16 Amendments of Emil RADEV related to 2016/0280(COD)
Amendment 133 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9 a (new)
Recital 9 a (new)
(9а) Furthermore, there is widespread acknowledgement that access to 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 smaller research organisations, especially where there is no lawful access to content via, for example, subscriptions to scientific publications or open access licences. In the Union, research organisations such as universities and research institutes, as well as entities such as public libraries and cultural heritage institutions which support research, encounter difficulties in gaining lawful access to the volume of digitally stored information required for new knowledge to be sought by means of text and data mining.
Amendment 143 #
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 reproducfor research organisations and also to the right to preventpublic libraries to have access to text in a format that enables information to be extractioned from a database. The newit. This exception should be without prejudice to the existing mandatory exception on temporary acts of reproduction laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, which should continue to apply to text and data mining techniques which do not involve the making of copies going beyond the scope of that exception. Research organisations and public libraries should also benefit from the exception when they engage into public- private partnerships.
Amendment 162 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) In view of athe 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 a 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 necessary to pursue the objective of ensuring the security and integrity of the system and should not undermine the effective application of the exception.
Amendment 167 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) There is noa need to provide for compensation for rightholders as regards uses under the text and data mining exception introduced by this Directive given that in view of the nature and scope of the exception the harm should be minimalthe exception which allows research organisations and public libraries that do not have lawful access to information, to have access to normalised data suitable for text and data mining, but only in so far as such compensation is proportionate to the cost of the data normalisation process.
Amendment 176 #
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. TAlongside uneven application in the Member States, the scope of those exceptions or limitations as they apply to digital uses is unclear. In addition, there is a lack of clarity as to whether those exceptions or limitations would apply where teaching is provided online and thereby at a distance. Moreover, the existing framework does not provide for a cross-border effect. This situation may hamper the development of digitally- supported teaching activities and distance learning. Therefore, the introduction of a new mandatory exception or limitation is necessary to ensure that educational establishments benefit from full legal certainty when using works or other subject-matter in all digital teaching activities, including online and across borders.
Amendment 179 #
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 establishments in primary, secondary, vocational and higher education to the extent they pursue their educational activity for a non-commercial purpose, as well as organisations such as libraries and other cultural heritage institutions providing non-formal or self-study education, to the extent they pursue their educational activity for a non-commercial purpose. In accordance with the Council conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training ('ET 2020'), the contribution of non-formal and informal education, alongside official education, should be recognised and developed with a view to ensuring that the Union's aims are realised. 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 196 #
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 entities such as libraries and other cultural heritage institutions which provide non-formal or self-study education, including during examinations, and be limited to what is necessary for the purpose of such activities. The exception or limitation should cover both uses through digital means in the classroom and online uses through the educational establishment's secure electronic network, the access to which should be protected, notably by authentication procedures. The exception or limitation should be understood as covering the specific accessibility needs of persons with a disability in the context of illustration for teaching.
Amendment 210 #
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, research organisations and educational establishments are engaged in the preservation of their collections for future generations. Digital technologies offer new ways to preserve the heritage contained in those collections but they also create new challenges. Cultural heritage institutions, research organisations and educational establishments are also engaged in the reproduction of works externally for various purposes including insurance, rights-related arrangements and lending. 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 allow those acts of preservation.
Amendment 222 #
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, research organisations and educational establishments to reproduce works and other subject-matter permanently in their collections for preservation purposesthe 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 or for the purpose of digitisation. Such an exception should allow for the making of copies in any format or medium by the appropriate preservation tool, means or technology, in the required number and at any point in the life of a work or other subject-matter to the extent required in order to produce a copy for preservation purposes onlyfor such reproduction of the work, including in partnership with other institutions or third countries.
Amendment 229 #
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 permanently held by the cultural heritage institution, research organisation or educational establishment, for example as a result of a transfer of ownership or, licence agreements or a compulsory deposit.
Amendment 501 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
‘research organisation’ means a university, a research institute or any other organisation the primary goal of which is to conduct scientific research or to conduct and support scientific research and provide educational services:
Amendment 578 #
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 or scientific research, to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, provided that the use:
Amendment 594 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point а
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point а
(а) takes place on the premises of an educational establishment or through a secure electronic network accessible only by the educational establishment's pupils or students and teaching staffis restricted to the specifically limited circle of those taking part in the teaching activity, such as pupils or students and teaching staff, or registered members of a cultural heritage institution involved in non-formal education;
Amendment 639 #
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, research organisations and educational establishments to make copies of any works or other subject-matter that are permanently in their collections, in any format or medium, for the sole purpose of the preservation of such works or other subject-matter and to the extent necessary for such preservation, with the aim of carrying out, either alone or in association with others, their public interest mission of preservation, research, culture, education or training.
Amendment 905 #
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, as well as a right of authors to audit. 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 high level of transparency.
Amendment 936 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that authors and performers are entitled to request additional, appropriate remuneration from the party with whom they entered into a contract for the exploitation of the rights when the remuneration originally agreed is disproportionately low compared to the subsequent relevantproportionate and equitable remuneration from revenues and benefits derived from the exploitation of their works or performances.