92 Amendments of Kostadinka KUNEVA related to 2016/0280(COD)
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 84 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The exceptions and the limitation 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 be applied only in 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. Such cases concern, in particular, access to education, knowledge and cultural heritage and as such, are generally in the public interest.
Amendment 103 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The exceptions and the limitation 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 be applied only in 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. Such cases concern, in particular, access to education, knowledge and cultural heritage and, as such, are generally in the public interest. Furthermore, the exceptions concern the standard modern forms of communication between creative users offline and online. Whether with regard to citation or parody, the exchange of cultural material should be permitted and not considered as an infringement of copyright in respect of the overall work.
Amendment 104 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) The exceptions and the limitation 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 be applied only in 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. Such cases concern, in particular, access to education, knowledge and cultural heritage and as such, are generally in the public interest.
Amendment 112 #
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. 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 requiredext and data mining allows for the reading and analysis of large amounts of digitally stored information to gain new knowledge and discover new trends.
Amendment 123 #
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 researcherusers, including both public and private entities, as well as individuals have lawful access to content, for example through access to the internet or subscriptions to publications or open access licences, the terms of the licences may exclude text and data mining. As both business and research isare increasingly carried out with the assistance of digital technology, there is a risk that the Union's competitive position as a research areaglobally will suffer unless steps are taken to address the legal uncertainty for text and data mining. It is important to recognize the potential of text and data mining technologies in enabling new knowledge, innovation and discovery in all fields and the role that those technologies have in the continuous development of the digital economy, providing for an exception for reproduction and the extraction of information for the purpose of text and data mining where there is lawful access.
Amendment 126 #
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 educationrecognized by the Member State in which they are established in primary, secondary, vocational and higher education as well as libraries or other public and non-profit institutions providing non-formal or informal cultural and other 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 132 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9 a (new)
Recital 9 a (new)
(9 a) 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 such as through subscriptions to scientific publications or open access licences. In the Union, research organisations such as universities and research institutes, as well as organisations such as libraries and cultural heritage institutions that support research, are confronted with challenges to gain lawful access to the volume of digitally stored information required for new knowledge to be sought by means of text and data mining. There are also many other types of content, such as trade publications, film, sound, the wider Internet, that are also the subject of analysis through text and data mining, where access can also be a problem, and where rightholders will be less able to create versions of their works in usable formats.
Amendment 134 #
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 organizations such as libraries and other cultural heritage institutions providing non-formal or informal 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 139 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) This legal uncertainty should be addressed by providing for a mandatory exception for all persons, whether legal or natural, to the right of reproduction and also to the right to prevent extraction from a database. The new exception should be without prejudice to the existing mandatory exception on temporary acts of reproduction laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, which should continue to apply to text and data mining techniques which do not involve the making of copies going beyond the scope of that exception. Research organisations should also benefit from the exception when they engage into public-private partnershipStakeholder dialogue aimed at expanding access to database purely for text and data mining purposes should be encouraged, where research organizations do not currently have legal access to original works.
Amendment 144 #
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 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 as well as reproductions for other purposes such as insurance and rights clearance and including long-term and cross border loans.
Amendment 148 #
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 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 or for the purpose of digitalization. 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. Such an exception should cover both cultural heritage institutions, including archeological or other museum institutions of universities and colleges holding the works or other subject-matter, and third party cultural heritage institutions or service providers, which may be requested to perform the act of reproduction on behalf of a cultural heritage institution within the scope of the exception.
Amendment 150 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
Amendment 164 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) There is no 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 minimalre would be no unreasonable prejudice to the interests of right holders. Use under the text and data mining exception would also not conflict with the normal exploitation of the works in a way that calls for separate compensation.
Amendment 173 #
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-utito uneven applizcation of a substantial part of its contents for the purpose of illustration for teaching. Tacross EU 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 180 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
Amendment 180 #
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 educationrecognized by the Member State in which they are established in primary, secondary, vocational and higher education as well as libraries or other public and non - profit institutions providing non-formal or informal cultural and other 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 187 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Recital 33
Amendment 195 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 195 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The exception or limitation should cover digitall uses of works and other subject- matter, digital or otherwise, 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 organizations such as libraries and other cultural heritage institutions providing non-formal or informal 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 203 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) Different arrangements, based on the implementation of the exception provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC or on licensing agreements covering further uses, are in place in a number of Member States in order to facilitate educational uses of works and other subject-matter. Such arrangements have usually been developed taking account of the needs of educational establishments and different levels of education. Whereas it is essential to harmonise the scope of the new mandatory exception or limitation in relation to digital uses and 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 arrangements concluded at national level. In particular, Member States could decide to subject the application of the exception or limitation, fully or partially, to the availability of adequate licences, covering at least the same uses as those allowed under the exception. This mechanism would, for example, allow giving precedence to licences for materials which are primarily intended for the educational market. In order to avoid that such mechanism results in legal uncertainty or administrative burden for educational establishments, Member States adopting this approach should take concrete measures to ensure that licensing schemes allowing digital uses of works or other subject-matter for the purpose of illustration for teaching are easily available and that educational establishments are aware of the existence of such licensing schemeAs such, any other compensation mechanisms should be limited to cases where there is a risk of unreasonable prejudice to the legitimate interests of right-holders.
Amendment 205 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 210 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36
Recital 36
Amendment 212 #
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 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 as well as reproductions for other purposes such as insurance and rights clearance and including long-term and cross border loans.
Amendment 215 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Different approaches in the Member States for acts of preservation, including reproduction by cultural heritage institutions, research organizations and educational establishments, 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. The collections of cultural heritage institutions, research organizations and educational establishments, if not unique, are likely to be replicated and sit in other institutions, including those in other Member States. Cultural heritage institutions, research organizations, and educational establishments could also want to create cross border preservation networks, to use resources effectively.
Amendment 219 #
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 organizations 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 or for the purpose of digitalization, research or education. 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. Such an exception should cover in particular both cultural heritage institutions, including archeological or other museum institutions of universities and colleges holding the works or other subject-matter, and third party cultural heritage institutions or service providers, which could be requested to perform the act of reproduction on behalf of a cultural heritage institution, research organization or educational establishment, within the scope of the exception.
Amendment 228 #
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, research organization, or educational establishment, for example as a result of a transfer of ownership or licence agreements.
Amendment 232 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Amendment 250 #
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 main 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. Therefore there should be an intensive dialogue on the appropriate determination of copyright-protected content in uploads that could include the possibility of a flat- rate payment, which must be proportionate to the modern use of music and media platforms. The much abused technical solution, known as upload filters, cannot be considered sufficiently effective and robust to merit measures with legal consequences. They do not solve the underlying problem of fair payment for authors, musicians or other rightholders and should be omitted from the provisions in this Directive because they produce new problems in the field of privacy and data protection.
Amendment 253 #
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 not represented by the collective management organisationcultural heritage institutions, research organizations or educational establishments to disseminate their out of commerce collections, in accordance to their legal traditions, practices or circumstances. Such mechanisms canshould allow rightholders to exclude their works and could include extended collective licensing and presumptions of representation, and limitations and exceptions where: a) no collective management organizations exist b) a collective management organization is unable to achieve sufficient representativity, or c) a collective management organization is unable to offer adequate licenses to cultural heritage institutions for the types of works and other subject matter held in their collections.
Amendment 259 #
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 heritage institutions, users and collective management organisations when doing so.
Amendment 261 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 25 a (new)
Recital 25 a (new)
(25 a) Given the existence of divergences between collective management practices across Member States and creative and cultural sectors, a solution needs to be provided for where licensing mechanisms are not effective solutions, because of, for example, a lack of collective licensing or the fact that no collective management organization has been able to achieve recognition in a Member State or for a sector. In such instances, where licensing mechanisms are lacking, it is necessary to provide for an exception that allows cultural heritage institutions, research organizations, and educational establishments to make out of commerce works held in their collection available online. Nevertheless, in doing so, it is also necessary to provide authors and performers with the possibility to provide collective licenses or to form a collective management organization as well as to involve them in the determination of whether such licenses are available or not. Therefore, right-holders should be able to object to the dissemination of their works online in this way.
Amendment 269 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
Recital 39
Amendment 281 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
Amendment 295 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
Amendment 309 #
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 310 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Recital 33
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 339 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 3
Article 2 – paragraph 3
(3) ‘cultural heritage institution’ means a publicly accessible library or museum, an archive, archive, museum or gallery or a film or audio heritage institution, as well as a media library of a public service broadcaster;
Amendment 340 #
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 340 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 353 #
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 or other educational venue, such as cultural heritage institutions, or through a secure electronic network accessible only by the educational establishment's pupils or students and teaching staff;
Amendment 357 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36 a (new)
Recital 36 a (new)
(36 a) In its ruling in Case 174/15 (VOB vs Stichting Leenrecht), 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 under Article 6 of the rental and Lending Directive, 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. These provisions should also apply to e-books. Moreover, with the objective of ensuring that all citizens of the European 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 the Rental and Lending Directive is mandatory.
Amendment 362 #
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 main 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. As a result this transfer of value undermines the efficiency of the online market, distorts competition and drives down the overall value of cultural content online. It also limits consumer choice for new and innovative legitimate services in the European Digital Single Market and puts at risk cultural and creative industries.
Amendment 392 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Amendment 406 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
In respect of Article 14, it is necessary to verify whether the service provider plays athe application of Article 14 of the Directive 2000/31/EC, it is necessary to verify whether the role played by the service provider is an active role. An active role, including by optimisinges, inter alia, optimization for the purpose of the presentation by the service of the uploaded works or subject-matter or their promoting themon by the service, irrespective of the nature of the means used therefor. The service providers that play such an active role are ineligible for the liability exemption of such Article 14.
Amendment 452 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39 a (new)
Recital 39 a (new)
(39 a) The market for content recognition technologies is already well developed and destined to grow in a data based economy. Existence and competition of such technology solution providers are therefore supposed to ensure affordable and easy access for all interested parties, including SMEs, regardless of their size, fully respecting all the fundamental rights. However, without clear legislative obligations to use such technologies, the player in the market and especially the dominant ones, refuse regularly to use such tools that are appropriate for licensing and rights management purposes.
Amendment 456 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39 b (new)
Recital 39 b (new)
(39 b) Member States should ensure that an intermediate mechanism exists enabling service providers and rightholders to find an amicable solution to any dispute arising from the terms of their cooperation agreements. To that end, Member States should appoint an impartial body with all the relevant competence and experience to assist the parties in the resolution of their dispute.
Amendment 485 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11
Article 11
Amendment 500 #
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 and support scientific research or to conduct scientific research and provide educational services:
Amendment 504 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12
Article 12
Amendment 504 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a a (new)
(aa) "person" means a public or private entity or an individual.
Amendment 507 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13
Article 13
Amendment 513 #
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 519 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Article 2 – paragraph 4
Amendment 545 #
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, Article 4 (1) of Directive 2009/24/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 lawfully access for the purposes of scientific researched.
Amendment 546 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States shall encourage rightholders who market works or other subject- matter primarily for research purposes, to allow research organisations, not having lawful access to those works or other subject - matter to access datasets that enable them to carry out only text and data mining. Member States may also provide for rightholders to have a right to request compensation for meeting this obligation as long as this compensation is reasonable. Member States shall promote stakeholder dialogue between the rightholders for other formats and types of content, research organisations and representatives of users in order to promote meaningful access to usable information for text and data mining elsewhere.
Amendment 551 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. Rightholders shall not be allowed to apply measures to prevent or hinder beneficiaries from benefiting from the exception provided for in paragraph 1, unless such measures are to ensure the security and integrity of the networks and databases where the works or other subject-matter are hosted may be applied. Such measures shall not go beyoexceed what is necessary to pursue the objective of ensuring the security of the system and wshat is necessary to achieve that objectivell not undermine the effective application of the exception. These measures shall not prevent or unreasonably restrict the ability to text and data mine or the ability to develop text and data mining tools different from those offered by the right holders as long as the security of the networks and databases are protected.
Amendment 553 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Where a performer has transferred or assigned an exclusive right of making available on demand, the performer shall be entitled to an equitable remuneration. (i) Collection of remuneration is provided without prejudice as to existing national organisational schemes for collective management of copyright. (ii) The remuneration entitlement shall not prevent the choice of the creator on dissemination modes (e.g. creative commons)
Amendment 560 #
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 3to make technological measures that might have an impact upon use of the exception provided for in paragraph 1, transparent to the public.
Amendment 569 #
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 576 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Where a performer has transferred or assigned an exclusive right of making available on demand, the performer shall be entitled to equitable remuneration. Collection of the remuneration is provided without prejudice to existing national organisational schemes for collective management of copyright. The remuneration entitlement shall not prevent the choice of the creator on dissemination modes (i.e. creative commons).
Amendment 590 #
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 or other educational venue, such as cultural heritage institutions, research organizations, or through a secure electronic network accessible only by the educational establishment's pupils or students and teaching staff;
Amendment 608 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Amendment 609 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 638 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – 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, Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive, permitting cultural heritage institutions, research organizations or 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 preservationreproduction, for the purpose of, individually or collaboratively with others, carrying out their public interest mission in preservation, research, culture, education and teaching.
Amendment 655 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Any contractual provision contrary to the exception provided for in paragraph 1 shall be unenforceable.
Amendment 662 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1. Member States shall provide for a limitation to the rights provided in Article 1 of Directive 2006/115/EC in order to allow for the lending of literary and/or scientific works in any format to the public, including remotely, where these have been legitimately acquired. This is without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 6(2) and 6(3) of that Directive. 2. Any contractual provision contrary to the exception provided in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be unenforceable. 3. Member States should authorise legal circumvention of TPMs that restrict the exercise of lawful exceptions and limitations, including the derogation/exception for "public lending". 4. Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article, Member States, libraries, authors and publishers shall work together to ensure that libraries can acquire and lend in reasonable terms, including remotely, all commercially available literary or scientific 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 2 years after ....(the date of entry into force of this Directive).
Amendment 665 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States shall provide for an exception that grants the right to reproduce works permanently located in public spaces by way of still or moving images and to distribute and communicate to the public such images in full or in parts.
Amendment 684 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
(b a) Right-holders may at any time object to their works or other subject- matter being deemed to be out of commerce and may exclude their works from being made available on the secure electronic network of the cultural heritage institution.
Amendment 721 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 a (new)
Article 9 a (new)
Article 9 a Exploitation of audiovisual works on video-on-demand platforms 1. Member States shall ensure that producers and the transferees of the rights make their best efforts to make European audiovisual works on at least one video-on-demand platform. 2. Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure the application of paragraph 1, including by encouraging the conclusion of professional agreements between representative organisations of authors and representative organisations of producers and other stakeholders, as well as video-on-demand platforms in a larger of continuous exploitation of audiovisual works.
Amendment 731 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11
Article 11
Amendment 732 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11
Article 11
Amendment 788 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Amendment 800 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13
Article 13
Amendment 875 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13 a Unwaivable right to remuneration Member States shall ensure that when an author has transferred or assigned his making available right to a producer, that author shall retain the right to obtain equitable remuneration. This right is unwaivable and inalienable. This right can be entrusted to collective management organisations representing authors, unless other collective agreements, including voluntary collective management agreements, guarantee such remuneration to authors for their making available right.
Amendment 878 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that authors and performers, who are in a contractual relationship where there are ongoing payment obligations, receive on a regular basis and no less than once a year and taking into account the specificities of each sector, timely, adequate and sufficient, accurate and comprehensive information on the exploitation of their works and performances from those to whom they have licensed or transferred their rights, or their successors in title, notably as regards modes of exploitation, revenues generated and remuneration due.
Amendment 887 #
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 sufficient information on the exploitation of their works and performances from those to whom they have licensed or transferred their rights, notably as regards modes of exploitation, revenues generated and remuneration due.
Amendment 895 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 14 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Member states shall provide that producers compulsorily communicate, free of charge, to collective management organisations for the purpose of effective administration of rights, complete and accurate information as is necessary in order to identify the use of the work or other subject matter and the corresponding right-holders.
Amendment 903 #
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 authors' right 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, under the condition that the level of disproportionality is duly justified, and provided that the obligation remains effective and ensures an appropriate level of transparency.
Amendment 913 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Amendment 917 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Article 14 – paragraph 3
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 performanceshall ensure that the representative organizations of relevant stakeholders determine sector- specific standard reporting statements and procedures and foster in particular automated processing making use of digital technologies and international identifiers of works.
Amendment 924 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – title
Article 15 – title
Amendment 925 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph -1 (new)
Article 15 – paragraph -1 (new)
-1 Member States shall ensure that authors and performers are entitled to a proportionate and equitable remuneration of the revenues derived from the exploitation of their works. Member States shall also ensure that representative organizations of authors and performers, whether collective management organizations, unions or guilds, and representative organizations of users, set standards for equitable and proportionate remuneration of authors and performers for the use of their works and performances, taking into account the specificities of each sector.
Amendment 935 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that authors and performers are entitled to requestclaim additional, appropriate remunerationequitable contractual adjustments from the party with whom they entered into a contract for the exploitation of the rights, or their successors in title, when the remuneration originally agreed is disproportionately low compared to the subsequent relevant revenues and benefits derived from theall forms of exploitation, direct or indirect of the works or performances. Authors and performers may individually or collectively appoint a representative organization to file such claim on their behalf.
Amendment 948 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Where a performer has transferred or assigned an exclusive right of making available on demand, and independent of any agreed terms for such transfer or assignment, the performer shall have the right to obtain an equitable remuneration to be paid by the user for the making available to the public of his fixed performance. The right of the performer to obtain an equitable remuneration for the making available to the public of his performance shall be unwaivable and collected and administrated by a performer´s collective management organisation.
Amendment 949 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. The transfer of licensing of exclusive economic rights in a given work or performance may not include or be deemed to include rights that do or did not exist at the time of the signature of the contractual arrangement. In addition, the scope of such transfer or licensing may not include or may not be deemed to have included territories, formats, modes of exploitation, technologies or any other aspect that do or did not exist at the time of the signature of the contractual arrangement.
Amendment 953 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Member States shall provide authors and performers with a reversion right to enable them to terminate a contract in case of insufficient exploitation and promotion, payment of the remuneration foreseen, as well as insufficient or lack of regular reporting.
Amendment 962 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Member States shall provide that disputes concerning the transparency obligation under Article 14 and the contract adjustment mechanism under Article 15 mayshall be submitted to an voluntary, alternative dispute resolution procedure. The author´s or the performer´s contractual counterpart shall take part, in good faith, in the dispute resolution procedure.
Amendment 967 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 16 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Proceedings in respect of a dispute may also be brought on behalf of authors and performers by their representative organizations, whether collective management organizations, unions or guilds.
Amendment 995 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 2