
Article 4 – title
Use of works and other subject-matter in digital and cross-border teaching activities
Amendment 581 #
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 extracts from works and other subject- matter for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching, to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, provided that the use:
Amendment 584 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point -a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point -a (new)
–a is limited, in the case of written, printed and digital works, to brief extracts or short works;
Amendment 589 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) takes place on the premises of an educational establishmenpremises where the teaching activities of an educational establishment recognised by the Member State in which it is established are carried out or through a secure electronic network accessible only by the educational establishment'’s pupils or students and teaching staff;
Amendment 600 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) is accompanied by the indication of the source, including the author's name, unless this turns out to be impossible.[Does not affect the English version]
Amendment 602 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Any contractual provision contrary to the exception provided for in paragraph 1 shall be inapplicable. The exception provided for in paragraph 1 shall not apply in cases where licences are available.
Amendment 611 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Member States mayshall 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 at least the acts described in paragraph 1 are easily available in the market.
Amendment 619 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Member States availing themselves of the provision of the first subparagraph shall take the necessary measures to ensure appropriate availability and visibility of the licences authorismay exclude materials intended chiefly for the educational market from the exception or limitation provided for ing the acts described in paragraph 1 for educational establishmentsfirst subparagraph.
Amendment 621 #
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 ensuring the availability of licences authorising, at least, the acts covered by paragraph 1, for example by acquiring collective licences on behalf of the educational establishments established on their territory or by facilitating dialogue between rightholders and educational establishments with a view to establishing specific authorisations for the acts covered by paragraph 1. Member States shall ensure the visibility of the licences authorising the acts covered by 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 625 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. The use of extracts from works and other subject- matter for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching through secure electronic networks undertaken in compliance with the provisions of national law adopted pursuant to this Article shall be deemed to occur solely in the Member State where the educational establishment is established.
Amendment 633 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. Member States mayshall provide for fair compensation for the harm incurred by the rightholders due to the use of their works or other subject-matter pursuant to paragraph 1.
Amendment 646 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Member States may provide for fair compensation for the harm incurred by the rightholders due to the use of their works or other subject-matter pursuant to paragraph 1. Article 5 Preservation of cultural heritage 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, Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive, permitting cultural heritage institutions and libraries, to make copies of any works or other subject-matter that are permanently in their collections, in any format or medium, for the sole purpose of the preservation of such works or other subject-matter and to the extent necessary for such preservation.
Amendment 674 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Except in the cases covered by Article 17, this Directive shall leave intact and shall in no way affect the exceptions and limitations provided for in Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 6 and 9 of Directive 96/9/EC and Articles 5 and 6 of Directive 2009/24/EC, including the optional nature thereof.
Amendment 679 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shallmay, without prejudice to their national model for unavailable works, provide that when a collective management organisation, on behalf of its members, concludes a non- exclusive licence for non- commercial purposes with a cultural heritage institution for the digitisation, distribution, communication to the public or making available of out-of-commerce works or other subject-matter permanently in the collection of the institution, such a non- exclusive licence may be extended or presumed to apply to rightholders of the same category as those covered by the licence who are not represented by the collective management organisation, provided that:
Amendment 709 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8
Article 8
Amendment 710 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Amendment 713 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Amendment 717 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 3
Article 8 – paragraph 3
Amendment 719 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Article 9 – paragraph 1
Member States shallmay ensure a regular dialogue between representative users' and rightholders' organisations, and any other relevant stakeholder organisations, to, on a sector-specific basis, foster the relevance and usability of the licensing mechanisms referred to in Article 7(1), ensure the effectiveness of the safeguards for rightholders referred to in this Chapter, notably as regards publicity measures, and, where applicable, assist in the establishment of the requirements referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 7(2).
Amendment 751 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shallmay, if they so decide, 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.
Amendment 768 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 2
Article 11 – paragraph 2
2. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall leave intact and shall in no way affect any rights provided for inunder national legal systems and Union law to authors and other rightholders, in respect of the works and other subject-matter incorporated in a press publication. Such rights may not be invoked against those authors and other rightholders and, in particular, may not deprive them of their right to exploit their works and other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated.
Amendment 973 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point a
Directive 96/9/EC
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 6 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) where there is use for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long as the source is indicated and to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, without prejudice to the optional exceptions and the limitation provided for in Directive [this Directive];.
Amendment 975 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point b
Directive 96/9/EC
Article 9 – point b
Article 9 – point b
(b) in the case of extraction for the purposes of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long as the source is indicated and to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, without prejudice to the optional exceptions and the limitation provided for in Directive [this Directive];.
Amendment 980 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point a
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) in respect of specific acts of reproduction made by publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments or museums, or by archives, which are not for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage, without prejudice to the optional exceptions and the limitation provided for in Directive [this Directive];.
Amendment 983 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point a
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point a
(a) use for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long as the source, including the author's name, is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible and to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, without prejudice to the optional exceptions and the limitation provided for in Directive [this Directive];.
Amendment 991 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point c
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 12 – paragraph 4 – point e
Article 12 – paragraph 4 – point e
(e) to examine the impact of the transposition of Directive [this Directive] on the functioning of the internaproper balance between the interests of all mparketties involved and to highlight any transposition difficulties;