BETA

24 Amendments of Morten LØKKEGAARD related to 2016/0280(COD)

Amendment 133 #
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 small parts or extracts of works to support, enrich or complement the teaching, including the related learning activities. The notion of "illustration for teaching" is usually understood as allowing a teacher to use a work to give examples and to explain or support his/her course. The use of the works or other subject-matter under the exception or limitation should therefore 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. 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.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 137 #
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 short parts or extracts 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 subjectshall make the application of the exception or limitation, fully or partially, subject to the availability of adequate licences, covering at least the same uses as those allowed under the exception. This mechanism would, for example,Such a licence must be deemed available even in cases where the licence terms include certain limitations regarding the use. This mechanism will 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 shouldmust 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. When such a licence override mechanism exists, the Member State is not required to introduce the exception provision in Art. 4(1). The Directive is without prejudice to the arrangements in the Member States concerning the management of rights such as extended collective licences, legal presumption or similar arrangements or a combination of them.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 176 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
(31) A free and pluralist press is essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens' access to information. It provides a fundamental contribution to public debate and the proper functioning of a democratic society. 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. This is mainly as some news aggregators and search engines use press publisher's content without contracting licence agreements and without remunerating them fairly. In the absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, licensing and enforcement in the digital environment is often complex and inefficient.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 182 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
(32) The organisational and financial contribution 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 print and digital uses.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 189 #
Proposal for a directive
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 of hyperlinking which do not constitute communication to the public.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 190 #
Proposal for a directive
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 of hyperlinking which do not constitute communication to the public.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 202 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
(34) The rights granted to the publishers of press publications under this Directive should have the same scope as the rights of reproduction and making available to the public provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC, insofar as digital uses are concerned. They. Short extracts of press publications may constitute a reproduction as they reflect an economic value and owe their fixation to the protected subject matter, i.e. the economic, organisational and editorial efforts of the press publisher necessary for such fixation and therefore interfere with the publisher's entrepreneurial efforts. The rights should also be subject to the same provisions on exceptions and limitations as those applicable to the rights provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC including the exception on quotation for purposes such as criticism or review laid down in Article 5(3)(d) of that Directive. The protection granted to press publications under this Directive should also apply where the content is automatically generated by news aggregators or search engines.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 204 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
(34) The rights granted to the publishers of press publications under this Directive should have the same scope as the rights of reproduction and making available to the public provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC, insofar as digital uses are concernedand as the rights of rental and lending right, and distribution right provided for in Directive 2006/115/EC. They should also be subject to the same provisions on exceptions and limitations as those applicable to the rights provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC including the exception on quotation for purposes such as criticism or review laid down in Article 5(3)(d) of that Directive.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 213 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
(37) Over the last years, the functioning of the online content marketplace has gained in complexity. Oonline services providing access to copyright protected content uploaded by their users without the involvement of right holders have flourished and have become mainimportant sources of access to content online. This affects rightholders' possibilities to determine whether, and under which conditions, their work and other subject-matter are used as well as their possibilities to get an appropriate remuneration for it, allowing for diversity and ease of access to content but also generating challenges when copyright protected content is uploaded without prior authorisation from rightholders.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 222 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37 a (new)
(37 a) User uploaded content services attract users and derive economic value from providing access to protected works and other subject matter, often including its optimization of presentation, organisation and promotion. In doing so, they directly compete with licensed content providers for the same users and revenues. However, unlike licensed services, such user uploaded content services either do not pay or underpay the creators for the works on which they rely by wrongfully claiming safe harbour provisions of the Directive 2000/31/EC.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 226 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37 b (new)
(37 b) This transfer of value undermines the efficiency of the online market, distorts competition and drives down the overall value of cultural content online. It also limits consumer choice for new and innovative legitimate services in the European Digital Single Market and risks cultural and creative industries that create significant jobs and growth for EU economy as underlined by the European Parliament resolution of 13 December 2016 on a coherent EU policy for cultural and creative industries (2016/2072(INI)).
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 242 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Where iInformation 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 anintervene in the 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 initiated by their users uploading such works and other subject matter. These service providers are thus obliged to conclude licensing agreements with rightholders both for the communication to the public and reproduction rights in which they play an indispensable role, 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. In order to provide legal certainty for the users, the authorisation granted to these service providers shall cover the liability of their users for the relevant copyright acts, provided the latter are not acting on a professional basis. _________________ 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).
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 252 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
In respect of Article 14, it is necessary to verify whether the service provider plays athe application of Article 14 of the Directive 2000/31/EC, it is necessary to verify whether the role played by the service provider is of an active nature. An active role, including by optimisinges, inter alia, optimisation for the purpose of the presentation by the service of the uploaded works or subject-matter or their promoting themon by the service, irrespective of the nature of the means used therefor. The service providers that play such an active role are ineligible for the liability exemption of such Article 14.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 359 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Member States mayshall 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.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 363 #
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.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 369 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. Member States may provide forshall ensure fair compensation for the harm incurred by the rightholders due to the use of their works or other subject-matter pursuant to paragraph 1.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 393 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 5(5) and the first, third, fourth and fifth subparagraphs of Article 6(4) of Directive 2001/29/EC shall apply to the exceptions and the limitations provided for under this Ttitle.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 428 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – title
Protection of press publications concerning digital uses
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 432 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC, Article 3 and 9 of Directive 2006/115/EC for the digital use of their press publications.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 434 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2), 3(2) and 9 of Directive 2001/29/EC for the digital use of their press publications.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 447 #
Member States mayshall provide that where an author has transferred or licensed a right to a publisher, such a transfer or a licence constitutes a sufficient legal basis for the publisher to claim a share of the compensation for the uses of the work made under an exception or limitation to the transferred or licensed right.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 456 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – title
Use of copyright protected content byuploaded by users of information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 471 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Information society service providers that store and play an active role in provide toing the public with access to large amounts of 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 as well as a reproduction act, are obliged to conclude licensing agreements with rightholders. Information society service providers 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. An information society service provider shall be deemed to 'store' a work for the purpose of this Article 13 if it displays a work in a manner that allows the public to view the work on the service provider's platform irrespective of where the data comprising the work technically resides, unless the service provider does so for the sole purpose of providing a search function and only displays extracts or previews that do not exceed what is essential and indispensable for navigational purposes.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 478 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Information society service providers such as news aggregators and search engines 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.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO