BETA

Activities of Helga TRÜPEL related to 2016/0280(COD)

Plenary speeches (2)

Copyright in the Digital Single Market (debate) DE
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2016/0280(COD)
Copyright in the Digital Single Market (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2016/0280(COD)

Shadow opinions (1)

OPINION on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market
2016/11/22
Committee: CULT
Dossiers: 2016/0280(COD)
Documents: PDF(356 KB) DOC(164 KB)

Amendments (36)

Amendment 92 #
Proposal for a directive
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. TIn this context, with particular regard to the abuse of embedding or framing techniques of audio-visual content on a commercial scale, the Commission should investigate all possible measures to create adequate safeguards against such abuse. In addition, 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.
2017/03/16
Committee: CULT
Amendment 107 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7 a (new)
(7 a) In order to ensure that technological measures do not prevent the enjoyment of the exceptions and limitations established in this Directive, in Directive 2001/29/EC, Directive 96/9/EC, Directive 2009/24/EC or Directive 2012/28/EU, Article 6(4) of Directive 2001/29/EC needs to be updated in order to take account of the fact that, in the marketplace, rightholders are often unable to make available to the beneficiary of an exception or limitation the means of benefiting from that exception or limitation, because technological protection measures are generally not applied by the rightholders themselves, but by third party suppliers who provide the content to consumers, such as online marketplaces, some of whom enjoy a dominant market position. The inability of users to make use of their rights under copyright exceptions and limitations not only has a negative impact on users' fundamental rights, but is also detrimental to rightholders who often find themselves in a weaker bargaining position vis-à-vis suppliers of digital content, especially when consumers are locked into the products and services offered by that seller through the use of technological measures. It is therefore insufficient to require Member States only to place obligations upon the rightsholders, who are generally unable to remove the technological protection measures applied to their works by third parties. In addition, the act of circumventing technological protection measures for the purposes of enjoying exceptions and limitations to copyright and related rights needs to be exempted from the general legal protection of effective technological measures enshrined in Article 6(1) and 6(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC. Furthermore, the definition of "technological measures" in Article 6(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC needs to be clarified so as not to include measures which are designed to restrict authorised uses under copyright exceptions and limitations.
2017/03/16
Committee: CULT
Amendment 142 #
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 activity for a non-commercial purpose, as well as organisations such as libraries and other cultural heritage institutions providing non-formal or informal education, to the extent they pursue their educational activity for a non-commercial purpose. In line with the Council conclusions of 12 May 2009 on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training ('ET 2020'), the contribution of informal and non-formal education, alongside formal education, should be recognised and developed in order to deliver the Union's objectives. 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.
2017/03/16
Committee: CULT
Amendment 153 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
(16) The exception or limitation should cover digital all 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 organisations 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.
2017/03/16
Committee: CULT
Amendment 175 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 20
(20) Member States should therefore be required to provide for an exception to permit cultural heritage institutions, research organisations, and educational establishments to reproduce works and other subject-matter permanently in their collections for preservation purposesthe purpose of carrying out their public interest mission in preservation, research, education, culture and teaching, for example to address technological obsolescence or the degradation of original supports or for the purpose of digitisation. Such an exception should allow for the making of copies by the appropriate preservation tool, means or technology, in the required number andin any format or medium at any point in the life of a work or other subject-matter and to the extent required in order to produce a copy for preservation purposes onlyfor such reproduction, including via partnerships with other institutions or third parties.
2017/03/16
Committee: CULT
Amendment 193 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
(22) Cultural heritage institutions should benefit from a clear framework for the digitisation and dissemination, including across borders, of out-of-commerce works or other subject-matter. However, the particular characteristics of the collections of out-of-commerce works mean that obtaining the prior consent of the individual rightholders may be very difficult. This can be due, for example, to the age of the works or other subject- matter, their limited commercial value or the fact that they were never intended for commercial use. It is therefore necessary to provide for measures to facilitate the licensing of rights inonline availability of out-of-commerce works that are in the collections of cultural heritage institutions and thereby to allow the conclusion of agreements with cross- border effect in the internal market.
2017/03/16
Committee: CULT
Amendment 248 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36
(36) Publishers, including those of press publications, books or scientific publications or musical works, often operate on the basis of the transfer of authors' rights by means of contractual agreements or statutory provisions. In this context, publishers make an investment with a view to the exploitation of the works contained in their publications and may in some instances be deprived of revenues where such works are used under exceptions or limitations such as the ones for private copying and reprography. In a number of Member States compensation for uses under those exceptions is shared between authors and publishers. In order to take account of this situation and improve legal certainty for all concerned parties, Member States should be allowed to determine that, when an author has transferred or licensed his rights to a publisher or in the common interest of the author and publisher to a collective management organisation or the publisher otherwise contributes with his works to a publication and there are systems in place to compensate for the harmpotential loss caused by an exception or limitation, publishers are entitled to claim a share of such compensation, whereas the burden on the publisher to substantiate his claim should not exceed what is required under the system in place.
2017/03/16
Committee: CULT
Amendment 266 #
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 as well as a reproduction act and therefore 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).
2017/03/16
Committee: CULT
Amendment 273 #
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 promo, promoting or economically exploiting them, irrespective of the nature of the means used therefor, including automated processes. The service provider cannot invoke not playing an active role for single works or other subject-matter where the service provider plays an active role with regards to the general functioning of the service. Service providers that play an active role are ineligible for the liability exemption of Article 14.
2017/03/16
Committee: CULT
Amendment 285 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 a (new)
(38 a) As Directive 2001/29/EC aims to provide a high level of protection of intellectual property, the clarification of the liability of information society service providers that store and provide access to the public to copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users while playing an active role is crucial to intellectual creation and substantial investment in creativity and innovation. In order to create further legal certainty for users and considering that they upload and display content in various forms, licensing agreements between information society service providers and rightholders should be concluded in such a way that acts by users are comprehensively legitimised with regard to the categories of rights covered by the respective rightholders.
2017/03/16
Committee: CULT
Amendment 301 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 40
(40) Certain rightholders such as authors and performers need information to assess the economic value of their rights which are harmonised under Union law. This is especially the case where such rightholders grant a licence or a transfer of rights in return for remuneration. As authors and performers tend to bare in a weaker negotiating contractual position when they grant licences or transfer their rights, they need information to assess the continued economic value of their rights, compared to the remuneration received for their licence or transfer, but they often face a lack of transparency. Therefore, the sharing of adequate information by their contractual counterparts orand subsequent transferees or licensees, as well as by their successors in title is important for the transparency and balance in the system that governs the remuneration of authors and performers. The reporting obligation should be transferred with the rights and therefore follow the work across all forms of exploitation, irrespective of who exploits it and in which territory.
2017/03/29
Committee: CULT
Amendment 309 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 41
(41) When implementing transparency obligations, the specificities of different content sectors and of the rights of the authors and performers in each sector should be considered. Member States should consult all relevant stakeholders as that should help determine sector-specific requirements. Collective bargaining should be considered as an option to reach an agreement between the relevant stakeholders regarding transparencyensure that the representative organisations of all relevant stakeholders determine sector-specific requirements and establish standard reporting statements and procedures for each sector, fostering automated processing and making use of digital technologies and international identifiers of works. Collective bargaining should be considered as an option to reach an agreement between the relevant stakeholders regarding transparency. Member States should ensure a high degree of transparency within these sector specific transparency obligations. Moreover, the sharing of information should occur at least once a year. To enable the adaptation of current reporting practices to the transparency obligations, a transitional period should be provided for. The transparency obligations do not need to apply to agreements concluded with collective management organisations as those are already subject to transparency obligations under Directive 2014/26/EU.
2017/03/29
Committee: CULT
Amendment 319 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 42
(42) CertainMost contracts for the exploitation of rights harmonised at Union level are of long durationfor the entire duration of copyright, offering fewno possibilities for authors and performers to renegotiate them with their contractual counterparts or their successors in title. Therefore, without prejudice to the law applicable to contracts in Member States, there should be a remuneration adjustment mechanism for cases where the remuneration originally agreed under a licence or a transfer of rights is disproportionately low compared to the relevant revenues and the benefits derived from the exploitation of the work or the fixation of the performance, including in light of the transparency ensured by this Directive. The assessment of the situation should take account of the specific circumstances of each case as wellCollective bargaining should be considered as asn of the specificities and practices of the different content sectorsption to reach an agreement. Where the parties do not agree on the adjustment of the remuneration, the author or performer should be entitled to bring a claim before a court or other competent authority.
2017/03/29
Committee: CULT
Amendment 325 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 43
(43) Authors and performers are often reluctantunable to enforce their rights against their contractual partners before a court or tribunal. Member States should therefore provide for an alternative dispute resolution procedure that addresses claims related to obligations of transparency and the contract adjustment mechanism. and that it is free of charge as well as accessible for authors. The dispute settlement resolution can also be agreed in collective agreements.
2017/03/29
Committee: CULT
Amendment 406 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. Member States mayshall provide for fair compensation for the harm incurred by theto authors and rightholders due to the use of their works or other subject-matter pursuant to paragraph 1.
2017/03/29
Committee: CULT
Amendment 414 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Member States shall provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive, permitting cultural heritage institutions, research organisations, or educational establishments, to make copies of or digitise any works or other subject-matter that are permanently in their collections, in any format or medium, forto the sole purpose of the preservation of such works or other subject-matter and to the extent necessary for such preservationextent necessary for such reproduction, for the purpose of, individually or collaboratively with others, carrying out their public interest mission in preservation, research, culture, education and teaching.
2017/03/29
Committee: CULT
Amendment 423 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 a (new)
Article 5a Transformative Use Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Articles 2, 3 and point (k) of Article 5(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC, 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 the use of a work for the creation of a new work without authorisation provided that the pre-existing work only appears as a subordinate element of the new work. The new work shall indicate the source of the pre-existing work, including the author's name, unless this turns out to be impossible. For use in accordance with this Article of a commercial nature, the user shall pay fair remuneration to the author.
2017/03/29
Committee: CULT
Amendment 427 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 b (new)
Article 5b Use on hosting platforms Any making available by natural persons to a limited public of small pieces of a work or small-scale works which have already been lawfully made available to the public shall be permitted without authorisation provided that such use is in accordance with fair practice and that the authors receive fair compensation.
2017/03/29
Committee: CULT
Amendment 430 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 5(5) and the first, third and fifth subparagraphs of Article 6(4) of Directive 2001/29/EC shall apply to the exceptions and the limitation provided for under this Title.
2017/03/29
Committee: CULT
Amendment 481 #
Proposal for a directive
Article -10 (new)
Article -10 Exploitation of audiovisual works on video-on-demand platforms 1. Member States shall ensure that producers and the transferees of the rights do their best to make European audiovisual works available to the public 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, including their collective management organisations and representative organisations of producers and other stakeholders, as well as video-on-demand platforms, in a larger context of continuous exploitation of audiovisual works.
2017/03/29
Committee: CULT
Amendment 488 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11
1. publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the digital use of their press publications. 2. paragraph 1 shall leave intact and shall in no way affect any rights provided for in Union law to authors and other rightholders, in respect of the works and other subject-matter incorporated in a press publication. Such rights may not be invoked against those authors and other rightholders and, in particular, may not deprive them of their right to exploit their works and other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated. 3. 2001/29/EC and Directive 2012/28/EU shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of the rights referred to in paragraph 1. 4. paragraph 1 shall expire 20 years after the publication of the press publication. This term shall be calculated from the first day of January of the year following the date of publication.Article 11 deleted Protection of press publications concerning digital uses Member States shall provide The rights referred to in Articles 5 to 8 of Directive The rights referred to in
2017/03/29
Committee: CULT
Amendment 523 #
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 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 where licensing agreements are not concluded take measures 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.
2017/03/29
Committee: CULT
Amendment 538 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13a Legal licence for automated image referencing services and mandatory collective management Member States shall provide that information society service providers may automatically reproduce or refer to visual works of art for the purpose of indexing and referencing (automated image referencing services). For use permitted pursuant to the above of their works by automated image referencing services, authors receive equitable remuneration which is managed by mandatory collective management organisations representing visual authors.
2017/03/29
Committee: CULT
Amendment 539 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 b (new)
Article 13b Unwaivable right to remuneration 1. Member States shall ensure that when a performer or an audiovisual author has transferred or assigned his/her making available right to a producer, that performer or author shall retain the right to obtain equitable remuneration. 2. This right to obtain equitable remuneration for the making available of performances or the author's work is inalienable and cannot be waived. 3. The administration of this right to obtain equitable remuneration for the making available of the performances or author's work shall be entrusted to collective management organisations representing performers or audiovisual authors, unless other collective agreements, including voluntary collective management agreements, guarantee such remuneration to audiovisual authors for their making available right. 4. Performers' or authors' collective management organisations shall collect the equitable remuneration from online platforms making performances or audiovisual works available to the public.
2017/03/29
Committee: CULT
Amendment 547 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that authors and performers receive on a regular basis and no less than once a year and taking into account the specificities of each sector, timely, adequate, accurate and sufficient 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.
2017/03/29
Committee: CULT
Amendment 553 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 2
2. The obligation in paragraph 1 shall be proportionate and effective and shall ensure an appropriate level of transparency in every sectorensure a high level of transparency in every sector, as well as a right of authors to audit. However, in those cases where the administrative burden resulting from the obligation would be disproportionate in view of the revenues generated by the exploitation of the work or performance, Member States may adjust the obligation in paragraph 1, 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.
2017/03/29
Committee: CULT
