Activities of Julia REDA related to 2016/0280(COD)
Plenary speeches (4)
Copyright in the Digital Single Market (debate) DE
Copyright in the Digital Single Market (debate) DE
Copyright in the Digital Single Market (debate) DE
Copyright in the Digital Single Market (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market PDF (1 MB) DOC (302 KB)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market
Amendments (244)
Amendment 70 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The directives which have been adopted in the area of copyright and related rights provide for a high level of protection for rightholders and create a framework wherein the exploitation of works and other protected subject-matter can take place. ThisA harmonised legal framework contributes to the good functioning of the internal market; it stimulates 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 72 #
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 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.
Amendment 77 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) This Directive is based upon, and complements, the rules laid down in the Directives currently in force in this area, in particular Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council27 , Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council27a , Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council28 , Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council29 , Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council30 , Directive 2012/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council31 and Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council32 . _________________ 27 Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ L 77, 27.3.1996, p. 20–28). 27a 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 (Directive on electronic commerce) (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1). 28 Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ L 167, 22.6.2001, p. 10–19). 29 Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 28–35). 30 Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (OJ L 111, 5.5.2009, p. 16–22). 31 Directive 2012/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on certain permitted uses of orphan works (OJ L 299, 27.10.2012, p. 5– 12). 32 Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi- territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market (OJ L 84, 20.3.2014, p. 72–98).
Amendment 78 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) In the fields of research, education and preserv and innovation, transformative use, education ofand 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 impacts 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 and complemented 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 envir, user-generated conmtent and for preserv, freedom of panorama,and for preservation and dissemination of cultural heritage should be introduced. For uses not covered by the exceptions or the limitations 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 80 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The directives which have been adopted in the area of copyright and related rights provide for a high level of protection for rightholders and create a framework wherein the exploitation of works and other protected subject-matter can take place. ThisA harmonised legal framework contributes to the good functioning of the internal market; it stimulates 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 83 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The exceptions and the limitations set out in this Directive 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 can behave been designed to appliedy only into certain special cases which do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the works or other subject- matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholders.
Amendment 83 #
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 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 85 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) The protection of technological measures established in Directive 2001/29/EC remains essentialwas established to ensure the protection and the effective exercise of the rights granted to authors and to other rightholders under Union law. The scope of this protection should be maintained whileadapted in order to better ensuringe that the use of technological measures does not prevent the enjoymentusers' right to make use of the exceptions and the limitation established in this Directive, which are particularly relevant in the online environment. Rightholders should have the opportunityare often not best placed to ensure this through voluntary measures. They should remain free to choose the format and the modalities to provide the beneficiaries of the exceptions and the limitation established in this Directive with the means to benefit from them provided that such means are appropriate. In the absence of voluntary measures, because technological protection measures are most commonly put in place by entities other than the rightsholders. All actors in the value chain should provide the beneficiaries of the exceptions and the limitation established in this Directive, in Directive 96/9/EC, Directive 2001/29/EC, Directive 2009/24/EC and Directive 2012/28/EU, with the means to benefit from them. Member States should take appropriate measures in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Directive 2001/29/EC.
Amendment 86 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) The protection of technological measures established in Directive 2001/29/EC remains essentialwas established to ensure the protection and the effective exercise of the rights granted to authors and to other rightholders under Union law. The scope of this protection should be maintained whileadapted in order to better ensuringe that the use of technological measures does not prevent the enjoymentusers' rights to make use of the exceptions and the limitation established in this Directive, which are particularly relevant in the online environment. Rightholders should have the opportunityare often not best placed to ensure this through voluntary measures. They should remain free to choose the format and the modalities to, because technological protection measures are most commonly put in place by entities other than the rightsholders. All actors in the value chain should provide the beneficiaries of the exceptions and the limitations established in this Directive with the means to benefit from them provided that such means are appropriate. In the absence of voluntary measures,, in Directive 96/9/EC, Directive 2001/29/EC , Directive 2009/24/EC and Directive 2012/28/EU, with the means to benefit from them. Member States should take appropriate measures in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Directive 2001/29/EC.
Amendment 86 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) This Directive is based upon, and complements, the rules laid down in the Directives currently in force in this area, in particular Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council27 , Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 27a, Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council28 , Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council29 , Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council30 , Directive 2012/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council31 and Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council32 . _________________ 27 Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ L 77, 27.3.1996, p. 20–28). 27a 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 (Directive on electronic commerce) (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1). 28 Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ L 167, 22.6.2001, p. 10–19). 29 Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 28–35). 30 Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (OJ L 111, 5.5.2009, p. 16–22). 31 Directive 2012/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on certain permitted uses of orphan works (OJ L 299, 27.10.2012, p. 5– 12). 32 Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi- territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market (OJ L 84, 20.3.2014, p. 72–98).
Amendment 87 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7 a) In order to ensure that technological measures do not prevent the enjoyment of the exceptions and limitations established in this Directive, in Directive 2001/29/EC, Directive 96/9/EC, Directive 2009/24/EC or Directive 2012/28/EU, Article 6(4) of Directive 2001/29/EC needs to be updated in order to take account of the fact that in the marketplace, rightsholders are often unable to make available to the beneficiary of an exception or limitation the means of benefiting from that exception or limitation, because technological protection measures are generally not applied by the rightsholders themselves, but by third party suppliers who provide the content to consumers, such as online marketplaces, some of whom enjoy a dominant market position. The inability of users to make use of their rights under copyright exceptions and limitations is not just having a negative impact on users' fundamental rights, it is also detrimental to rightsholders who often find themselves in a weaker bargaining position vis-à-vis suppliers of digital content, especially when consumers are locked into the products and services offered by that seller through the use of technological measures. It is therefore insufficient to require Member States only to place obligations upon the rightsholders, who are generally unable to remove the technological protection measures put on their works by third parties. In addition, the act of circumventing technological protection measures for the purposes of enjoying exceptions and limitations to copyright and related rights needs to be exempted from the general legal protection of effective technological measures enshrined in Article 6(1) and 6(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC. Furthermore, the definition of "technological measures" in Article 6(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC needs to be clarified so as not to include measures which are designed to restrict authorised uses under copyright exceptions and limitations.
Amendment 88 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7 a) In order to ensure that technological measures do not prevent the enjoyment of the exceptions and limitations established in this Directive, in Directive 2001/29/EC, Directive 96/9/EC, Directive 2009/24/EC or Directive 2012/28/EU, Article 6(4) of Directive 2001/29/EC needs to be updated in order to take account of the fact that in the marketplace, rightsholders are often unable to make available to the beneficiary of an exception or limitation the means of benefiting from that exception or limitation, because technological protection measures are generally not applied by the rightsholders themselves, but by third party suppliers who provide the content to consumers, such as online marketplaces, some of whom enjoy a dominant market position. The inability of users to make use of their rights under copyright exceptions and limitations is not just having a negative impact on users' fundamental rights, it is also detrimental to rightsholders who often find themselves in a weaker bargaining position vis-à-vis suppliers of digital content, especially when consumers are locked into the products and services offered by that seller through the use of technological measures. It is therefore insufficient to require Member States only to place obligations upon the rightsholders, who are generally unable to remove the technological protection measures put on their works by third parties. In addition, the act of circumventing technological protection measures for the purposes of enjoying exceptions and limitations to copyright and related rights needs to be exempted from the general legal protection of effective technological measures enshrined in Article 6(1) and 6(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC. Furthermore, the definition of "technological measures" in Article 6(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC needs to be clarified so as not to include measures which are designed to restrict authorised uses under copyright exceptions and limitations.
Amendment 89 #
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. Those technologies allow researchers tothe processing of large amounts of information to gain new knowledge and discover new trends. Whilst text and data mining technologies 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,here is a need to clarify the legality of copies made for purposes of text and data mining in order to encourage innovation and discovery in all fields. Without a mandatory exception applying throughoutthe Union, all entities engaging in text and data mining, including 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 content. 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 rightholdersFor text and data mining to occur one first needs to access information and then to reproduce that information. It is generally only after that information is normalised that its processing through text and data mining can occur. Once there is lawful access to information, it is when that information is being normalised that a copyright protected use takes place since this leads to a reproduction by changing the format of the information itself or an extraction from a database into one that can be subjected to text and data mining. The copyright relevant processes in the use of text and data mining technology is consequently not the text and data mining process itself which consists of a reading and analysis of digitally stored normalised information, but the process of access and the process by which information is normalised to enable its automated computational analysis. The process of access to information be it works or other subject matter protected by copyright is already regulated in the copyright related acquis. In certain instances, text and data mining may involve works protected by copyright and/or by the sui generis database right. 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 94 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
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 inxt and data mining technologies which are relevant far beyond the area of scientific research. Moreover, where researchers havethere is lawful access to 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 and action lines envisaged in the European Open Science Agenda will suffer unless steps are taken to address the legal uncertainty for text and data miningregarding text and data mining for all potential users. Union law must acknowledge that text and data mining is increasingly used beyond formal research organisations and for purposes other than scientific research which nevertheless contribute to innovation, technology transfer and the public interest.
Amendment 97 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) In the fields of research, education and preserv and innovation, transformative use, education ofand 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 impacts 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 and complemented 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 preserv, illustration for teaching , user-generated content, freedom of panorama and for preservation and dissemination of cultural heritage should be introduced. For uses not covered by the exceptions or the limitations 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 98 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9 a (new)
Recital 9 a (new)
(9 a) Furthermore, there is widespread acknowledgment that access to normalised information in a format which enables it to be subjected to text and data mining can in particular benefit the research community in its entirety including to smaller research organisations especially when there is no lawful access to content, for example through subscriptions to publications or open access licences. In the Union, research organisations such as universities and research institutes are confronted with challenges to gain lawful access to the volume of digitally stored information required for new knowledge to be sought through the use of text and data mining.
Amendment 100 #
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 for the purposes of text and data mining, which should not be subject to compensation given that in view of the nature and scope of the exception the harm should be minimal. An additional mandatory exception should allow research organisations to have access to normalised information in a format that enables it to be text and data mined provided that that process is carried out by the research organisation. Rightholders should not be able to seek compensation for this exception that goes beyond what is necessary and proportionate to the cost of the normalisation process. Research organisations should also benefit from this exception when they engage in public-private partnerships. These new exceptions 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 106 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The exceptions and the limitations set out in this Directive 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 can behave been designed to appliedy only into certain special cases which do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the works or other subject- matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholders.
Amendment 107 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Research organisations across the Union encompass a wide variety and size of entities the primary goal of which is to conduct scientific research or to do so together with the provision of educational services. Due toTaking into account the diversity of such entities, it is important to have a common understanding of the beneficiaries of the exceptionfor instance small research organisations with only limited access to content, it is important that rightholders provide access to normalised datasets for the purpose of text and data mining.. 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 108 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) The protection of technological measures established in Directive 2001/29/EC remains essentialwas established to ensure the protection and the effective exercise of the rights granted to authors and to other rightholders under Union law. The scope of this protection should be maintained whileadapted in order to better ensuringe that the use of technological measures does not prevent the enjoymentusers' rights to make use of the exceptions and the limitations established in this Directive, which are particularly relevant in the online environment. Rightholders should have the opportunityare often not best placed to ensure this through voluntary measures. They should remain free to choose the format and the modalities to, because technological protection measures are most commonly put in place by entities other than the rightsholders. All actors in the value chain should provide the beneficiaries of the exceptions and the limitations established in this Directive with the means to benefit from them provided that such means are appropriate. In the absence of voluntary measures,, in Directive 96/9/EC, Directive 2001/29/EC, Directive 2009/24/EC and Directive 2012/28/EU, with the means to benefit from them. Member States should take appropriate measures in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Directive 2001/29/EC.
Amendment 110 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7 a) In order to ensure that technological measures do not prevent the enjoyment of the exceptions and limitations established in this Directive and in Directive 2001/29/EC, Directive 96/9/EC, Directive 2009/24/EC or Directive 2012/28/EU, Article 6(4) of Directive 2001/29/EC needs to be updated in order to take account of the fact that in the marketplace, rightsholders are often unable to make available to the beneficiary of an exception or limitation the means of benefiting from that exception or limitation, because technological protection measures are generally not applied by the rightsholders themselves, but by third party suppliers who provide the content to consumers, such as online marketplaces, some of whom enjoy a dominant market position. The inability of users to make use of their rights under copyright exceptions and limitations is not just having a negative impact on users' fundamental rights, it is also detrimental to rightsholders who often find themselves in a weaker bargaining position vis-à-vis suppliers of digital content, especially when consumers are locked into the products and services offered by that seller through the use of technological measures. It is therefore insufficient to require Member States only to place obligations upon the rightsholders, who are generally unable to remove the technological protection measures put on their works by third parties. In addition, the act of circumventing technological protection measures for the purposes of enjoying exceptions and limitations to copyright and related rights needs to be exempted from the general legal protection of effective technological measures enshrined in Article 6(1) and 6(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC. Furthermore, the definition of "technological measures" in Article 6(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC needs to be clarified so as not to include measures which are designed to restrict authorised uses under copyright exceptions and limitations.
Amendment 112 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) In view of a potentially high number of access requests to and downloads of their works or other subject- matter, rightholders should be allowed to apply measures where there is risk that the security and integrity of the system or databases where the works or other subject-matter are hosted would be jeopardised. Those measures should not exceed what is necessarand in order to ensure reproducibility of research results, Member States shall designate a facility to safely sto pursue the objective of ensuring the security and integrity of the system and should not undermine the effective application of the exceptionre datasets used for text and data mining.
Amendment 113 #
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. Those technologies allow researchers tothe processing of large amounts of information to gain new knowledge and discover new trends. Whilst text and data mining technologies 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 doinghere is a need to clarify the legality of copies made for purposes of text and data mining in order to encourage innovation. Howe and discover,y in the Union,all fields. Without a mandatory exception applying throughout the Union, all entities engaging in text and data mining, including 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 content. 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 rightholdersFor text and data mining to occur, one first needs to access information and then to reproduce that information. It is generally only after that information is normalised that its processing through text and data mining can occur. Once there is lawful access to information, it is when that information is being normalised that a copyright protected use takes place since this leads to a reproduction by changing the format of the information itself or an extraction from a database into one that can be subjected to text and data mining. The copyright relevant processes in the use of text and data mining technology is consequently not the text and data mining process itself which consists of a reading and analysis of digitally stored normalised information, but the process of access and the process by which information is normalised to enable its automated computational analysis. The process of access to information be it works or other subject matter protected by copyright is already regulated in the copyright related acquis. In certain instances, text and data mining could involve works protected by copyright and/or by the sui generis database right. 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 119 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) 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 contents for the purpose of illustration for teaching. The scope ofHowever those exceptions orand limitations as they apply to digital uses is unclear. In addition, there is a lack of clarityre not mandatory and some Member States have followed as to whether those excepo narrow interpretations or limitations would apply where teaching is provided online and thereby at a distancef illustration for teaching in their national implementations of the exceptions. 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 necessary to ensure that educational establishmentactivities benefit from full legal certainty when using works or other subject-matter in digital teaching activities, including online and across borders.
Amendment 123 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) While distance 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 establishmentsactivities , including 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 125 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
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 inxt and data mining technologies which are relevant far beyond the area of scientific research. Moreover, where researchers havethere is lawful access to 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 and action lines envisaged in the European Open Science Agenda will suffer unless steps are taken to address the legal uncertainty for text and data miningregarding text and data mining for all potential users. Union law should acknowledge that text and data mining is increasingly used beyond formal research organisations and for purposes other than scientific research which nevertheless contribute to innovation, technology transfer and the public interest.
Amendment 129 #
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 meanoffline uses such as uses 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 131 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9 b (new)
Recital 9 b (new)
(9 b) Furthermore, there is widespread acknowledgment that access to normalised information in a format which enables it to be subjected to text and data mining can in particular benefit the research community in its entirety including to smaller research organisations especially when there is no lawful access to content, for example through subscriptions to publications or open access licences. In the Union, research organisations such as universities and research institutes are confronted with challenges to gain lawful access to the volume of digitally stored information required for new knowledge to be sought through the use of text and data mining.
Amendment 134 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9 a (new)
Recital 9 a (new)
(9 a) Scientific data produced with public funding should be made available in an open format, so that researchers, citizens and companies can access the data and re-use them, including to perform text and data mining. This obligation should create an Open Data mandate for the benefit of researchers and of European SMEs and start-ups. For the advancement of European innovation, guiding principles on text and data mining enablement should be further scrutinised along the lines of the Horizon 2020 Open Research Data Pilot. The exception for text and data mining should cover all data sources, including data hosted by information society service providers, so that concentrated and anti-competitive research models can be avoided.
Amendment 136 #
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 useextended collective licensing agreements, 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 constraints set by the closed list of voluntary exceptions at Union level, 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 andoffline and online uses and particularly 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 extended collective licencing arrangements concluded at national level. In particular, Member States couldmay decide to subject the application of the exception or limitation, fully or partially, to the actual availability of adequate licenceextended collective licencing agreements, 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 extended collective licensing schemes allowing digital uses of works or other subject-matter for the purpose of illustration for teaching are easily available and affordable, covering all uses allowed under the exception, and that educational establishments are aware of the existence of such extended collective licensing schemes.
Amendment 136 #
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 for the purposes of text and data mining, which should not be subject to compensation given that in view of the nature and scope of the exception the harm should be minimal. An additional mandatory exception should allow research organisations to have access to normalised information in a format that enables it to be text and data mined provided that that process is carried out by the research organisation. Rightholders should not be able to seek compensation for this exception that goes beyond what is necessary and proportionate to the cost of the normalisation process. Research organisations should also benefit from this exception when they engage in public-private partnerships. These new exceptions 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 141 #
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 and consequently the authorisation of the relevant rightholders. Cultural heritage institutions are engaged in the preservation of their collectionscultural heritage for future generations. Digital technologies offer new ways to preserve the heritage contained in those collections of cultural heritage institutions, but they also create new challenges. In 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 allowOne such challenge is the systematic collection and preservation of works which are not originally published by traditional analogue means, but originate in a digital form (so-called born- digital works). Whereas publishers in member states are typically obliged to provide a reference copy of each published work to certain cultural heritage institutions for archiving purposes, such obligations often do not apply to born-digital works. In the absence of the provision of reference copies by the authors or publishers of born-digital works, cultural heritage institutions should be allowed to make reproductions of born-digital works at their own initiative whenever they are openly available on the Internet, in order to add them to their permanent collections. Cultural heritage institutions also engage in making internal reproductions for many varying purposes including insurance, rights clearance, and loans. In view of thoese acts of preservanew challenges, it is necessary to adapt the current legal framework by providing a mandatory exception to the right of reproduction.
Amendment 142 #
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 and consequently the authorisation of the relevant rightholders. Cultural heritage institutions are engaged in the preservation of their collectionscultural heritage for future generations. Digital technologies offer new ways to preserve the heritage contained in those collections of cultural heritage institutions, but they also create new challenges. In 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 allowOne such challenge is the systematic collection and preservation of works which are not originally published by traditional analogue means, but originate in a digital form (so-called born- digital works). Whereas publishers in member states are typically obliged to provide a reference copy of each published work to certain cultural heritage institutions for archiving purposes, such obligations often do not apply to born-digital works. In the absence of the provision of reference copies by the authors or publishers of born-digital works, cultural heritage institutions should be allowed to make reproductions of born-digital works at their own initiative whenever they are openly available on the Internet, in order to add them to their permanent collections. Cultural heritage institutions also engage in making internal reproductions for many varying purposes including insurance, rights clearance, and loans. In view of thoese acts of preservanew challenges, it is necessary to adapt the current legal framework by providing a mandatory exception to the right of reproduction.
Amendment 145 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Different approaches in the Member States for acts of preservaproduction by cultural heritage institutions and educational establishments hamper cross- border cooperation and the sharing of means of preservation by cultural heritage. The collections of cultural heritage institutions, if not unique, are likely to be replicated and sit in other institutions, including those internal market, leading to an inefficient other Member States. It is possible that cultural heritage institutions would also wish to create preservation networks cross borders, to use of resources efficiently.
Amendment 146 #
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 and educational establishments 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 andthe purpose of carrying out their public interest mission in preservation, research, education, culture and teaching, for example to address technological obsolescence or the degradation of original supports, to build collections of born- digital works or for the purpose of digitisation. Such an exception should allow for the making of copies in any format or medium at any point in the life of a work or other subject-matter and to the extent required in order to produce a copy for preservation purposes onlyfor such reproduction, including via partnerships with other institutions or third parties, which may be requested to perform the act of reproduction on behalf of a cultural heritage institution within the scope of the exception.
Amendment 149 #
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 when copies are owned or, held on long-term loan or are permanently held by the cultural heritage institution or educational establishment, for example as a result of a transfer of ownership or licence agreements.
Amendment 151 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 a (new)
Recital 21 a (new)
(21 a) Cultural heritage institutions, and educational establishments have long been involved in making reproductions for individual researchers in their collections, upon their request and on an ad hoc basis. This serves to support and enrich an individual's scientific research, as a researcher who cannot travel to where a work or related subject matter is held is able to request that a reproduction be made for them in compliance with current Union rules on exceptions and limitations. Research, education and learning is increasingly taking place in a cross border environment. There is however a lack of clarity as to whether the existing exceptions or limitations in Member States provide for a cross-border effect. This situation hampers scientific research and the development of the European Research Area. This legal uncertainty should be addressed, and researchers provided with a clear framework that allows them to request a cultural heritage institution, or educational establishment to make and supply them with a reproduction of a work or other subject matter for the purposes of their research, including in a cross border context.
Amendment 152 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 b (new)
Recital 21 b (new)
(21 b) Different arrangements, based on the implementation of the exception provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC, are in place in a number of Member States in order to facilitate cultural heritage institutions, and educational establishments to give on site access to works and other subject-matter on the premises. Such arrangements exist as educational establishments and cultural heritage institutions are involved in preserving and giving access to their digital collections on the premises. Digital technologies provide new ways of giving access to those collections on the premises, for example the use of WIFI networks to give users access to collections on their own portable devices, such as mobile phones and laptops. The requirement to use dedicated terminals for giving access to content on the premises has proven impractical and outdated. At the same time, the maturity of digital preservation requires cultural heritage institutions to preserve and give access not just to digitised analogue works and other subject matter, but also to born- digital materials. Member States should therefore be required to provide for an exception to permit cultural heritage institutions, and educational establishments to give access to all digitised and born-digital collections on the premises or online. Such an exception should allow copies to be delivered on any technology to members of the public.
Amendment 153 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 c (new)
Recital 21 c (new)
(21 c) In its ruling in Case C-174/15, Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken v Stichting Leenrecht1a, the Court of Justice recognised that the lending of e-books can fall under the same rules as the lending of physical books. When Member States apply the limitation to copyright in Article 6 of Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council1b, libraries are able to buy any physical book on the market. Once purchased, they can lend it without restrictions linked to contract terms or other measures of protection which prevent the exercise of exceptions and limitations to copyright. That provision should also apply to e-books. Moreover, with the objective of ensuring that all citizens of the Union have access to a full selection of books and other resources, all Member States should ensure that the limitation to the exclusive public lending right in Article 6 of Directive 2006/115/EC is made mandatory. _________________ 1a Judgement of the Court of Justice of 10 November 2016, Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken v Stichting Leenrecht, ECLI:EU:C:2016:856. 1b Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 28).
Amendment 154 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 d (new)
Recital 21 d (new)
(21 d) The reconciliation of the public's interest to participate in the public sphere by means of an exception regarding the use of depictions of buildings and permanent structures is necessary. Professional photographers and other authors, rightsholders, consumers, institutional users and service providers are predominantly using depictions of works on the basis of national exceptions for 'freedom of panorama' and rely on legal certainty for cross-border usage.
Amendment 155 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 e (new)
Recital 21 e (new)
(21 e) Following technological developments and evolving user behaviour, a significant phenomenon of cultural creation has emerged, which relies on users uploading or displaying content, in various forms, to online services. Such user-generated content may comprise extracts or quotations of protected works or other subject-matter, which may be altered, combined or transformed for different purposes by users. Such uses of extracts or quotations within user-generated content, for various purposes such as the illustration of an idea, review or entertainment, are now widespread online and, provided that the use of such extracts or quotations of protected works or other subject-matter is proportionate, do not cause significant economic harm to the rightsholders concerned and may even advertise the work used within the user-generated content.
Amendment 156 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 f (new)
Recital 21 f (new)
(21 f) Despite some overlap with existing voluntary exceptions or limitations, such as the ones for quotation and parody, the use of protected works or other subject- matter within user-generated content is nonetheless not properly covered by the existing list of exceptions or limitations, creating legal uncertainty for users. Particularly the voluntary nature of existing exceptions and limitations is significantly curtailing the development of user-generated content, which is typically disseminated in a borderless online environment. It is therefore necessary to provide a new mandatory specific exception to authorise the legitimate uses of extracts or quotations of protected works or other subject-matter within user- generated content.
Amendment 156 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Research organisations across the Union encompass a wide variety and size of entities the primary goal of which is to conduct scientific research or to do so together with the provision of educational services. Due toTaking into account the diversity of such entities, it is impfor instance small research ortgant to have a common understanding of the beneficiaries of the exceptionisations with only limited access to content, it is important that rightholders provide access to normalised datasets for the purpose of text and data mining. 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 157 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 g (new)
Recital 21 g (new)
(21 g) Numerous Member States exempt official works such as laws, court orders and other official works from copyright protection in line with the provision of the Berne Convention Article 4 (2). Such rules create scenarios in which content is in the public domain in a Member State, which usually results in that content not being released under permissible licenses. If other Member States lack corresponding provisions, the legal cross- border reuse of such content is prohibited. Mutual recognition of the public domain status of certain works resolves any inconsistencies in the cross-border use of works exempted from copyright protection.
Amendment 159 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) In view of a potentially high number of access requests to and downloads of their works or other subject- matter, rightholders should be allowed to apply measures where there is risk that the security and integrity of the system or databases where the works or other subject-matter are hosted would be jeopardised. Those measures should not exceed what is necessarand in order to ensure reproducibility of research results, Member States shall designate a facility to safely sto pursue the objective of ensuring the security and integrity of the system and should not undermine the effective application of the exceptionre datasets used for text and data mining.
Amendment 161 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25 a (new)
Recital 25 a (new)
(25 a) Further considering the variety of works and other subject-matter in the collections of cultural heritage institutions and the variance between collective management practices across Member States and sectors of cultural production it is necessary to provide a secondary mechanism that can complement these licensing mechanisms and can be apply in sectors of for types of works where the licensing mechanisms do not provide a solution for example because there is no practice of collective licensing or because collective management organisations are unable to achieve sufficient representation. It is therefore necessary to provide for an exception that allows cultural heritage institutions to make out of commerce works held in their collection available online on their own platforms for non- commercial purposes. This uses under this exception must be subject to the same opt out and publicity requirements as uses authorised by a licensing mechanism.
Amendment 162 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25 b (new)
Recital 25 b (new)
(25 b) In order to ensure that such an exception only applies in situations where licensing mechanisms are not available it is necessary to require member states to ensure that this exception does not apply in sectors or for types of works where where licensing mechanisms are available. Such determinations can best be made at by member states taking into account the specificities of national collective management organisations and the needs and requirements of cultural heritage institutions. Therefore the determination in which sectors or for which types of works licensing mechanisms are not available should be made by member states in consultation with rightholders, collective management institutions and cultural heritage institutions.
Amendment 163 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25 c (new)
Recital 25 c (new)
(25 c) A number of member states already maintain extended collective licensing agreements between collecting societies and cultural heritage institutions whose working mechanisms should not be interfered with by clauses for the concept of dedicated terminals, which may provide legal uncertainty in light of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Amendment 164 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25 d (new)
Recital 25 d (new)
(25 d) In order to provide legal clarity for the legitimate use of extracts or quotations of copyright-protected works, it is necessary to acknowledge the position and role of user-generated content in the online environment.
Amendment 165 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
Recital 27
Amendment 166 #
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 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 adequateffectively 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 widely and explicitly available to the public for a reasonable periodat least 6 months 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. The single online portal should provide authors and other rightsholders with means to oppose the making available of their works and other subject matter. It is therefore appropriate to rely on that Office to establish and manage the European portal making such information available. and provide such functionality to rightsholders and cultural heritage institutions. _________________ 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).
Amendment 169 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29 a (new)
Recital 29 a (new)
(29 a) The reproduction of cultural works, specifically their digitisation, will in the coming years be the most powerful tool not only for the preservation of our cultural heritage but also for providing broad access to researchers, students and the general public. In contrast, access to culture would be jeopardised if these digitisations were copyrighted. Faithful reproductions of works that do not constitute a creative transformation should not be hampered by added barriers that could have a chilling effect on digitisation of cultural heritage.
Amendment 171 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
Amendment 178 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
Amendment 178 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) 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 contents for the purpose of illustration for teaching. The scope ofHowever, those exceptions orand limitations as they apply to digital uses is unclear. In addition, there is a lack of clarityre not mandatory and some Member States have followed as to whether those excepo narrow interpretations or limitations would apply where teaching is provided online and thereby at a distancef illustration for teaching in their national implementations of the exceptions. 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 necessary to ensure that educational establishmentactivities benefit from full legal certainty when using works or other subject-matter in digital tresearching and education activities, including online and across borders.
Amendment 185 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) While distance 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 establishmentsresearch and educational activities, including 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, as well as citizens science and non-formal education, to the extent they pursue their educational activity.
Amendment 188 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) For the purposes of this Directive, it is necessary to defineclarify the sconceptpe 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, weeklotection provided by article 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC. In order to improve legal certainty for all concerned parties, and to ensure the freedom to carry out certain acts necessary for monthly magazines of general or special ithe normal functioning of the Internest 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 doess well as to take account of certain fundamental rights, these articles do not extend to acts of hyperlinking, which do not constitute communication to the public.
Amendment 193 #
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 tresearching, including the and education activities such as teaching, related learning activities and academic collaboration. 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, includinginclude uses 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 meanoffline uses such as uses 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 teachingresearch and education.
Amendment 197 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 200 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
Amendment 206 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 209 #
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 and consequently the authorisation of the relevant rightholders. Cultural heritage institutions are engaged in the preservation of their collectionscultural heritage for future generations. Digital technologies offer new ways to preserve the heritage contained in those collections of cultural heritage institutions, but they also create new challenges. In 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 allowOne such challenge is the systematic collection and preservation of works which are not originally published by traditional analogue means, but originate in a digital form (so-called born- digital works). Whereas publishers in Member States are typically obliged to provide a reference copy of each published work to certain cultural heritage institutions for archiving purposes, such obligations often do not apply to born-digital works. In the absence of the provision of reference copies by the authors or publishers of born-digital works, cultural heritage institutions should be allowed to make reproductions of born-digital works at their own initiative whenever they are openly available on the Internet, in order to add them to their permanent collections. Cultural heritage institutions also engage in making internal reproductions for many varying purposes including insurance, rights clearance, and loans. In view of thoese acts of preservanew challenges, it is necessary to adapt the current legal framework by providing a mandatory exception to the right of reproduction.
Amendment 211 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36
Recital 36
Amendment 216 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) Over the last years, the functioning of the online content marketplace has gained in complexity. Online services providing access to copyright protected content uploaded by their users without the involvement of right holders have flourished and have become mainimportant sources of access to content online. This affects rightholders' possibilities to determine whether, and under which conditions, their work and other subject-matter are used as well as their possibilities to get an appropriate remuneration for it allowing for diversity and ease of access to content but also generating challenges when copyright protected content is uploaded without prior authorisation from rightsholders.
Amendment 217 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Different approaches in the Member States for acts of preservaproduction by cultural heritage institutions and educational establishments hamper cross- border cooperation and the sharing of means of preservation by cultural heritage. The collections of cultural heritage institutions, if not unique, are likely to be replicated and sit in other institutions, including those internal market, leading to an inefficient other Member States. It is possible that cultural heritage institutions would also wish to create preservation networks cross borders, to use of resources efficiently.
Amendment 220 #
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 and educational establishments 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 andthe purpose of carrying out their public interest mission in preservation, research, education, culture and teaching, for example to address technological obsolescence or the degradation of original supports, to build collections of born- digital works or for the purpose of digitisation. Such an exception should allow for the making of copies in any format or medium at any point in the life of a work or other subject-matter and to the extent required in order to produce a copy for preservation purposes onlyfor such reproduction, including via partnerships with other institutions or third parties, which could be requested to perform the act of reproduction on behalf of a cultural heritage institution within the scope of the exception.
Amendment 230 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Where information society service providers which 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, they are obliged to conclude conduct licencing agreements with rightsholders on a voluntary basis, the users' fundamental rights to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of information are often not sufficiently taken into account and their ability to assert their right of use under an exception or limitation is often unjustly curtailed by the measures put in place as part of those licenscing agreements with rightholders, unless they are eligible for the liability. In order to correct this situation and provide legal certainty to users who are exercising their right of use under an excemption 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)or limitation that exists under national law in the country in which the use is made, a legal framework governing those licencing agreements is necessary. In order to protect fundamental rights and improve legal certainty for all concerned parties in light of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it is necessary that any agreements on measures between rightsholders and information society service providers do not impose a general obligation on information society service providers to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor a general obligation actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity.
Amendment 230 #
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 when copies are owned or, held on long-term loan or are permanently held by the cultural heritage institution, or educational establishment, for example as a result of a transfer of ownership or licence agreements.
Amendment 232 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 a (new)
Recital 21 a (new)
(21 a) Cultural heritage institutions, and educational establishments have long been involved in making reproductions for individual researchers in their collections, upon their request and on an ad hoc basis. This serves to support and enrich an individual's scientific research, as a researcher who cannot travel to where a work or related subject matter is held is able to request that a reproduction be made for them in compliance with current Union rules on exceptions and limitations. Research, education and learning is increasingly taking place in a cross border environment. There is however a lack of clarity as to whether the existing exceptions or limitations in Member States provide for a cross-border effect. This situation hampers scientific research and the development of the European Research Area. This legal uncertainty should be addressed, and researchers provided with a clear framework that allows them to request a cultural heritage institution, or educational establishment to make and supply them with a reproduction of a work or other subject matter for the purposes of their research, including in a cross border context.
Amendment 236 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 b (new)
Recital 21 b (new)
(21 b) Different arrangements, based on the implementation of the exception provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC, are in place in a number of Member States in order to facilitate cultural heritage institutions, and educational establishments to give on site access to works and other subject-matter on the premises. Such arrangements exist as educational establishments and cultural heritage institutions are involved in preserving and giving access to their digital collections on the premises. Digital technologies provide new ways of giving access to those collections on the premises, for example the use of WIFI networks to give users access to collections on their own portable devices, such as mobile phones and laptops. The requirement to use dedicated terminals for giving access to content on the premises has proven impractical and outdated. At the same time, the maturity of digital preservation requires cultural heritage institutions to preserve and give access not just to digitised analogue works and other subject matter, but also to born- digital materials. Member States should therefore be required to provide for an exception to permit cultural heritage institutions, and educational establishments to give access to all digitised and born-digital collections on the premises or online. Such an exception should allow copies to be delivered on any technology to members of the public.
Amendment 240 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 c (new)
Recital 21 c (new)
(21 c) In its ruling in Case C-174/15, Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken v Stichting Leenrecht 1a, the Court of Justice recognised that the lending of e- books can fall under the same rules as the lending of physical books. When Member States apply the limitation to copyright in Article 6 of Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 1b , libraries are able to buy any physical book on the market. Once purchased, they can lend it without restrictions linked to contract terms or other measures of protection which prevent the exercise of exceptions and limitations to copyright. That provision should also apply to e- books. Moreover, with the objective of ensuring that all citizens of the Union have access to a full selection of books and other resources, all Member States should ensure that the limitation to the exclusive public lending right in Article 6 of Directive 2006/115/EC is made mandatory. _________________ 1a Judgement of the Court of Justice of 10 November 2016, Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken v Stichting Leenrecht, ECLI:EU:C:2016:856. 1b Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 28).
Amendment 242 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 d (new)
Recital 21 d (new)
(21 d) The reconciliation of the public's interest to participate in the public sphere by means of an exception regarding the use of depictions of buildings and permanent structures is necessary. Professional photographers and other authors, rightholders, consumers, institutional users and service providers are predominantly using depictions of works on the basis of a national 'freedom of panorama'exceptions and rely on legal certainty for cross-border usage.
Amendment 243 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 e (new)
Recital 21 e (new)
(21 e) Following technological developments and evolving user behaviour, a significant phenomenon of cultural creation has emerged, which relies on users uploading or displaying content, in various forms, to online services. Such user-generated content may comprise extracts or quotations of protected works or other subject-matter, which may be altered, combined or transformed for different purposes by users. Such uses of extracts or quotations within user-generated content, for various purposes such as the illustration of an idea, review or entertainment, are now widespread online and, provided that the use of such extracts or quotations of protected works or other subject-matter is proportionate, do not cause significant economic harm to the rightholders concerned and may even advertise the work used within the user-generated content.
Amendment 244 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 f (new)
Recital 21 f (new)
(21 f) Despite some overlap with existing voluntary exceptions or limitations, such as the ones for quotation and parody, the use of protected works or other subject- matter within user-generated content is nonetheless not properly covered by the existing list of exceptions or limitations, creating legal uncertainty for users. Particularly the voluntary nature of existing exceptions and limitations is significantly curtailing the development of user-generated content, which is typically disseminated in a borderless online environment. It is therefore necessary to provide a new mandatory specific exception to authorise the legitimate uses of extracts or quotations of protected works or other subject-matter within user- generated content.
Amendment 245 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 g (new)
Recital 21 g (new)
(21 g) Numerous Member States exempt certain works or other subject matter, such as official works, from copyright protection in line with Article 4 (2) of the Berne Convention. Such rules create scenarios in which content is in the public domain in a Member State, which usually results in that content not being released under permissible licenses. If other Member States lack corresponding provisions, the legal cross-border reuse of such content is prohibited. Mutual recognition of the public domain status of works resolves any inconsistencies in the cross-border use of works exempted from copyright protection.
Amendment 246 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) Cultural heritage institutions 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, the fact that copyright terms by far exceed the average commercial availability of works, 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 ina mandatory exception with cross-border effect to facilitate the re-use of 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 market. In order to take account of the difference between the timespan of commercial availability of the vast majority of works and their much longer copyright protection terms, works or other subject matter that were first published at least 10 years ago should be deemed to be out of commerce.
Amendment 249 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
Amendment 250 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22 a (new)
Recital 22 a (new)
(22 a) Several Member States have already adopted extended collective licencing regimes, legal mandates or legal presumptions facilitating the licencing of out-of-commerce works. However considering the variety of works and other subject-matter in the collections of cultural heritage institutions and the variance between collective management practices across Member States and sectors of cultural production it is necessary to provide a more efficient mechanism that can reduce complexities and also apply in sectors or for types of works where the licensing mechanisms do not provide a solution, for example, because there is no practice of collective licensing or because collective management organisations are unable to achieve sufficient representation. It is therefore necessary to provide for a mandatory exception that allows cultural heritage institutions to make out of commerce works held in their collection available online. Whereas it is essential to harmonise the scope of the new mandatory exception in order to allow cross-border uses of out of commerce works, Member States should be allowed to build on the existing extended collective licencing arrangements for certain categories of works concluded at national level. Any uses under this exception should be subject to the same opt out and publicity requirements as uses authorised by a licensing mechanism.
Amendment 251 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22 b (new)
Recital 22 b (new)
(22 b) Taking into account the specificities of national collective management organisations, the needs and requirements of cultural heritage institutions, and different types of works, Member States should be able to diverge from the mandatory exception provided for in this Directive and rely on extended collective licensing, legal mandates or legal presumptions, provided that they cover at least the same uses as those allowed under the exception, including cross-border uses. Any works not covered by such arrangements should be subject to the exception.
Amendment 256 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
Amendment 262 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25 a (new)
Recital 25 a (new)
(25 a) In order to provide legal clarity for the legitimate use of extracts or quotations of copyright-protected works, it is necessary to acknowledge the position and role of user-generated content in the online environment.
Amendment 263 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 26
Recital 26
Amendment 265 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 27
Recital 27
Amendment 268 #
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 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 adequateffectively 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 widely and explicitly available to the public for a reasonable periodt least 6 months 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. The single online portal should provide authors and other rightholders with means to oppose the making available of their works and other subject matter. It is therefore appropriate to rely on that Office to establish and manage the European portal making such information available and provide such functionality to rightholders and cultural heritage institutions. _________________ 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).
Amendment 270 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
Recital 39
Amendment 275 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 29 a (new)
Recital 29 a (new)
(29 a) The reproduction of cultural works, specifically their digitisation, will in the coming years be the most powerful tool not only for the preservation of our cultural heritage but also for providing broad access to researchers, students and the general public. In contrast, access to culture would be jeopardised if these digitisations were copyrighted. Faithful reproductions of works that do not constitute a creative transformation should not be hampered by added barriers that could have a chilling effect on digitisation of cultural heritage.
Amendment 280 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 30 a (new)
Recital 30 a (new)
(30 a) The collection, cataloguing, preservation and making available of the Union's heritage is of the utmost importance and should be strengthened for the benefit of future generations. This should be achieved notably through the preservation of published heritage. To this end, a Union legal deposit should be created in order to ensure that publications produced within and about the Union, in particular about Union law, Union history and integration, Union policy and Union democracy, institutional, parliamentary affairs and politics, and, thereby, the Union's intellectual record and future published heritage, is collected systematically. Not only should such heritage be preserved through the creation of a Union archive for publications dealing with Union- related matters, but it should also be made available to Union citizens and future generations. The European Parliament Library, as the Library of the only Union institution directly representing Union citizens, should be designated as the Union depository library. In order not to create an excessive burden on publishers, printers and importers, preferential treatment should be given to electronic publications, such as e-books, e-journals and e-magazines for deposition in the European Parliament Library, which should make available for readers publications covered by the Union legal deposit at the European Parliament Library for the purpose of research or study following best practices of similar libraries. Furthermore, the collection and delivery procedures should seek to avoid unnecessary burden by making use of existing legal deposit requirements as well as bulk collection and delivery procedures.
Amendment 281 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
Amendment 286 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 40
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 regular 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.
Amendment 289 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 41
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 requirements. 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.
Amendment 295 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
Amendment 305 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. Except in the cases referred to in Article 6, this Directive shall leave intact and shall in no way affect existing rules laid down in the Directives currently in force in this area, in particular Directives 96/9/EC, 2000/31/EC, 2001/29/EC, 2006/115/EC, 2009/24/EC, 2012/28/EU and 2014/26/EU.
Amendment 311 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)
(2a) 'beneficiary' means any individual or entity, public or private, with lawful access to content;
Amendment 312 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) For the purposes of this Directive, it is necessary to defineclarify the sconceptpe 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, weeklotection set out in Article s2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC. In order to improve legal certainty for all concerned parties, and to ensure the freedom to carry out certain acts necessary for monthly magazines of general or special ithe normal functioning of the Internest 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 doess well as to take account of certain fundamental rights, these Articles should not extend to acts of hyperlinking, which do not constitute communication to the public.
Amendment 313 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 3
Article 2 – paragraph 3
(3) ‘'cultural heritage institution’' means a publicly accessible library ories, educational establishments and museums, ans well as archive or as, film or audio heritage institutions and public-service broadcasting organisations;
Amendment 314 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 3 a (new)
(3a) 'user generated content' means an image, a set of moving images with or without sound, a phonogram, text, software, data, or a combination of the above, which is uploaded to an online service by one or more users;
Amendment 315 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Amendment 317 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 4 a (new)
(4a) 'out of commerce work' means a work or other subject-matter that is not available to the public through customary channels of commerce . Out of commerce works include both works that have previously been available commercially and works that have never been commercially available.
Amendment 318 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 4 a (new)
(4a) 'out of commerce work' means a work or other subject-matter that is not available to the public through customary channels of commerce . Out of commerce works include both works that have previously been available commercially and works that have never been commercially available.
Amendment 320 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1
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 lawful acc. This includess, for the sole purposes of scientific researchtext and data mining, the permission to extract contents of databases and to make reproductions.
Amendment 326 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 329 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States shall provide for rightholders who market works or other subject-matter primarily for research purposes, to have an obligation to allow research organisations not having lawful access to those works or other subject- matter access to datasets that are optimised for enabling them to carry out text and data mining on all aspects of the works. Member States may also provide for rightholders to have a right to request compensation for meeting this obligation as long as that compensation is related to the cost of formatting these datasets and does not exceed what is necessary and appropriate to cover those costs.
Amendment 330 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. Any contractual provision or legal protection of technological measures contrary to the exception provided for in paragraph 1 shall be unenforceable.
Amendment 332 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. Rightholders shall not be allowed to apply measures to ensure the security and integrity of the networks and databases where the works or other subject-matter are hosted. Such measures shall notechnologically limit the right to exercise the exception adopted pursuant gto beyond what is necessary to achieve that objectiveparagraph 1.
Amendment 337 #
4. Member States shall encourage rightholders and research organisations to define commonly-agreed best practices concerning the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 3designate a facility to safely store datasets used for text and data mining and to make them accessible for verification purposes.
Amendment 340 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 341 #
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 343 #
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 teaching, to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, provided that the use:provided that the use is accompanied by the indication of the source, including the author's name, unless this turns out to be impossible.
Amendment 350 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 351 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36
Recital 36
Amendment 354 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 358 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
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 licenceivalent extended collective licencing agreements authorising at least the acts described in paragraph 1 are easily available in the marketand affordable.
Amendment 364 #
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 licenceextended collective licencing agreements authorising the acts described in paragraph 1 for educational establishments.
Amendment 366 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. The use of works and other subject- matter for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching through secure electronic networksonline undertaken in compliance with the provisions of national law adopted pursuant to this Article shall be deemed to occur solely in the Member State from where the educational establishment is establishedactivity originates.
Amendment 368 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. Member States may provide for fair compensation for the harm incurred by the rightholders due to the use of theirshall ensure that the rightholders have the right to grant royalty-free licences authorising the acts described in paragraph 1, generally or as regards specific types of works orf other subject-matter pursuant to paragraph 1that they may choose.
Amendment 369 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) Over the last years, the functioning of the online content marketplace has gained in complexity. Online services providing access tohosting copyright protected content uploaded by their users without the involvement of right holders have flourished and have become mainimportant sources of access to content online. This affects rightholders' possibilities to determine whether, and under which conditions, their work and other subject-matter are used as well as their possibilities to get an appropriate remuneration for it allowing for diversity and ease of access to content but also generating challenges when copyright protected content is uploaded without prior authorisation from rightholders.
Amendment 375 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – title
Article 5 – title
Amendment 377 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 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, Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive, permitting cultural heritage institutions or educational establishments, to make copies of any works or other subject-matter that are permanently in their collections or publicly accessible on the Internet, in any format or medium, forto the sole purpose of the preservation of such works or other subject-matter and to the extent necessary for such preservationextent necessary for such reproduction, for the purpose of, individually or collaboratively with others, carrying out their public interest mission in preservation, research, culture, education and teaching: a) Any contractual provision contrary to the exception set out in paragraph 1 shall be unenforceable. b) Member States shall recognise that once a work is in the public domain (copyright and related rights in a work have expired or never existed), faithful reproductions in full or in part of that work, regardless of the mode of reproduction and including digitisation, shall equally not be subject to copyright or related rights.
Amendment 378 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 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, Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive, permitting cultural heritage institutions or educational establishments, to make copies of any works or other subject-matter that are permanently in their collections or publicly accessible on the Internet, in any format or medium, forto the sole purpose of the preservation of such works or other subject-matter and to the extent necessary for such preservation. extent necessary for such reproduction, for the purpose of, individually or collaboratively with others, carrying out their public interest mission in preservation, research, culture, education and teaching.
Amendment 382 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Any contractual provision contrary to the exception set out in paragraph 1 shall be unenforceable.
Amendment 383 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Member States shall recognise that once a work is in the public domain (copyright and related rights in a work have expired or never existed), faithful reproductions in full or in part of that work, regardless of the mode of reproduction and including digitisation, shall equally not be subject to copyright or related rights.
Amendment 384 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5a Freedom of panorama Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC and point (a) of Article 5 and Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, permitting the reproduction and use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places. Any contractual provision contrary to the exception provided for in this Article shall be unenforceable.
Amendment 386 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 b (new)
Article 5 b (new)
Article 5b Access for the purposes of research or private study to the collections of cultural heritage institutions or educational establishments 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 for the communication or making available of works and other subject matter contained in the collections of cultural heritage institutions, or educational establishments, for the purpose of research or private study, to members of the public on the premises of those institutions, or establishments or online. 2. Any contractual provision contrary to the exception set out in paragraph (1) shall be unenforceable.
Amendment 386 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Where information society service providers that store and provide access to the public to copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users, thereby going beyondinformation provided by a recepient of the service conduct licencing agreements with rightsholders on a voluntary basis, the users' fundamental rights to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of information are often not sufficiently taken into account and their ability to assert their right of use under an exception or limitation is often unjustly curtailed by the measures provision of physical facilities and performing an act of communication to the publut in place as part of those licencing agreements. In order to correct this situation and provide legal certainty to users who are exercising their right of use under an exception or limitation that exists under national law in the country in whic,h they are obliged to conclud use is made, a legal framework governing those licenscing 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 Councilis necessary. In order to protect fundamental rights and improve legal certainty for all concerned parties in light of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it is necessary that any agreements on measures between rightsholders and information society service providers do not impose a general obligation on information society service providers to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor a general obligation actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity. 34 . _________________ 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 387 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 b (new)
Article 5 b (new)
Article 5b Document delivery by cultural heritage institutions and educational establishments 1. Member States shall provide an exception 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)(a) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive, permitting cultural heritage institutions, or educational establishments to make reproductions in any format or medium upon request, for the sole purpose of a person's scientific research or private study, as long as the source, including the author's name is indicated, unless inclusion of the name is impractical. 2. Any contractual provision contrary to the exception set out in paragraph 1 shall be unenforceable.
Amendment 388 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 c (new)
Article 5 c (new)
Article 5c Public lending of literary works 1. Member States shall provide for a limitation to the rights provided in Article 1 of Directive 2006/115/EC in order to allow the lending of literary works in any format to the public, where such works have been legitimately acquired. This is without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 6(2) and 6(3) of Directive 2006/115/EC . 2. Any contractual provision contrary to the exception provided for in paragraph 1 shall be unenforceable. 3. Member States shall provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, and Article 11(1) of this Directive, permitting libraries to make reproductions of literary works in order to facilitate public lending where the literary works have been legitimately acquired, but are not available in the format or medium required as part of the lending service. 4. Member States, libraries, authors and publishers shall work together to ensure that libraries can acquire and lend on reasonable terms, including remotely, all commercially available literary works in any format, including digital, that have legally entered their collections or to which they have legal access. The Commission shall report on progress towards this goal no later than two years after [date of entry into force of this Directive].
Amendment 389 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 d (new)
Article 5 d (new)
Article 5d Freedom of Panorama 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 and point (a) of Article 5 and Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, permitting the reproduction and use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places. 2. Any contractual provision contrary to the exception provided for in this Article shall be unenforceable.
Amendment 390 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 e (new)
Article 5 e (new)
Article 5e User-generated content exception 1. Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Directive 2001/29/EC, point (a) of Article 5 and Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, point (a) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 13 of this Directive in order to allow for the digital use of quotations or extracts of works and other subject-matter comprised within user-generated content for purposes such as criticism, review, entertainment, illustration, caricature, parody or pastiche provided that the quotations or extracts: (a) relate to works or other subject- matter that have already been lawfully made available to the public; (b) are accompanied by the indication of the source, including the author's name, unless this turns out to be impossible; and (c) are used in accordance with fair practice and in a manner that does not extend beyond the specific purpose for which they are being used. 2. Any contractual provision contrary to the exception provided for in this paragraph 1 shall be unenforceable.
Amendment 391 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 f (new)
Article 5 f (new)
Amendment 392 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Amendment 405 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
Amendment 406 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States shall provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Article 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, permitting cultural heritage institutions, to make copies of Out of Commerce Works that are permanently located in their collections available online on their own online services for non-commercial purposes, provided that the name of the author or any other identifiable rightholder is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible.
Amendment 407 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Member States may provide that the exception adopted pursuant to paragraph 2 does not apply in sectors or for types of works where extended collective licensing based solutions provided for in paragraph 1 are available or can be expected to become available. Member states shall, in consultation with authors, other rightholders, collective management organisations and cultural heritage institutions, determine the availability of extended collective licensing based solutions for specific sectors or types of works.
Amendment 408 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 c (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Member States shall, in consultation with rightholders, collective management organisations and cultural heritage institutions, ensure that the requirements used to determine whether works and other subject-matter can be licensed in accordance with paragraph 1 or used in accordance with paragraph 2 do not extend beyond what is necessary and reasonable and do not preclude the possibility to determine the out-of- commerce status of a collection as a whole, when it is reasonable to presume that all works or other subject-matter in the collection are out of commerce
Amendment 409 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Amendment 413 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – point c
Article 7 – paragraph 4 – point c
(c) the cultural heritage institution is established, when a Member State or a third country could not be determined, after reasonableproven efforts, according to points (a) and (b).
Amendment 414 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 5
Article 7 – paragraph 5
Amendment 415 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. Works or other subject-matter covered by a licence grantused in accordance with Article 7 may be used by the cultural heritage institution in accordance with the terms of the licence in all Member States.
Amendment 415 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
Amendment 416 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that information that allows the identification of the works or other subject-matter covered by a licence granted in accordance with Article 7 and information about the possibility of rightholders to object referred to in Article 7(1)(c) are made publicly accessible in a single online portal for at least six months before the works or other subject-matter are digitised, distributed, communicated to the public or made available in Member States other than the one where the licence is granted, and for the whole duration of the licence.
Amendment 423 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11
Article 11
Amendment 431 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 a (new)
Recital 38 a (new)
(38 a) Any agreements on measures between rightsholders and information society service providers that might be concluded should provide for an obligation for rightholders to provide the necessary data to allow the services to identify their content in a publicly accessible database. Such obligation should help clarify the responsibility of rightholders for claims made by third parties over the use of works which they would have identified as being their own in the implementation of any agreement reached with the service provider.
Amendment 437 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
Recital 39
Amendment 445 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 a (new)
Article 11 a (new)
Article 11a Provision of hyperlinks to works The provision on a website of hyperlinks to works available on another website, where such links only contain information necessary to find and, or request the source's contents, shall not constitute a communication to the public.
Amendment 446 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12
Article 12
Amendment 449 #
Proposal for a directive
Chapter 4 – title
Chapter 4 – title
Certain uses of protected content by users of online services
Amendment 458 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 40
Recital 40
(40) Certain rightholders such as authors and performers as well as bodies who use public money for the purchase of content 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, including cases where subsequently these works are licensed to or these rights are transferred to third parties . 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 regular sharing of adequate information by their contractual counterparts or, their successors in title or third parties to whom licences have been granted or rights have been transferred is important for the transparency and balance in the system that governs the remuneration of authors and performers.
Amendment 459 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – title
Article 13 – title
Use of protected content by users of information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users
Amendment 465 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. IWhere 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 cooperationconclude agreements with rightsholders, take measures to ensure the funche implementationing of such 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 provideshall respect the users' fundamental rights and shall in particular not convey an obligation upon the information society service provider to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor a general obligation actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity. The service providers shall cooperate and work together with rightsholders 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-matterto ensure that the functioning and implementation of such agreements are full and transparent towards the users.
Amendment 467 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 41
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 requirements. 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.
Amendment 484 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 43 a (new)
Recital 43 a (new)
(43a) There is in many cases a lack of information and availability of data regarding the holders of copyright and related rights, which prevents potential users of works to obtain a license to use or reproduce that work and directly remunerate the author or creator of that work. A centralised database should therefore be established to enable an easier identification of works subject to copyright and related rights, decrease complexity and costs in authors and performers's rights administration and to facilitate the remuneration and payment of licenses to artists and performers for their work.
Amendment 488 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that the servicenational law 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 paragraph 1users access to a court or other relevant authority for the purpose of asserting their right of use under an exception or limitation.
Amendment 493 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. Except in the cases referred to in Article 6, this Directive shall leave intact and shall in no way affect existing rules laid down in the Directives currently in force in this area, in particular Directives 96/9/EC, 2000/31/EC, 2001/29/EC, 2006/115/EC, 2009/24/EC, 2012/28/EU and 2014/26/EU.
Amendment 495 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The agreements referred to in paragraph 1 shall be implemented without prejudice to the use of works made within an exception or limitation to copyright. To this end, Member States shall ensure that users are allowed to communicate rapidly and in an effective manner with the rightholders who have requested any measures within the scope of agreements referred to in paragraph 1 in order to challenge the application of those measures.
Amendment 498 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Amendment 514 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 3
Article 2 – paragraph 3
(3) ‘cultural heritage institution’ means a publicly accessible library ories, educational establishments and museums, ans well as archive or as, film or audio heritage institutions and public-service broadcasting organisations;
Amendment 517 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 3 a (new)
(3a) "user generated content" means an image, a set of moving images with or without sound, a phonogram, text, software, data, or a combination of the above, which is uploaded to an online service by one or more users;
Amendment 518 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that authors and performers receive on a regular basis and taking into account the specificities of each sector, timely, adequate and sufficientnd comprehensive information on the exploitation of their works and performances from those to whom they havir works are licensed or transferred their rightsheir rights are transferred, notably as regards modes of exploitation, revenues generated and remuneration due.
Amendment 519 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Amendment 523 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 4 a (new)
(4a) 'Out of commerce work' means a work or other subject-matter that is not available to the public through customary channels of commerce, and it refers to both works that have previously been available commercially and works that have never been commercially available;
Amendment 527 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 2
Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. The obligation in paragraph 1 shall be proportionate and effective and shall ensure an appropriate high level of transparency in every sector. However, in those cases where the administrative burden resulting from the obligation would be disproportionate in view of the revenues generated by the exploitation of the work or performance, Member States may adjust the obligation in paragraph 1, provided that the obligation remains effective and ensures an appropriate level of transparency.
Amendment 533 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Amendment 538 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 4
Article 14 – paragraph 4
Amendment 538 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1
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 lawful acc. This includess, for the sole purposes of scientific researchtext and data mining, the permission to extract contents of databases and to make reproductions.
Amendment 547 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States shall provide for rightholders who market works or other subject-matter primarily for research purposes, to have an obligation to allow research organisations not having lawful access to those works or other subject- matter access to datasets that are optimised for enabling them to carry out text and data mining on all aspects of the works. Member States may also provide for rightholders to have a right to request compensation for meeting this obligation as long as that compensation is related to the cost of formatting these datasets and does not exceed what is necessary and appropriate to cover those costs.
Amendment 548 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. Any contractual provision or legal protection of technological measures contrary to the exception provided for in paragraph 1 shall be unenforceable.
Amendment 554 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. Rightholders shall not be allowed to apply measures to ensure the security and integrity of the networks and databases where the works or other subject-matter are hosted. Such measures shall notechnologically limit the right to exercise the exception adopted pursuant gto beyond what is necessary to achieve that objectiveparagraph 1.
Amendment 558 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point -a (new) Directive 96/9/EC
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point -a (new) Directive 96/9/EC
-a In Article 1, the following paragraph is added: "3a. Protection under this Directive shall apply only to databases that are recorded in a single publicly accessible online registry established and managed by the European Union Intellectual Property Office."
Amendment 559 #
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 exceptions and the limitation provided for in Directive [this Directive];
Amendment 559 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 4
Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall encourage rightholders and research organisations to define commonly-agreed best practices concerning the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 3designate a facility to safely store datasets used for text and data mining and to make them accessible for verification purposes.
Amendment 560 #
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 exceptions and the limitation provided for in Directive [this Directive];
Amendment 561 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point -a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point -a (new)
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
(-a) In Article 5(1), the following sentence is added: "Acts of reproduction referred to in Article 2 are considered to be permissible if they are a necessary precondition for lawful acts of communication to the public or making available in accordance with Article 3.
Amendment 564 #
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 exceptions and the limitation provided for in Directive [this Directive];
Amendment 564 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Amendment 565 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point (n)
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point (n)
Amendment 566 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point (o a)
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point (o a)
(ba) In Article 5(3), the following point is added: "(oa) use by communication or making available by libraries, educational establishments, museums or archives for the purpose of publicly available catalogues of their respective collections;"
Amendment 567 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 5 – paragraph 5
Article 5 – paragraph 5
Amendment 568 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point c d (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point c d (new)
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
(cd) In Article 6, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: "3. For the purposes of this Directive, the expression '"technological measures'" means any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts, in respect of works or other subject- matter, which are not authorised by the rightholder of any copyright or any right related to copyright as provided for by law or the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC, and which are not authorised by national or Union law. Technological measures shall be deemed '"effective'" where the use of a protected work or other subject -matter is controlled by the rightholders through application of an access control or protection process, such as encryption, scrambling or other transformation of the work or other subject-matter or a copy control mechanism, which achieves the protection objective." Or. en (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?qid=1491298593782&uri=CELEX:32001L0029)
Amendment 569 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point c e (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point c e (new)
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
(ce) In Article 6, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: "3. For the purposes of this Directive, the expression '"technological measures'" means any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts, in respect of works or other subject- matter, which are not authorised by the rightholder of any copyright or any right related to copyright as provided for by law or the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC, and which are not authorised by national or Union law. Technological measures shall be deemed '"effective'" where the use of a protected work or other subject -matter is controlled by the rightholders through application of an access control or protection process, such as encryption, scrambling or other transformation of the work or other subject-matter or a copy control mechanism, which achieves the protection objective." Or. en (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?qid=1491298593782&uri=CELEX:32001L0029)
Amendment 570 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b d (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b d (new)
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 6 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 5 a
Article 6 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 5 a
(bd) In Article 6(4), the following subparagraph is added: The protections provided for in paragraph 1 and 2 shall not apply to acts described in paragraph 1 and 2 whose sole purpose is to enable a user's right to enjoy the exceptions and limitations to copyright and related rights outlined in this Directive or in Directive 96/9/EC, Directive 2009/24/EC Directive 2012/28/EU or Directive ... [this directive], to the extent necessary to benefit from that exception or limitation and where that beneficiary has legal access to the protected work or subject-matter concerned;
Amendment 570 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – title
Article 4 – title
Use of works and other subject-matter in digital and cross-border teachingresearch and education activities
Amendment 571 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b b (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b b (new)
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 6 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 4 a (new)
(bb) In Article 6(4), the following subparagraph is added: The protections provided for in paragraph 1 and 2 shall not apply to acts described in paragraph 1 and 2 whose sole purpose is to enable a user's right to enjoy the exceptions and limitations to copyright and related rights outlined in this Directive or in Directive 96/9/EC, Directive 2009/24/EC Directive 2012/28/EU or Directive ... [this directive], to the extent necessary to benefit from that exception or limitation and where that beneficiary has legal access to the protected work or subject-matter concerned;
Amendment 572 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Amendment 575 #
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 teaching, to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achievedresearch and education, provided that the use:
Amendment 585 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 603 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States shall provide that any contractual provision contrary to the exception or limitation adopted pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be unenforceable.
Amendment 606 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 614 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 626 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. The use of works and other subject- matter for the sole purpose of illustration for tresearching through secure electronic networks or education online undertaken in compliance with the provisions of national law adopted pursuant to this Article shall be deemed to occur solely in the Member State from where the educational establishment is establishedactivity originates.
Amendment 628 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall ensure that rightholders have the right to grant royalty-free licences authorising the acts described in paragraph 1, generally or as regards specific types of works or other subject-matter that they may choose. Member States may provide for fair compensation for the demonstrable harm incurred by the rightholders due to the use of their works or other subject-matter pursuant to paragraph 1, provided that it does not go beyond what is necessary and proportionate to compensate such demonstrable harm, and that rightholders do not require that the beneficiaries of the exception or limitation referred to in paragraph 1 provide information on individual uses made pursuant to paragraph 1.
Amendment 635 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – title
Article 5 – title
Amendment 641 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 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, Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive, permitting cultural heritage institutions, or educational establishments to make copies of any works or other subject-matter that are permanently in their collections or publicly accessible on the Internet, in any format or medium, forto the sole purpose of the preservation of such works or other subject-matter and to the extent necessary for such preservation. extent necessary for such reproduction, for the purpose of, individually or collaboratively with others, carrying out their public interest mission in preservation, research, culture, education and teaching.
Amendment 652 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Member States shall recognise that once a work is in the public domain because the copyright and related rights therein have expired or never existed, faithful reproductions in full or in part of that work, regardless of the mode of reproduction and including digitisation, shall equally not be subject to copyright or related rights.
Amendment 656 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Any contractual provision contrary to the exception set out in paragraph 1 shall be unenforceable.
Amendment 657 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5 a Document delivery by cultural heritage institutions and educational establishments 1. Member States shall provide an exception 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)(a) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive, permitting cultural heritage institutions or educational establishments to make reproductions in any format or medium upon request, for the sole purpose of a person's scientific research or private study, as long as the source, including the author's name is indicated, unless inclusion of the name is impractical. 2. Any contractual provision contrary to the exception set out in paragraph 1 shall be unenforceable.
Amendment 659 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 e (new)
Article 5 e (new)
Article 5 e User-generated content exception 1. Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Directive 2001/29/EC, point (a) of Article 5 and Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, point (a) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 13 of this Directive in order to allow for the digital use of quotations or extracts of works and other subject-matter comprised within user-generated content for purposes such as criticism, review, entertainment, illustration, caricature, parody or pastiche provided that the quotations or extracts: (a) relate to works or other subject-matter that have already been lawfully made available to the public; (b) are accompanied by the indication of the source, including the author's name, unless this turns out to be impossible; and (c) are used in accordance with fair practice and in a manner that does not extend beyond the specific purpose for which they are being used. 2. Any contractual provision contrary to the exception provided for in this paragraph 1 shall be unenforceable.
Amendment 660 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 c (new)
Article 5 c (new)
Article 5 c Public lending of literary works 1. Member States shall provide for a limitation to the rights provided in Article 1 of Directive 2006/115/EC in order to allow the lending of literary works in any format to the public, where such works have been legitimately acquired. This is without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 6(2) and 6(3) of Directive 2006/115/EC . 2. Any contractual provision contrary to the exception provided for in paragraph 1 shall be unenforceable. 3. Member States shall provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, and Article 11(1) of this Directive, permitting libraries to make reproductions of literary works in order to facilitate public lending where the literary works have been legitimately acquired, but are not available in the format or medium required as part of the lending service. 4. Member States, libraries, authors and publishers shall work together to ensure that libraries can acquire and lend on reasonable terms, including remotely, all commercially available literary works in any format, including digital, that have legally entered their collections or to which they have legal access. The Commission shall report on progress towards this goal no later than two years after ... [date of entry into force of this Directive].
Amendment 667 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 d (new)
Article 5 d (new)
Article 5 d Freedom of Panorama 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 and point (a) of Article 5 and Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, permitting the reproduction and use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places. 2. Any contractual provision contrary to the exception provided for in this Article shall be unenforceable.
Amendment 670 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 b (new)
Article 5 b (new)
Article 5 b Access for the purposes of research or private study to the collections of cultural heritage institutions or educational establishments 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 for the communication or making available of works and other subject matter contained in the collections of cultural heritage institutions, or educational establishments, for the purpose of research or private study, to members of the public on the premises of those institutions, or establishments and online. 2. Any contractual provision contrary to the exception set out in paragraph (1) shall be unenforceable.
Amendment 671 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 f (new)
Article 5 f (new)
Article 5 f Mutual recognition of public domain provisions Member States shall recognize works and other subject matter to be in the public domain if such works are exempted from copyright protection in the country of origin of the works.
Amendment 673 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Amendment 675 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Any contractual provision contrary to the exceptions and limitations provided for in this Directive shall be unenforceable.
Amendment 690 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
This legal mechanism may, among others, be based on extended collective licensing, a legal mandate or a presumption.
Amendment 692 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Article 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, permitting cultural heritage institutions, to make copies of out-of- commerce works that are located in their collections available online, provided that: (a) the name of the author or any other identifiable rightholder is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible; (b) all rightholders may at any time object to their works or other subject-matter being deemed to be out of commerce and exclude the application of the exception to their works or other subject-matter.
Amendment 694 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Member States may provide that the exception adopted pursuant to paragraph 1a does not apply in sectors or for types of works where extended collective licensing-based solutions provided for in paragraph 1 are available. Member states shall, in consultation with authors, other rightholders, collective management organisations and cultural heritage institutions, determine the availability of extended collective licensing-based solutions for specific sectors or types of works.
Amendment 695 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 c (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 1 c (new)
1 c. Member States shall, in consultation with rightholders, collective management organisations and cultural heritage institutions, ensure that the requirements used to determine whether works and other subject-matter can be licensed in accordance with paragraph 1 or used in accordance with paragraph 1a do not extend beyond what is necessary and reasonable and do not preclude the possibility to determine the out-of- commerce status of a collection as a whole, when it is reasonable to presume that all works or other subject-matter in the collection are out of commerce. In any case, works that have first been published at least 10 years ago shall be deemed to be out of commerce, without prejudice to the possibility for rightsholders to object to their works or other subject-matter being deemed to be out of commerce in accordance with paragraph 1 or 1a.
Amendment 696 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Amendment 707 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 5
Article 7 – paragraph 5
Amendment 711 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. Works or other subject-matter covered by a licence grantused in accordance with Article 7 may be used by the cultural heritage institution in accordance with the terms of the licence in all Member States.
Amendment 715 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that information that allows the identification of the works or other subject-matter covered by a licence granted in accordance with Article 7 and information about the possibility of rightholders to object referred to in Article 7(1)(c) are made publicly accessible in a single online portal for at least six months before the works or other subject-matter are digitised, distributed, communicated to the public or made available in Member States other than the one where the licence is granted, and for the whole duration of the licence.
Amendment 728 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 a (new)
Article 10 a (new)
Article 10 a Union Legal Deposit 1. Member States shall ensure that publications covered by national legal deposit requirements and published within the Union or related to Union matters shall also be subject to a Union Legal Deposit. 2. The European Parliament Library shall be entitled to delivery, free of charge, of one copy of every publication referred to in paragraph 1. 3. The obligation set out in paragraph 1 shall be rendered under equivalent terms as the national deposit requirements and shall apply to publishers, printers and importers of publications for the works they publish, print or import in the Union. Member States shall allow for the bulk collection and bulk delivery of publications referred to in paragraph 1 by national libraries or other designated agents. 4. From the day of the delivery to the European Parliament Library, the publications referred to in paragraph 1 shall become part of the European Parliament Library permanent collection. They shall be made available to users of the European Parliament Library's services. 5. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt decisions and delegated acts to specify the modalities relating to the delivery to the European Parliament Library of publications referred to in paragraph 1 and also of publications created or published by the Union and its institutions.
Amendment 731 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11
Article 11
Amendment 785 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 a (new)
Article 11 a (new)
Article 11 a Provision of hyperlinks to works The provision on a website of hyperlinks to works available on another website, where such links only contain information necessary to find or request the source's contents, shall not constitute a communication to the public.
Amendment 787 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12
Article 12
Amendment 797 #
Proposal for a directive
Chapter 4 – title
Chapter 4 – title
Certain uses of protected content by users of online services
Amendment 798 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13
Article 13
Amendment 804 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – title
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 uploainformation provided by their users
Amendment 820 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. IWhere information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or oinformation provided by recipients of ther subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning 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 oervice, conclude agreements with rightholders, the implementation of such agreements shall respect the users' fundamental rights and shall in particular nother 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 convey an obligation upon the information society service provider to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor a general obligation actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity. The service providers shall cooperate and work together with rightholders to ensure that the functioning and implementation of such agreements are full and transparent towards the users.
Amendment 833 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. In order to ensure the transparency of the agreements mentioned in paragraph 1, rightholders shall provide, in a publicly accessible database, all the necessary data related to the holder of the right, the protected subject matter and relevant territories, in order to allow the service providers to identify accurately their content.
Amendment 835 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. In order to ensure a proportionate implementation of the voluntary agreements mentioned in paragraph 1, Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that rightholders and information society service providers make available to the beneficiary of an exception or limitation provided for in national law in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 2001/29 and with [Articles XXX of this Directive] the means of benefiting from that exception or limitation, to the extent necessary to benefit from that exception or limitation.
Amendment 845 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that the servicenational law 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 paragraph 1users with access to a court or other relevant authority for the purpose of asserting their right of use under an exception or limitation.
Amendment 848 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. The agreements referred to in paragraph 1 shall be implemented without prejudice to the use of works made within an exception or limitation to copyright. To this end, Member States shall ensure that users are allowed to communicate rapidly and in an effective manner with the rightholders who have requested any measures within the scope of agreements referred to in paragraph 1 in order to challenge the application of those measures.
Amendment 855 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Amendment 872 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13 a Right of use under an exception or limitation 1. Member States shall ensure that national law provides users with the necessary mechanisms, including the possibility of access to court, to exercise the right of use a work or other subject matter in application of an exception or limitation under this Directive, Directive 2001/29/EC, Directive 96/09/EC, Directive 2009/24/EC and Directive 2012/28/EU. 2. The right of use of a work or other subject-matter in accordance to paragraph 1 shall not be limited by technological measures in application of Article 6 of Directive 2001/29/EC.
Amendment 879 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that authors and performers, performers, and those bodies who use public money for the purchase of content, receive on a regular basis and taking into account the specificities of each sector, timely, adequate and sufficientnd comprehensive information on the exploitation of their works and performances from those to whom they have licensed or transferred their rightsor by whom works are licensed or rights are transferred, notably as regards modes of exploitation, payments made, revenues generated and remuneration due. Such information should be made freely available in the public domain.
Amendment 894 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 14 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. If those to whom the authors' or performers' works have been licensed or transferred, have licensed themselves the works or transferred themselves the rights to third parties, then authors and performers and those bodies who use public money for the purchase of content, shall also be able to rely upon the provision of information in accordance with paragraph 1 from those third parties, provided that the third parties' acts of usage are substantial for the commercial exploitation of the work.
Amendment 899 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 2
Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. The obligation in paragraph 1 shall be proportionate and effective and shall ensure an appropriate high level of transparency in every sector. However, in those cases where the administrative burden resulting from the obligation would be disproportionate in view of the revenues generated by the exploitation of the work or performance, Member States may adjust the obligation in paragraph 1, provided that the obligation remains effective and ensures an appropriate level of transparency.
Amendment 911 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Amendment 920 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 4
Article 14 – paragraph 4
Amendment 922 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 a (new)
Article 14 a (new)
Article 14 a Establishment of a central database 1. The Commission is empowered to take measures for the establishment of a central database enabling the electronic transfer of data on works subject to copyright and other related rights from existing databases of collective management organisations and providing the possibility for independent authors or performers to submit individually the data related to their respective works. 2. The database shall provide the following non exhaustive information regarding the work subject to copyright and related rights : (a) the type of use (b) the means of distribution (c) the territory (d) the duration of the copyright (e) the name of the holder(s) of the relevant rights (d) the organisation or person managing the rights (f) the rights metadata 3. For the purpose of paragraph 1, collective management organisations shall make their databases available in the public domain. 4. The database shall provide to the user the possibility to request, obtain and pay for the use of the content subject to copyright and related rights through a secure online platform, or in cases where the content cannot be obtained directly, the possibility to contact the collective management organisation or any other third party managing the rights. 5. The Commission is empowered to take measures to ensure that the database is managed in an independent and transparent manner.
Amendment 972 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point -a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 1 – point -a (new)
Directive 96/9/EC
Article 1 – paragraph 3a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 3a (new)
(-a) In Article 1, the following paragraph is added: "3a. Protection under this Directive shall apply only to databases that are recorded in a single publicly accessible online registry established and managed by the European Union Intellectual Property Office."
Amendment 974 #
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 exceptions and the limitation provided for in Directive [this Directive];
Amendment 976 #
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 exceptions and the limitation provided for in Directive [this Directive];
Amendment 977 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point -a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point -a (new)
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 2 – introductory part
Article 2 – introductory part
(-a) In Article 2 the introductory part is replaced by the following: "2. Member States shall provide for the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit direct or indirect, temporary or permanent reproduction by any means and in any form that preserves the inner structure of the work or other subject-matter, in whole or in part:
Amendment 978 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point -a a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point -a a (new)
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 5 – paragraph 1 –subparagraph 1 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 –subparagraph 1 a (new)
(-a a) In Article 5(1), subparagraph 1 a (new) is added: "The acts of reproduction referred to in Article 2 are considered to be permissible if they are a necessary precondition for lawful acts of communication to the public or making available in accordance with Article 3.
Amendment 979 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point -a b (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point -a b (new)
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
(-a b) In Article 5 (2) the introductory part is replaced by the following: "2. Member States shall provide for exceptions or limitations to the reproduction right provided for in Article 2 in the following cases:"
Amendment 982 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new)
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
(a a) In Article 5(3) the introductory part is replaced by the following: "3. Member States shall provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 in the following cases :"
Amendment 984 #
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 exceptions and the limitation provided for in Directive [this Directive];
Amendment 985 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point n
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point n
(b a) In Article 5(3), point (n) is replaced by the following: "(n) use through communication or making available, for the purpose of research or private study, to members of the public of works and other subject- matter by establishments referred to in point (c) of paragraph 2 which are contained in their collections;"
Amendment 987 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b b (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b b (new)
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point o a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point o a (new)
(b b) In Article 5(3), the following point is added: "(oa) use through communication or making available by libraries, educational establishments, museums or archives for the purpose of publicly available catalogues of their respective collections;"
Amendment 988 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b c (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b c (new)
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 5 – paragraph 5
Article 5 – paragraph 5
(b c) Article 5(5) is replaced by the following: "5. Any contractual provision contrary to the exceptions and limitations provided for in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall be unenforceable."
Amendment 989 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b d (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b d (new)
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
(b d) In Article 6, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: "3. For the purposes of this Directive, the expression "technological measures" means any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts, in respect of works or other subject-matter, which are not authorised by the rightholder of any copyright or any right related to copyright as provided for by law or the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC, and which are not authorised by national or Union law. Technological measures shall be deemed "effective" where the use of a protected work or other subject- matter is controlled by the rightholders through application of an access control or protection process, such as encryption, scrambling or other transformation of the work or other subject-matter or a copy control mechanism, which achieves the protection objective."
Amendment 990 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b e (new)
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b e (new)
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Article 6 – paragraph 4
(b e) In Article 6(4), the following subparagraph is added: "The protections provided for in paragraph 1 and 2 shall not apply to acts described in paragraph 1 and 2 whose sole purpose is to enable a user's right to enjoy the exceptions and limitations to copyright and related rights outlined in this Directive or in Directive 96/9/EC, Directive 2009/24/EC Directive 2012/28/EU or Directive ... [this directive], to the extent necessary to benefit from that exception or limitation and where that beneficiary has legal access to the protected work or subject-matter concerned;"
Amendment 995 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 2