BETA

24 Amendments of Tiemo WÖLKEN related to 2016/0280(COD)

Amendment 44 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Where information society service 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 are obliged to conclude licensing agreements with rightholders, unless they are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council34 . __________________ 34Directive 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).deleted
2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 57 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
In respect of Article 14, it is necessary to verify whether the service provider plays an active role, including by optimising the presentation of the uploaded works or subject-matter or promoting them, irrespective of the nature of the means used thereforNo general obligation should be imposed on information society service providers to monitor the works or subject matter which they transmit or store, nor should a general obligation be imposed upon them to actively seek facts or circumstances indicating activity that would infringe rights under copyrighted works. Hosting providers should not be held liable as long as they do not have actual knowledge of illegal activity or information and are not aware of the facts or circumstances from which the infringing activity or information is apparent, pursuent to Articles 12, 13, 14 and 15 of Directive 2000/31/EC.
2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 65 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
In order to ensure the functioning of any licensing agreement, 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 should take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure protection of works or other subject-matter, such as implementing effective technologies. This obligation should also apply when the information society service providers are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC.deleted
2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 76 #
Proposal for a directive
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 functioning of technologies, such as content recognition technologies. In such cases, rightholders should provide the necessary data to allow 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 agreement.deleted
2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 100 #
Proposal for a directive
Title IV – Chapter 2 – title
Certain uses of protected content by online servicesdeleted
2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 101 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13
Use of protected content by information giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by 1. providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts 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 their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter. 2. 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. 3. where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments.Article 13 deleted society service providers storing and their users Information society service Member States shall ensure that Member States shall facilitate,
2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 106 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works 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-matter.deleted
2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 118 #
Proposal for a directive
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.deleted
2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 126 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments.deleted
2017/06/12
Committee: LIBE
Amendment 189 #
Proposal for a directive
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 activialso benefit entities providing educational activities, such as museums, libraries, archives and civil society for a non-commercial purposeganisations. The organisational structure and the means of funding of an educational establishment or an entity providing educational activities are not the decisive factors to determine the non-commercial nature of the activity.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 198 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
(16) The exception or limitation should cover digital uses of works and other subject-matter such as the use of parts or extracts of works to support, enrich or complement the teaching, including the related learning activities. The use of the works or other subject-matter under the exception or limitation should be only in the context of teaching and learning activities carried out under the responsibility of educational establishments, including during examinations, or entities providing educational activities 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.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 201 #
Proposal for a directive
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 schemes.deleted
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 400 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Where information society service providers that store and provide access to the public to copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users, thereby goingo beyond the mere provision of physical facilities and performing an act of communication to the public, they are obliged to conclude licensing agreements with rightholders, unless they are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council34 . _________________ 34 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1–16).
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 409 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
In respect of Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC and the liability exemption provided therein, it is necessary to verify whether the service provider plays an active role, including by optimising the presentation of the uploaded works or subject-matter or promoting them, irrespective of the nature of the means used therefor. In such case, the provider should no longer be considered to be merely hosting copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users, should be ineligible for the liability exemption and therefore subjected to the provisions of Directive 2001/29/EC as any digital service provider.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 420 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
In order to ensure the functioning of any licensing agreement, information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to largesignificant amounts of copyright protected works or other subject- matter uploaded by their users and performing an act of communication to the public should take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure protection of works or other subject-matter, such as implementing effective technologies. This obligation should also apply when the information society service providers are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/ECose measures should not require the identity of individual users uploading content in order to protect their privacy. Furthermore, those measures should be limited to preventing the availability of specifically identified and duly notified works and should not lead to a general obligation to monitor content uploaded by the users.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 445 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
(39) Collaboration between information society service providers, storing and providing access to the public to largesignificant amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users and performing an act of communication to the public, and rightholders is essential for the functioning of technologies, such as content recognition technologies. In such cases, rightholders should provide the necessary data to allow the services to identify their content and t, such as reference files and metadata. They should deliver reference files on a timely basis and in an appropriate file format. Metadata should be complete and accurate for each reference file. 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 agreement.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 595 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) takes place on the premises of an educational establishment or through a secure electronic network accessible only by the educational establishment's pupils or students and teaching staffon the premises of an entity providing educational activities or through a secure electronic communications network;
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 605 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2
2. Member States may provide that the exception adopted pursuant to paragraph 1 does not apply generally or as regards specific types of works or other subject-matter, to the extent that adequate licences authorising the acts described in paragraph 1 are easily available in the market. Member States availing themselves of the provision of the first subparagraph shall take the necessary measures to ensure appropriate availability and visibility of the licences authorising the acts described in paragraph 1 for educational establishments.deleted
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 608 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Member States may provide that the exception adopted pursuant to paragraph 1 does not apply generally or as regards specific types of works or other subject- matter, to the extent that adequate licences authorising the acts described in paragraph 1 are easily available in the market.deleted
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 615 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Member States availing themselves of the provision of the first subparagraph shall take the necessary measures to ensure appropriate availability and visibility of the licences authorising the acts described in paragraph 1 for educational establishments.deleted
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 623 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. The use of works and other subject- matter for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching through secure electronic communications 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 or the entity providing educational activities is established.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 813 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to largesignificant amounts of copyright protected works or other subject- matter uploaded by their users and perform an act of communication to the public 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, in case such agreements have not been concluded, to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and, proportionate and compliant with the relevant industry standards. 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 rightholders' own works and other subject- matter in a commonly agreed reporting format. The rightholders shall provide the service providers with the necessary data to allow the services to identify their content, such as reference files and metadata.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 828 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Where information society service providers take the measures referred to in paragraph 1, such measures shall not violate any privacy rights of the users, and shall be in compliance with Directives 95/46/EC and 2002/58/EC, as well as the General Data Protection Regulation. Measures to prevent the availability of copyright protected works or other subject-matter shall be limited to preventing the availability of specifically identified and duly notified works and shall not consist in an active monitoring of all the data of each user of the service.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 852 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Where a user makes use of the complaints and redress mechanisms referred to in paragraph 2, service providers and rightholders whose content is involved in any such conflict or dispute shall be obliged to resolve such conflict or dispute in a timely manner.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI