21 Amendments of Alessia Maria MOSCA related to 2016/0280(COD)
Amendment 19 #
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 to process 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, growth and jobs. However, in the Union, research organisations such as universities and research institutes are confronted with legal uncertainty as to the extent to which they can perform text and data mining of 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 rightholders. Text and data mining may also be carried out in relation to mere facts or data which are not protected by copyright and in such instances no authorisation would be required.
Amendment 24 #
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 in scientific research. Moreover, where researchusers have 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 will suffer unless steps are taken to address the legal uncertainty for text and data mining.
Amendment 26 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9 a (new)
Recital 9 a (new)
(9 a) Union law should take into consideration that text and data mining has the huge potential to be used in both formal and informal research settings and should recognise the potential of text and data mining to stimulate significant innovation, growth and jobs.
Amendment 39 #
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 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 digitall teaching activities, including online and across borders.
Amendment 42 #
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 educa, higher education, formal and non-formal educational settings, especially libraries and other cultural heritage institutions, 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 44 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The exception or limitation should cover digitall 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, in both formal and non- formal educational settings, especially libraries and other cultural heritage institutions, 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. Compensation mechanisms should be only used in cases where there is unreasonable prejudice to the rightholders.
Amendment 48 #
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, both formal and non- formal, 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. 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 49 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Different approaches in the Member States for acts of preservation by cultural heritage institutions hamper cross- border cooperation and the sharing of means of preservation by cultural heritage institutions in the internal market, leading to an inefficient use of resources. Member States should facilitate the cross-border sharing of best-practice, new technologies and preservation techniques.
Amendment 51 #
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, both formal and non- formal, to reproduce works and other subject-matter permanently in their collections for preservation purposes, for example to address technological obsolescence or the degradation of original supports. Such an exception should allow for the making of copies by the appropriate preservation tool, means or technology, in the required number and at any point in the life of a work or other subject-matter to the extent required in order to produce a copy for preservation purposes only.
Amendment 53 #
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, held on long-term loan or permanently held by the cultural heritage institution, for example as a result of aresearch organisations and educational establishments, both formal and non-formal, including transfer of ownership or licence agreements.
Amendment 56 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) Member States should, within the framework provided for in this Directive, have flexibility in choosing the specific type of mechanism allowing for licences for out-of-commerce works to extend to the rights of rightholders that are noteither not represented or not adequately represented by the collective management organisation, in accordance to their legal traditions, practices or circumstances. Such mechanisms can include extended collective licensing and presumptions of representation.
Amendment 58 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25
Recital 25
(25) Considering the variety of works and other subject-matter in the collections of cultural heritage institutions, it is important that the licensing mechanisms introduced by this Directive are available and can be used in practice for different types of works and other subject-matter, including photographs, sound recordings and audiovisual works. In order to reflect the specificities of different categories of works and other subject-matter as regards modes of publication and distribution and to facilitate the usability of those mechanisms, specific requirements and procedures may have to be established by Member States for the practical application of those licensing mechanisms. It is appropriate that Member States consult rightholders, cultural institutions, users and collective management organisations when doing so.
Amendment 132 #
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, not-for-profit organisations and/or citizens in order to carry out text and data mining of works or other subject-matter to which they have lawful access for the purposes of scientific research.
Amendment 159 #
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 research, to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, provided that the use:
Amendment 162 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) takes place on the premises of an educational establishment, whether formal or non-formal, or through a secure electronic network accessible only by the educational establishment's pupils or students and, teaching staff, or registered member;
Amendment 182 #
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, both formal and non- formal, to make copies of any works or other subject-matter that are permanently in their collections, in any format or medium, for the sole purposes of the preservation of such works or other subject-matter and to the extent necessary for such preserv, research and education.
Amendment 186 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
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 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 the event that a collective management organisation does not exist or adequately represent the rights of rightsholders, Member States should provide exceptions for cultural heritage institutions, research organisations and educational establishments, both formal and non-formal, to distribute, communicate to the public or make available out-of-commerce-works for non- commercial purposes. Member States should ensure appropriate remuneration for any unreasonable prejudice to the legitimate interests of the rightsholders and ensure that all rightsholders may at any time object to the use of their works.
Amendment 240 #
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 244 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 14 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Member States shall ensure that sector-specific standard reporting statements and procedures are developed through stakeholder dialogues.
Amendment 250 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that authors and performers, or representatives they appoint, are entitled to request additional, appropriatefair remuneration from the party with whom they entered into a contract for the exploitation of the rights when the remuneration originally agreed is disproportionately low compared to the subsequent relevant revenues and benefits derived from the exploitation of the works or performances.
Amendment 252 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 a (new)
Article 15 a (new)
Article 15 a Rights reversion mechanism 1. Member States shall ensure that authors and performers that are in a contractual relationship with ongoing payment obligations, may terminate the contract by which they have licensed or transferred their rights when there is a complete absence of exploitation of their works and performances, a persistent failure to pay the remuneration agreed or a complete lack of reporting and transparency. 2. The right to terminate the contract on the transfer of licencing of rights may be exercised if within a year from the notification by the performer or author of this intention to terminate the contract, the contracting party fails to fulfil its contractual obligation with regards to the payment of the remuneration agreed. With regards to the absence of exploitation of a work and the complete lack of reporting and transparency the right to terminate the contract on the transfer or licencing of rights may be exercised if within five years from the notification by the performer or author of their intention to terminate the contract, the contracting party fails to fulfil its contractual obligations. 3. Member States may decide that the obligation in paragraph 1 does not apply when the contribution of the author or performer is not significant having regard to the overall work or performance.