54 Amendments of Fredrick FEDERLEY related to 2016/0280(COD)
Amendment 80 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) In the fields of research, education and preservation of cultural heritage, digital technologies permit new types of uses that are not clearly covered by the current Union rules on exceptions and limitations. In addition, the optional nature of exceptions and limitations provided for in Directives 2001/29/EC, 96/9/EC and 2009/24/EC in these fields may negatively impact the functioning of the internal market. This is particularly relevant as regards cross-border uses, which are becoming increasingly important in the digital environment. Therefore, the existing exceptions and limitations in Union law that are relevant for scientific research, teaching and preservation of cultural heritage should be reassessed in the light of those new uses. Mandatory exceptions or limitations for uses of text and data mining technologies in the field of scientific research, illustration for teaching in the digital environment, illustration for teaching and for preservation of cultural heritage should be introduced. For uses not covered by the exceptions or the limitation provided for in this Directive, the exceptions and limitations existing in Union law should continue to apply. Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC should be adapted.
Amendment 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 90 #
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 any other type of 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, research organisations such as universities and research institutesindividuals, public and private entities who have legal access to content 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. The right to read is the right to mine.
Amendment 96 #
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 researchers 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 and its Open Science Agenda 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 114 #
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 necessary, proportionate and effective to pursue the objective of ensuring the security and integrity of the system and should not undermine the effective application of the exception.
Amendment 121 #
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 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 digital teaching activities, including online and across borders.
Amendment 124 #
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. Tactivities for non-commercial purposes. However in order to ensure that the organisational structure and the means of funding of an educational establishment are not the decisive factorsfactors taken into account to determine the non- commercial nature of the activity, the exception or limitation should not be limited to educational establishments.
Amendment 135 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
Amendment 167 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28 a (new)
Recital 28 a (new)
(28 a) 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 168 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28 b (new)
Recital 28 b (new)
(28 b) Despite some overlap with existing voluntary exceptions or limitations, such as the one 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 173 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) A free and pluralist press is essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens' access to information. It provides a fundamental contribution to public debate and the proper functioning of a democratic society. In the transition from print to digital, publishers of press publications are facing problems in licensing the online use of their publications and recouping their investments. In the absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, lLicensing and enforcement in the digital environment is often complex and inefficient.
Amendment 181 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) The organisational and financial contribution of publishers in producing press publications needs to be recognised and further encouraged to ensure the sustainability of the publishing industry. It is therefore necessary to provide at Union level a harmonised legal protection for press publications in respect of digital uses. Such protection should be effectively guaranteed through the introduction, in Union law, of rights related to copyright for the reproduction and making available to the public of press publications in respect of digital uses.
Amendment 184 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
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 186 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Recital 33
Amendment 200 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 207 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 214 #
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 holdersonline services enabling users to upload works and to make them accessible to the public have flourished and have become mainimportant sources of access to content online. This affects rightholders' possibilities to determine whether, and under which conditions, their w and of creativity. At the same time, when protected content is uploaded without priork and other subject-matter are used as well as their possibilities to get an appropriate remuneration for ituthorisation from rightholders, they have generated challenges.
Amendment 231 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Where an information society service is providers 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 ared that consists of the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service and providers of the service enable users to upload works in such as a way as to make them available to the public and obtains knowledge after receiving notification by the rightholders that the work is used in an unauthorised manner and subject to copyright and related rights , they are obliged take that content down in order to be eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council34. However, it is in the interests of all parties involved that the content remain obnliged tone. Therefore, the possibility of concludeing a licensing agreements with between 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 Council34 and the service providers on fair and reasonable terms for that purpose should be enabled. In order to ensure that notifications of works subject to copyright and related rights are valid, rightholders should provide service providers with an accurate identification of both the protected works and the uploaded content deemed to be unauthorised, including its exact location. To prevent misuses or abuses of notifications, and protect freedom of information and expression and the limitations and exceptions to copyright law, users should have access to redress and complaint mechanisms. _________________ 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 250 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
Amendment 258 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
Amendment 272 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) Collaboration between information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users and rightholders is essential for the funand rightholders is essential to facilitate the accurate identification of unauthorised works online. Appropriate safeguards should however be put in place where they agree on the introductioning of technologies, such as content recognition technologies. In such cases, rightholders should provide the necessary data to allowvoluntary measures to ensure that the services to identify their content and the services should be transparent towards rightholders with regard to the deployed technologies, to allow the assessment of their appropriateness. The services should in particular provide rightholders with information on the type of technologies used, the way they are operated and their success rate for the recognition of rightholders' content. Those technologies should also allow rightholders to get information from the information society service providers on the use of their content covered by an agreemen do not infringe the fundamental rights of users, namely their right to protection of their personal data and their freedom to receive or impart information, in accordance with Articles 8 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union in particular their rights to the use of works made in accordance with an exception or limitation to copyright.
Amendment 281 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
Amendment 295 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
Amendment 302 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 43 a (new)
Recital 43 a (new)
(43 a) 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 304 #
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 310 #
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 326 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 331 #
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 otechnical measures that prevent or hinder beneficiaries from benefiting from the exception provided for in paragraph 1. Such measures shall therefore not exceed what is necessary to pursue the objective of ensuring ther subject-matter are hosted. Such measures shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objectiveecurity of the system and shall not undermine the effective application of the exception. These measures shall not prevent or unreasonably restrict the ability to text and mine data or the ability to develop text and data mining tools that differ from those offered by the rightholders as long as the security of the networks and databases are protected.
Amendment 338 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 4
Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission, in cooperation with Member States, shall encourage rightholders and research organisations to define commonly-agreed best practices concerning the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 3.
Amendment 340 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 342 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – title
Article 4 – title
Use of works and other subject-matter in digital and cross-border teachingeducational activities
Amendment 344 #
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, learning and scientific research to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, provided that the use:
Amendment 351 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
Amendment 356 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 362 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 367 #
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 networks undertaken in compliance with the provisions of national law adopted pursuant to this Article shall be deemed to occur solely in the Member State where the educational establishment is establishedonly be accessible to the beneficiaries of this exception or limitation.
Amendment 373 #
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 theany unreasonable actions contrary to the legitimate interests of rightholders duein relation to the use of their works or other subject-matter pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article and Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29/EC.
Amendment 417 #
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 422 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11
Article 11
Amendment 448 #
Proposal for a directive
Chapter 4 – title
Chapter 4 – title
Certain uses of protected content by the users of online services
Amendment 455 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – title
Article 13 – title
Use of protected content by users of certain information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users
Amendment 462 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amouinformation provided by a recipients of works or other 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 ervice and enable users to upload works in such a way as to make them available to the public shall, upon obtaining knowledge or awareness that an uploaded work subject to copyright and otheir 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 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-matterrelated rights is used in an unauthorised manner, act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the content, except where service providers conclude a licensing agreement with rightholders enabling the content to remain available.
Amendment 484 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. In order to be valid, the notification of an unauthorised protected content shall include, in particular, the identification by the rightholder of the work subject to copyright and related rights claimed to have been infringed and the identification of the uploaded work, including its exact location, that is considered to be using work subject to copyright and related rights.
Amendment 493 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that the service 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 1. These mechanisms shall in particular ensure that where the removal of the content referred to in paragraph 1 is not justified, the content in question shall be reinstated online within a reasonable time. As a last resort, Member States shall ensure the possibility of judicial redress.
Amendment 496 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. In order to ensure uniform protection of users and rightholders across the Union, the Commission shall develop guidelines on the conditions that need to be met for the validity of the notification referred to in paragraph 1a and for the complaint and redress mechanisms referred to in paragraph 2.
Amendment 500 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission, in cooperation with Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers referred to in paragraph 1, users and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, am for the implementationg others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developmentsf paragraph 1.
Amendment 505 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Member States shall ensure that where service providers take voluntary measures, these measures do not infringe the fundamental rights of users, namely their right to protection of their personal data and their freedom to receive or impart information, in accordance with Articles 8 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular their rights to the use of works made within an exception or limitation to copyright.
Amendment 509 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13a User generated content Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 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 but not limited to 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.
Amendment 519 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Amendment 540 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 a (new)
Article 14 a (new)
Article 14a Establishment of a central database 1. The European 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 (e) 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 European Commission is empowered to take measures to ensure that the database is managed in an independent and transparent manner.
Amendment 573 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Amendment 731 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11
Article 11
Amendment 995 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 2