Amendment 559 #
Proposal for a directive
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 organisations of relevant stakeholders determine sector- specific standard reporting statements and procedures and foster automated processing making use of digital technologies and international identifiers of works.
2017/03/29
Committee: CULT
Amendment 567 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – title
Contract adjustment mechanismRemuneration for the use of works or performances
2017/03/29
Committee: CULT
Amendment 569 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that authors and performers are entitled to proportionate and equitable remuneration of the revenues derived from the exploitation of their works and to request additional, appropriatequitable remuneration 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 the exploitation of the works or performances. Member States shall ensure that representative organisations of authors and performers, whether collective management organisations, unions or guilds, and representative organisations 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.
2017/03/29
Committee: CULT
Amendment 578 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1 a (new)
All Member States shall ensure that contracts include a rights reversion mechanism to enable the authors after ten years to terminate a contract in case of insufficient exploitation or payment of the remuneration provided for, as well as insufficient or lack of regular reporting and promotion.
2017/03/29
Committee: CULT
Amendment 586 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 16 – paragraph 1
Member States shall provide that disputes concerning the transparency obligation under Article 14 and the contract adjustment mechanismremuneration for the use of works or performances under Article 15 may be submitted to a voluntary, alternative dispute resolution procedure. Proceedings in respect of a dispute may also be brought on behalf of authors and performers by their representative organisations, whether collective management organisations, unions or guilds.
2017/03/29
Committee: CULT
Amendment 599 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 5 – paragraph 3 – point k
(ba) point (k) of Article 5 (3) is amended as follows: "(k) use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche;" (This amendment seeks to amend a provision within the existing act - Article 5, paragraph 3, point (k) - that was not referred to in the Commiss, without prejudice to the exceptions and limitation's proposal. Please note, however, that this amendment does not open any new substantial point in the revision of the Directive, but merely introduces a change necessary to ensure legal consistency with the Shadow'svided for in Directive [this Directive];" Or. en position.)
2017/03/29
Committee: CULT
Amendment 602 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b b (new)
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 6 – paragraph 3
(bb) paragraph 3 of Article 6 is amended as follows: "3. For the purposes of this Directive, the expression "technological measures" means any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts, in respect of works or other subject- matter, which are not authorised by the rightholder of any copyright or any right related to copyright as provided for by law or the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC or which are not authorised by national or Union law. Technological measures shall be deemed "effective" where the use of a protected work or other subject-matter is controlled by the rightholders through application of an access control or protection process, such as encryption, scrambling or other transformation of the work or other subject-matter or a copy control mechanism, which achieves the protection objective." (This amendment seeks to amend a provision within the existing act - Article 6, paragraph 3 - that was not referred to in the Commission proposal. Please note, however, that this amendment does not open any new substantial point in the revision of the Directive, but merely introduces a change necessary to ensure legal consistency with the Shadow'sOr. en position.)
2017/03/29
Committee: CULT
Amendment 603 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 17 – paragraph 2 – point b c (new)
Directive 2001/29/EC
Article 6 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 5 a (new)
(This amendment seeks to amend a provision within the existing act - Article 6, paragraph 4 - (bc) the following subparagraph is added: "The protections provided for in Article 6(1) and (2) shall not apply to acts described in paragraph 1 and 2 whose sole purpose is to enable a user's right to enjoy the exceptions and limitations to copyright and related rights outlined in this Directive or in Directive 96/9/EC, Directive 2009/24/EC Directive 2012/28/EU or Directive ... [this directive], to the extent necessary to benefit from that exception or limitation and where that beneficiary has legal access to the protected work or subject-matter concerned." Or. en that was not referred to in the Commission proposal. Please note, however, that this amendment does not open any new substantial point in the revision of the Directive, but merely introduces a change necessary to ensure legal consistency with the Shadow's position.)
2017/03/29
Committee: CULT
Amendment 874 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13 a Where a performer has transferred or assigned the 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 administered by a performers' collective management organization.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 923 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 a (new)
Article 14 a Unwaivable right to equitable remuneration 1. Member States shall ensure that when a performer or audiovisual author has transferred or assigned his making available right to a producer, that performer or audiovisual author shall retain the right to obtain an equitable remuneration. 2. This right to obtain an equitable remuneration for the making available of the performer or audiovisual author's work is inalienable and cannot be waived. 3. The administration of this right to obtain an equitable remuneration for the making available of the performer or audiovisual author's work shall be entrusted to collective management organisations representing audiovisual authors and/or performers, unless other collective agreements, including voluntary collective management agreements, guarantee such remuneration to performers or audiovisual authors for their making available right. 4. Performers' and audiovisual authors' collective management organisations shall collect the equitable remuneration from audiovisual media services making works available to the public.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI