Activities of Rolandas PAKSAS related to 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
Amendments (28)
Amendment 12 #
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. TIn this context, with particular respect to the abuse of embedding or framing techniques of audio-visual content on a commercial scale, the Commission will 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.
Amendment 17 #
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 researcherscitizens, businesses, researchers, journalists and any member of society who has access to the internet, 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 communitcitizen science, businesses, the research community, journalism and other sectors of society and the economy and in so doing encourage innovation, growth and jobs. However, in the Union, researchall organisations such as universities and research instituteand individuals are confronted with legal uncertainty as to the extent to which they can perform text and data mining of content. In certain instances, text and data mining may involve acts protected by copyright and/or by the sui generis database right, notably the reproduction of works or other subject- matter and/or the extraction of contents from a database. Where there is no exception or limitation which applies, an authorisation to undertake such acts would be required from rightholders. Text and data mining may also be carried out in relation to mere facts or data which are not protected by copyright and in such instances no authorisation would be required.
Amendment 23 #
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 researchusers 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.
Amendment 29 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
Amendment 33 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) In view of a potentially high number of access requests to and downloads of their works or other subject- matter, rightholders should be allowed to apply measures where there is risk that the security and integrity of the system or databases where the works or other subject-matter are hosted wcould be jeopardised. Those measures should not exceed what is necessary to pursue the objective of ensuring the security and integrity of the system and should not undermine the effective application of the exception.
Amendment 38 #
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. TIn addition to uneven application across 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 41 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) While distance learning and cross- border education programmes are mostly developed at higher education level, digital tools and resources are increasingly used at all education levels, in particular to improve and enrich the learning experience. The exception or limitation provided for in this Directive should therefore benefit all educational establishments in primary, secondary, vocational and higher education 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. 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 45 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The exception or limitation should cover digitall 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, digital or otherwise, 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.
Amendment 47 #
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 rightholders.
Amendment 50 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) Different approaches in the Member States for acts of preservation by cultural heritage institutions, research organisations, 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.
Amendment 52 #
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 organisations, 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. 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.
Amendment 55 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
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 to begin with. It is therefore necessary to provide for measures to facilitate the online availability of out-of-commerce works that are in the collections of cultural heritage in the internal market. . It is therefore necessary to provide for measures to facilitate the licensing of rights in 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.
Amendment 57 #
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 123 #
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. 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 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 toThe transparency obligation should not apply to works made under employment arrangements or when the contribution of the author or performer is not significant having regard to the overall work or performance, including in particular audio-visual works and collective works. 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, in particular regarding arrangements concluded for the content of radio services or of audiovisual media services under Directive 2010/13/EU, a transitional period should be provided for. The transparency obligations do not need to apply to cases where the relevant contract or remuneration is based on collective bargaining, collective rights management or other collective arrangements or on joint remuneration agreements, including agreements concluded with collective management organisations as those are already subject to transparency obligations under Directive 2014/26/EU.
Amendment 126 #
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, Member States may introduce, in cases where the transparency obligation applies, 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 profits directly derived from the exploitation of the relevant work or the fixation of the relevant 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 should be entitled to bring a claim before a court or other competent authority. Member States may provide that this right expires if it is not exercised within a reasonable period from the relevant exploitation.
Amendment 134 #
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 theypersons have lawful access for the purposes of scientific research.
Amendment 145 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. Rightholders shall not be allowed to apply measures to ensure the security and integtechnological measures to prevent or hinder beneficiaries from benefiting from the exception provided for in paragraph 1, unless to ensure the security of the networks and databases where the works or other subject-matter are hosted. Such measures shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.
Amendment 150 #
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 toto make technological measures that might impact upon use of the exception provided for in pParagraph 31 transparent to the public.
Amendment 155 #
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 157 #
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, Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive in order to allow for the digital use of works and other subject- matter for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research, to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, provided that the use:
Amendment 161 #
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 education venue, such as cultural heritage institutions, or research organisations or through a secure electronic network accessible only by the educational establishment's pupils or students and teaching staff, or registered members of the cultural heritage institution involved in informal education;
Amendment 175 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. The use of works and other subject- matter for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching through secure electronic networks undertaken in compliance with the provisions of national law adopted pursuant to this Article shall be deemed to occur solely in the Member State where the educational establishment cultural heritage institution or research organization is established.
Amendment 177 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. Member States may provide for fair compensation for the harm incurred by theany unreasonable prejudice to the legitimate interests of rightholders incurred due to the use of their works or other subject-matter pursuant to paragraph 1. .
Amendment 183 #
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, research organisations, and 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 preservation.
Amendment 239 #
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 directly licensed or transferred their rights, notably as regards modes of exploitation, revenues generated and remuneration due.
Amendment 245 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Article 14 – paragraph 3
Amendment 247 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 – paragraph 4
Article 14 – paragraph 4
4. Paragraph 1 shall not be applicable to entities subject to cases where the relevant contract or remuneration is based on collective bargaining, collective rights management or other collective arrangements or on joint remuneration agreements, including with the transparency obligations established by Directive 2014/26/EU.
Amendment 249 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Article 15 – paragraph 1
Member States shall ensure that, in cases where paragraph 1 of Article 14 applies, authors and performers are entitled to request additional, appropriate remuneration from the party with whom they directly entered into a contract for the exploitation of the rights when the author or performer demonstrates that the remuneration originally agreed is disproportionately low compared to the subsequent relevant revenues and benefitsunexpected relevant profits directly derived from the exploitation of the works or performances. Member States may provide that this right expires if it is not exercised within a reasonable period from the relevant exploitation.