Activities of Sajjad KARIM related to 2016/0280(COD)
Plenary speeches (2)
Copyright in the Digital Single Market (debate)
Copyright in the Digital Single Market (debate)
Amendments (38)
Amendment 84 #
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. NInnovative new business models and new actors continue to emerge in the Digital Single Market. 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 ona recognition of the rights inof publications,shers, proportionate measures on the use of works and other subject-matter by active online service providers storing and giving access tolatforms which make available to the public user uploaded content and on the transparency of authors' and performers' contracts. _________________ 26 COM(2015) 626 final. COM(2015) 626 final.
Amendment 92 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) In the fields of research, innovation, education and preservation of cultural heritage, digital technologies permit new types of uses that are not clearly covered by the current Union rules on exceptions and limitations. In addition, the optional nature of exceptions and limitations provided for in Directives 2001/29/EC, 96/9/EC and 2009/24/EC in these fields may negatively impact the functioning of the internal market. This is particularly relevant as regards cross- border uses, which are becoming increasingly important in the digital environment. Therefore, the existing exceptions and limitations in Union law that are relevant for innovation, scientific research, teaching and preservation of cultural heritage should be reassessed in the light of those new uses. Mandatory exceptions or limitations for uses of text and data mining technologies in the field of scientific research, illustration for teaching in the digital environment and for preservation of cultural heritage should be introduced. For uses not covered by the exceptions or the limitation provided for in this Directive, the exceptions and limitations existing in Union law should continue to apply. Therefore, existing well-functioning exceptions in these fields may continue to be available in Member States, as long as they do not restrict the scope of the exceptions or limitations provided for in this Directive. Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC should be adapted.
Amendment 114 #
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 tothe processing of large amounts of information for research purposes 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 and competitiveness. However, in the Union, when research organisations such as universitiesis carried out by educational establishments and organisations such as universities, the public sector, cultural heritage institutions, and research institutes are confronted with, there is legal uncertainty as to the extent to which they can perform text and data mining of content. In certain instances, text and data mining may involve acts protected by copyright and/or by the sui generis database right, notably the reproduction of works or other subject-matter and/or the extraction of contents from a database. Where there is no exception or limitation which applies, an authorisation to undertake such acts would be required from rightholders. Text and data mining may also be carried out in relation to mere facts or data which are not protected by copyright and in such instances no authorisation would be required.
Amendment 126 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) Union law already provides certain exceptions and limitations covering uses for scientific research purposes which may apply to acts of text and data mining. However, those exceptions and limitations are optional and not fully adapted to the use of technologies in scientific research. Moreover, where researchers have lawful access to content, for example through subscriptions to publications or open access licences, the terms of the licences may exclude text and data mining. As research is increasingly carried out with the assistance of digital technology, there is a risk that the Union's competitive position as a research area will suffer unless steps are taken to address the legal uncertainty for text and data mining in Union law, while ensuring that text and data mining exceptions in Member States should be able to continue to be provided.
Amendment 145 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) This legal uncertainty should be addressed by providing for a mandatory exception to the right of reproduction and also to the right to prevent extraction from a database for research purposes. 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 shouldMember States should be able to determine that researchers can also benefit from the exception when they engage into public- private partnerships.
Amendment 157 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) Research oOrganisations across the Union encompass a wide variety of entities, which carry out research, include the public sector and cultural heritage institutions, the primary goal of which is to conduct scientific research or to do so together with the provision of educational services. Due to the diversity of such entities, it is important to have a common understanding of the beneficiaries of the exception. Despite different legal forms and structures, research organisations across Member States generally have in common that they act either on a not for profit basis or in the context of a public-interest mission recognised by the State. Such a public- interest mission may, for example, be reflected through public funding or through provisions in national laws or public contracts. At the same time, organisations upon which commercial undertakings have a decisive influence allowing them to exercise control because of structural situations such as their quality of shareholders or members, which may result in preferential access to the results of the research, should not be considered research organisations for the purposes of this Directive.
Amendment 175 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) Article 5(3)(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC allows Member States to introduce an exception or limitation to the rights of reproduction, communication to the public and making available to the public for the sole purpose of, among others, illustration for teaching. In addition, Articles 6(2)(b) and 9(b) of Directive 96/9/EC permit the use of a database and the extraction or re-utilization of a substantial part of its contents for the purpose of illustration for teaching. The scope of those exceptions or limitations as they apply to digital uses is unclear. In addition, there is a lack of clarity as to whether those exceptions or limitations would apply where teaching is provided online and thereby at a distance. Moreover, the existing framework does not provide for a cross-border effect. This situation may hamper the development of digitally- supported teaching activities and distance learning. Therefore, the introduction of a new mandatory exception or limitation is necessary to ensure that educational establishments benefit from full legal certainty when using works or other subject-matter in digital teaching activities, including online and across borders.
Amendment 188 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) While distance learning, e- 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. 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 191 #
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 to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved. 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, and be limited to what is necessary for the purpose of such activities. Member States should be able to provide for limits regarding the amount of work which could be copied in their national law, as long as these achieve a fair balance between the interests of users and rightsholders. The exception or limitation should cover both uses through digital means in the classroom and online uses, e- learning and 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 288 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) An Open Internet and a free and pluralist press isare essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens' access to information. ItThe press provides a fundamental contribution to public debate and the proper functioning of a democratic society. I by investing in content. However, in the transition from print to digital, publishers of press publications are facing problems in licensing the online use of their publications and recouping their investments. In the absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, licensing and enforcement in the digital environment is often complex and inefficientrecouping their investments and negotiating with online service providers.
Amendment 297 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) The organisational and financial contributioninvestment of publishers in producing press publications needs to be recognised and further encouraged to ensure the sustainability of the publishing industry. It is therefore necessary to provide at Union level a harmonised legal protection for press publications in respect of digital uses. Such protection should be effectively guaranteed through the introduction, in Union law, of rights related to copyright for the reproduction and making available to the public of press publications in respect of digital uses.
Amendment 322 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Recital 33
(33) For the purposes of this Directive, it is necessary to define the concept 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, weekly or monthly magazines of general or special interest 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 does not extend to acts ofinclude hyperlinking which does not constitute communication to the public.
Amendment 323 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Recital 34
Amendment 344 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
Recital 35
Amendment 355 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) Publishers, including those of press publications, books or scientific publications, 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 otherwise contributes with his works to a publication and there are systems in place to compensate for the harm 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.
Amendment 368 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) Over the last years, the functioning of the online content marketplace has gained in complexity. OActive online services providing access to copyright protected digital content uploaded by their users without the involvement of right holders have flourished and have become main sources of access to copyright protected 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.
Amendment 399 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Where information society service providers stoare and provide access to the public to copyright protected works or other subject-matterctively involved in the making available, promoting and curating copyright protected digital content uploaded by their users, to the public, 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 . _________________ 34 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1–16).
Amendment 411 #
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 has playsed an active role with knowledge of the copyright protected digital content in question, including by optimising the presentation of the uploaded works or subject-matter or promoting them, irrespective of the nature of the means used therefor.
Amendment 423 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
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 ofactively making available to the public copyright protected digital content, 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/ECtheir value and size to ensure protection of that digital content, in accordance with technological developments.
Amendment 447 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) Collaboration between information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts ofactively making available to the public copyright protected digital content, 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.
Amendment 465 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 41
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 in line with the nature of their contribution to the overall outcome of the work or performance. Member States should consult all relevant stakeholders as that should help determine sector-specific requirements, if these are not already applicable or enforced in the Member State. Collective bargaining should be considered as an option to reach an agreement between the relevant stakeholders regarding transparency. 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, or where agreements have already been made on the basis of collective bargaining agreements or equivalent arrangements in Member States.
Amendment 474 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 42
Recital 42
(42) Certain contracts for the exploitation of rights harmonised at Union level are of long duration, offering few 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 which would be applicable for cases where the remuneration originally agreed under a licence or a transfer of rights is disproportionately low compared to the relevantsubsequent and unanticipated revenues and the benet profits 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 well as of the specificities and practices of the different content sectors. Where the parties do not agree on the adjustment of the remuneration, the author or performer shouldmay be entitled to bring a claim before a court or other competent authority. However, where agreements with collective management organisations are applicable or where agreements with individuals are already in place and enforced, the remuneration mechanism should not apply.
Amendment 483 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 43
Recital 43
(43) Authors and performers are often reluctant to enforce their rights against their contractual partners before a court or tribunal. Member States should therefore provide for an efficient alternative dispute resolution procedure that addresses claims related to obligations of transparency and the contract adjustment mechanism.
Amendment 494 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. Except in the cases referred to in Article 6, this Directive shall leave intact and shall in no way affect existing rules laid down in the Directives currently in force in this area, in particular Directives 96/9/EC, 2001/29/EC, 2000/31/EC, 2006/115/EC, 2009/24/EC, 2012/28/EU and 2014/26/EU.
Amendment 499 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
‘research organisation’ means aeducational establishment' means a school, college, university, a research institute or any other organisation with the primary goal of which is to conduct scientific research or to conduct scientific research and provideing educational services:.
Amendment 503 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point a
(a) on a non-for-profit basis or by reinvesting all the profits in its scientific researcheducational activities; or
Amendment 507 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 515 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 3
Article 2 – paragraph 3
(3) ‘cultural heritage institution’ means a publicly accessible library, gallery or museum, an archive or a film or audio heritage institution or public broadcaster;
Amendment 533 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive for reproductions and extractions made by research organisations in order to carry out text and data mining of works or other subject-matter to which they have lawful access for the purposes of scientific researchnon- commercial research purposes. Member States may continue to provide text and data mining exceptions in accordance with Article 5 (3) (a) of Directive 2001/29/EC.
Amendment 558 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 4
Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall encourage rightholders and research organisationeducational establishments to define commonly-agreed best practices concerning the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 3.
Amendment 582 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive in order to allow for the digital use of works and other subject- matter for the sole purpose of illustration for teachingeducational purposes, to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, provided that the use:
Amendment 644 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Member States shall provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive, permitting cultural heritage institutions, to make copies of any works or other subject-matter that are permanently in their collections or use the facilities of third parties to do so, 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 preservation.
Amendment 688 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) Member States shall, in consultation with rightsholders, collective management organisations and cultural heritage institutions, evaluate the effectiveness of such licensing solutions.
Amendment 697 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 7 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 754 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shallmay provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/ECthe legal capacity to sue in their own name when defending the rights of authors for the digital use of their press publications.
Amendment 818 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their usersare actively involved in making available digital content uploaded by their users, including by promoting and curating to the public copyright protected work and with knowledge of the copyright protected content in question, shall, in cooperation with rightsholders, tak in the creative sectors, take effective measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their digital content, works or other subject- matter or to prevent the availability on their services of digital content, works or other subject- matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with thactive service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The active 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 digital content, works andor other subject- matter.
Amendment 921 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 4
Article 14 – paragraph 4
4. Paragraph 1 shall not be applicable to entitieagreements subject to the transparency obligations established by Directive 2014/26/EU or to agreements with collective management organisations or agreements with individual authors or performers, which are based on collective bargaining or equivalent provisions.
Amendment 938 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure thatmay provide for authors and performers are entitled to request additional, appropriate remuneration from the party with whom they entered into a contract for the exploitation of the rights when the remuneration originally agreed is disproportionately low compared to the subsequent relevant revenues and benefits derived from the exploitation of the works or performances. Factors determining disproportionate remuneration shall include the nature, significance and contribution to the work of the author or performer.