BETA

Activities of Marietje SCHAAKE related to 2016/0280(COD)

Plenary speeches (1)

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

Amendments (87)

Amendment 80 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
(5) In the fields of research, 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 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, illustration for teaching 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. Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC should be adapted.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 83 #
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. 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.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 86 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
(4) This Directive is based upon, and complements, the rules laid down in the Directives currently in force in this area, in particular Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council27 , Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 27a, Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council28 , Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council29 , Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council30 , Directive 2012/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council31 and Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council32 . _________________ 27 Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ L 77, 27.3.1996, p. 20–28). 27a 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 (Directive on electronic commerce) (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1). 28 Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ L 167, 22.6.2001, p. 10–19). 29 Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 28–35). 30 Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (OJ L 111, 5.5.2009, p. 16–22). 31 Directive 2012/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on certain permitted uses of orphan works (OJ L 299, 27.10.2012, p. 5– 12). 32 Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi- territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market (OJ L 84, 20.3.2014, p. 72–98).
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 90 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
(8) New technologies enable the automated computational analysis of information in digital form, such as text, sounds, images or any other type of data, generally known as text and data mining. Those technologies allow researchers tothe processing of 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 community and in so doing encourage innovation. However, in the Union, research organisations such as universities and research institutesindividuals, public and private entities who have legal access to content 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. The right to read is the right to mine.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 96 #
Proposal for a directive
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 and its Open Science Agenda 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.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 97 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
(5) In the fields of research, education and preserv and innovation, transformative use, education ofand 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 impacts 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 scientific research, teaching and preservation of cultural heritage should be reassessed and complemented 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 preserv, illustration for teaching , user-generated content, freedom of panorama and for preservation and dissemination of cultural heritage should be introduced. For uses not covered by the exceptions or the limitations provided for in this Directive, the exceptions and limitations existing in Union law should continue to apply. Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC should be adapted.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 114 #
Proposal for a directive
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 would be jeopardised. Those measures should not exceed what is necessary, proportionate and effective to pursue the objective of ensuring the security and integrity of the system and should not undermine the effective application of the exception.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 121 #
Proposal for a directive
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.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 124 #
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. Tactivities for non-commercial purposes. However in order to ensure that the organisational structure and the means of funding of an educational establishment are not the decisive factorsfactors taken into account to determine the non- commercial nature of the activity, the exception or limitation should not be limited to educational establishments.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 135 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
(17) Different arrangements, based on the implementation of the exception provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC or on licensing agreements covering further uses, are in place in a number of Member States in order to facilitate educational uses of works and other subject-matter. Such arrangements have usually been developed taking account of the needs of educational establishments and different levels of education. Whereas it is essential to harmonise the scope of the new mandatory exception or limitation in relation to digital uses and cross-border teaching activities, the modalities of implementation may differ from a Member State to another, to the extent they do not hamper the effective application of the exception or limitation or cross-border uses. This should allow Member States to build on the existing arrangements concluded at national level. In particular, Member States could decide to subject the application of the exception or limitation, fully or partially, to the availability of adequate licences, covering at least the same uses as those allowed under the exception. This mechanism would, for example, allow giving precedence to licences for materials which are primarily intended for the educational market. In order to avoid that such mechanism results in legal uncertainty or administrative burden for educational establishments, Member States adopting this approach should take concrete measures to ensure that licensing schemes allowing digital uses of works or other subject-matter for the purpose of illustration for teaching are easily available and that educational establishments are aware of the existence of such licensing schemes.deleted
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 154 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 d (new)
(21 d) The reconciliation of the public's interest to participate in the public sphere by means of an exception regarding the use of depictions of buildings and permanent structures is necessary. Professional photographers and other authors, rightsholders, consumers, institutional users and service providers are predominantly using depictions of works on the basis of national exceptions for 'freedom of panorama' and rely on legal certainty for cross-border usage.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 167 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28 a (new)
(28 a) Following technological developments and evolving user behaviour, a significant phenomenon of cultural creation has emerged, which relies on users uploading or displaying content, in various forms, to online services. Such user-generated content may comprise extracts or quotations of protected works or other subject-matter, which may be altered, combined or transformed for different purposes by users. Such uses of extracts or quotations within user-generated content, for various purposes such as the illustration of an idea, review or entertainment, are now widespread online and, provided that the use of such extracts or quotations of protected works or other subject-matter is proportionate, do not cause significant economic harm to the rightholders concerned and may even advertise the work used within the user-generated content.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 168 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 28 b (new)
(28 b) Despite some overlap with existing voluntary exceptions or limitations, such as the one for quotation and parody, the use of protected works or other subject- matter within user-generated content is nonetheless not properly covered by the existing list of exceptions or limitations, creating legal uncertainty for users. Particularly the voluntary nature of existing exceptions and limitations is significantly curtailing the development of user-generated content, which is typically disseminated in a borderless online environment. It is therefore necessary to provide a new mandatory specific exception to authorise the legitimate uses of extracts or quotations of protected works or other subject-matter within user- generated content.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 184 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC and point (a) of Article 5 and Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, permitting the reproduction and use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places. Any contractual provision contrary to the exception provided for in this Article shall be unenforceable.
2017/04/05
Committee: ITRE
Amendment 186 #
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.deleted
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 200 #
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 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.deleted
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 207 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
(35) The protection granted to publishers of press publications under this Directive should not affect the rights of the authors and other rightholders in the works and other subject-matter incorporated therein, including as regards the extent to which authors and other rightholders can exploit their works or other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated. Therefore, publishers of press publications should not be able to invoke the protection granted to them against authors and other rightholders. This is without prejudice to contractual arrangements concluded between the publishers of press publications, on the one side, and authors and other rightholders, on the other side.deleted
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 214 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
(37) Over the last years, the functioning of the online content marketplace has gained in complexity. Online services providing access to copyright protected content uploaded by their users without the involvement of right holdersonline services enabling users to upload works and to make them accessible to the public have flourished and have become mainimportant sources of access to content online. This affects rightholders' possibilities to determine whether, and under which conditions, their w and of creativity. At the same time, when protected content is uploaded without priork and other subject-matter are used as well as their possibilities to get an appropriate remuneration for ituthorisation from rightholders, they have generated challenges.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 231 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Where an information society service is 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 ared that consists of the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service and providers of the service enable users to upload works in such as a way as to make them available to the public and obtains knowledge after receiving notification by the rightholders that the work is used in an unauthorised manner and subject to copyright and related rights , they are obliged take that content down in order to be eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council34. However, it is in the interests of all parties involved that the content remain obnliged tone. Therefore, the possibility of concludeing a licensing agreements with between 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 and the service providers on fair and reasonable terms for that purpose should be enabled. In order to ensure that notifications of works subject to copyright and related rights are valid, rightholders should provide service providers with an accurate identification of both the protected works and the uploaded content deemed to be unauthorised, including its exact location. To prevent misuses or abuses of notifications, and protect freedom of information and expression and the limitations and exceptions to copyright law, users should have access to redress and complaint mechanisms. _________________ 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 242 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21 d (new)
(21 d) The reconciliation of the public's interest to participate in the public sphere by means of an exception regarding the use of depictions of buildings and permanent structures is necessary. Professional photographers and other authors, rightholders, consumers, institutional users and service providers are predominantly using depictions of works on the basis of a national 'freedom of panorama'exceptions and rely on legal certainty for cross-border usage.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 250 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
In respect of Article 14, it is necessary to verify whether the service provider plays an active role, including by optimising the presentation of the uploaded works or subject-matter or promoting them, irrespective of the nature of the means used therefor.deleted
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 258 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
In order to ensure the functioning of any licensing agreement, information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users should take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure protection of works or other subject-matter, such as implementing effective technologies. This obligation should also apply when the information society service providers are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC.deleted
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 272 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
(39) Collaboration between information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users and rightholders is essential for the funand rightholders is essential to facilitate the accurate identification of unauthorised works online. Appropriate safeguards should however be put in place where they agree on the introductioning of technologies, such as content recognition technologies. In such cases, rightholders should provide the necessary data to allowvoluntary measures to ensure that 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 agreemen do not infringe the fundamental rights of users, namely their right to protection of their personal data and their freedom to receive or impart information, in accordance with Articles 8 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union in particular their rights to the use of works made in accordance with an exception or limitation to copyright.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 281 #
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. In the absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, licensing and enforcement in the digital environment is often complex and inefficient.deleted
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 289 #
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. In the absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, lLicensing and enforcement in the digital environment is often complex and inefficient.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 295 #
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 digital uses.deleted
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 302 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 43 a (new)
(43 a) There is in many cases a lack of information and availability of data regarding the holders of copyright and related rights, which prevents potential users of works to obtain a license to use or reproduce that work and directly remunerate the author or creator of that work. A centralised database should therefore be established to enable an easier identification of works subject to copyright and related rights, decrease complexity and costs in authors and performers's rights administration and to facilitate the remuneration and payment of licenses to artists and performers for their work.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 304 #
Proposal for a directive
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, 2000/31/EC, 2001/29/EC, 2006/115/EC, 2009/24/EC, 2012/28/EU and 2014/26/EU.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 310 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 2 a (new)
(2a) 'beneficiary' means any individual or entity, public or private, with lawful access to content ;
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 312 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
(33) For the purposes of this Directive, it is necessary to defineclarify the sconceptpe 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, weeklotection set out in Article s2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC. In order to improve legal certainty for all concerned parties, and to ensure the freedom to carry out certain acts necessary for monthly magazines of general or special ithe normal functioning of the Internest 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 doess well as to take account of certain fundamental rights, these Articles should not extend to acts of hyperlinking, which do not constitute communication to the public.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 326 #
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 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.deleted
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 331 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3
3. Rightholders shall not be allowed to apply measures to ensure the security and integrity of the networks and databases where the works or otechnical measures that prevent or hinder beneficiaries from benefiting from the exception provided for in paragraph 1. Such measures shall therefore not exceed what is necessary to pursue the objective of ensuring ther subject-matter are hosted. Such measures shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objectiveecurity of the system and shall not undermine the effective application of the exception. These measures shall not prevent or unreasonably restrict the ability to text and mine data or the ability to develop text and data mining tools that differ from those offered by the rightholders as long as the security of the networks and databases are protected.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 338 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 4
4. The Commission, in cooperation with Member States, shall encourage rightholders and research organisations to define commonly-agreed best practices concerning the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 3.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 340 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 35
(35) The protection granted to publishers of press publications under this Directive should not affect the rights of the authors and other rightholders in the works and other subject-matter incorporated therein, including as regards the extent to which authors and other rightholders can exploit their works or other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated. Therefore, publishers of press publications should not be able to invoke the protection granted to them against authors and other rightholders. This is without prejudice to contractual arrangements concluded between the publishers of press publications, on the one side, and authors and other rightholders, on the other side.deleted
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 342 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – title
Use of works and other subject-matter in digital and cross-border teachingeducational activities
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 344 #
Proposal for a directive
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 teaching, learning and scientific research to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, provided that the use:
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 351 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) takes place on the premises of an educational establishment or through a secure electronic network accessible only by the educational establishment's pupils or students and teaching staff;deleted
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 356 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Member States may provide that the exception adopted pursuant to paragraph 1 does not apply generally or as regards specific types of works or other subject- matter, to the extent that adequate licences authorising the acts described in paragraph 1 are easily available in the market.deleted
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 362 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Member States availing themselves of the provision of the first subparagraph shall take the necessary measures to ensure appropriate availability and visibility of the licences authorising the acts described in paragraph 1 for educational establishments.deleted
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 365 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
(37) Over the last years, the functioning of the online content marketplace has gained in complexity. Online services providing access to copyright protected content uploaded by their users without the involvement of right holdersonline services enabling users to upload works and to make them accessible to the public have flourished and have become mainimportant sources of access to content online. This affects rightholders' possibilities to determine whether, and un and of creativity. At the same time, when protected content is uploaderd which conditions, their without priork and other subject-matter are used as well as their possibilities to get an appropriate remuneration for ituthorisation from right holders, they have generated challenges.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 367 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. The use of works and other subject- matter for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching through secure electronic 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 is establishedonly be accessible to the beneficiaries of this exception or limitation.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 369 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
(37) Over the last years, the functioning of the online content marketplace has gained in complexity. Online services providing access tohosting 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.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 373 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 4
4. Member States may provide for fair compensation for the harm incurred by theany unreasonable actions contrary to the legitimate interests of rightholders duein relation to the use of their works or other subject-matter pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article and Article 5(5) of Directive 2001/29/EC.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 385 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Where an information society service is 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 ad that consists of the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service and providers of the service enable users to upload works in such as a way as to make them available to the public and obtains knowledge after receiving notification by the rightholders that the work is used in an unauthorised manner and subject tof communication to the public, they are obliged to conclude licensing agreements with rightholders, unless they arpyright and related rights, those providers are obliged to take that content down in order to be 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). However, it is in the interests of all parties involved that the content remain online. Therefore, the possibility of concluding a licensing agreement between rightholders and the service providers on fair and reasonable terms for that purpose should be enabled. In order to ensure that notifications of works subject to copyright and related rights are valid, rightholders should provide service providers with an accurate identification of both the protected works and the uploaded content deemed to be unauthorised, including its exact location. To prevent misuses or abuses of notifications, and protect freedom of information and expression and the limitations and exceptions to copyright law, users should have access to redress and complaint mechanisms.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 386 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Where information society service providers that store and provide access to the public to copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users, thereby going beyondinformation provided by a recepient of the service conduct licencing agreements with rightsholders on a voluntary basis, the users' fundamental rights to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of information are often not sufficiently taken into account and their ability to assert their right of use under an exception or limitation is often unjustly curtailed by the measures provision of physical facilities and performing an act of communication to the publut in place as part of those licencing agreements. In order to correct this situation and provide legal certainty to users who are exercising their right of use under an exception or limitation that exists under national law in the country in whic,h they are obliged to conclud use is made, a legal framework governing those licenscing 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 Councilis necessary. In order to protect fundamental rights and improve legal certainty for all concerned parties in light of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it is necessary that any agreements on measures between rightsholders and information society service providers do not impose a general obligation on information society service providers to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor a general obligation actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity. 34 . _________________ 34 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1–16).
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 389 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 d (new)
Article 5d Freedom of Panorama 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 and point (a) of Article 5 and Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, permitting the reproduction and use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places. 2. Any contractual provision contrary to the exception provided for in this Article shall be unenforceable.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 402 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
In respect of Article 14, it is necessary to verify whether the service provider plays an active role, including by optimising the presentation of the uploaded works or subject-matter or promoting them, irrespective of the nature of the means used therefor.deleted
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 405 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
In respect of Article 14, it is necessary to verify whether the service provider plays an active role, including by optimising the presentation of the uploaded works or subject-matter or promoting them, irrespective of the nature of the means used therefor.deleted
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 415 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
In order to ensure the functioning of any licensing agreement, information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users should take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure protection of works or other subject-matter, such as implementing effective technologies. This obligation should also apply when the information society service providers are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC.deleted
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 416 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
In order to ensure the functioning of any licensing agreement, information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users should take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure protection of works or other subject-matter, such as implementing effective technologies. This obligation should also apply when the information society service providers are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC.deleted
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 417 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that information that allows the identification of the works or other subject-matter covered by a licence granted in accordance with Article 7 and information about the possibility of rightholders to object referred to in Article 7(1)(c) are made publicly accessible in a single online portal for at least six months before the works or other subject-matter are digitised, distributed, communicated to the public or made available in Member States other than the one where the licence is granted, and for the whole duration of the licence.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 422 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11
Protection of press publications 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 otArticle 11 deleted concerning digital uses Member States shall provide Ther 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.s referred to in Articles 5 to 8 of Directive The rights referred to in
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 431 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 a (new)
(38 a) Any agreements on measures between rightsholders and information society service providers that might be concluded should provide for an obligation for rightholders to provide the necessary data to allow the services to identify their content in a publicly accessible database. Such obligation should help clarify the responsibility of rightholders for claims made by third parties over the use of works which they would have identified as being their own in the implementation of any agreement reached with the service provider.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 437 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
(39) Collaboration between information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users and rightholders is essential for the functioning of technologies, such as content recognition technologies. In such cases, rightholders should provide the necessary data to allow the services to identify their content and the services should be transparent towards rightholders with regard to the deployed technologies, to allow the assessment of their appropriateness. The services should in particular provide rightholders with information on the type of technologies used, the way they are operated and their success rate for the recognition of rightholders' content. Those technologies should also allow rightholders to get information from the information society service providers on the use of their content covered by an agreement.deleted
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 444 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
(39) Collaboration between information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users and rightand right holders is essential to facilitate the accurate identification of unauthorised works online. Appropriate safeguards shoulders is essential for the functioning of technologies, such as content recognition technologies. In such cases, rightholders should provide the necessary data to allow however be put in place where they agree on the introduction of voluntary measures to ensure that 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 agreemen do not infringe the fundamental rights of users, namely their right to protection of their personal data and their freedom to receive or impart information, in accordance with Articles 8 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union, in particular their rights to the use of works made in accordance with an exception or limitation to copyright.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 448 #
Proposal for a directive
Chapter 4 – title
Certain uses of protected content by the users of online services
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 455 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – title
Use of protected content by users of certain 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 462 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amouinformation provided by a recipients 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 ervice and enable users to upload works in such a way as to make them available to the public shall, upon obtaining knowledge or awareness that an uploaded work subject to copyright and otheir 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-matterrelated rights is used in an unauthorised manner, act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the content, except where service providers conclude a licensing agreement with rightholders enabling the content to remain available.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 484 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. In order to be valid, the notification of an unauthorised protected content shall include, in particular, the identification by the rightholder of the work subject to copyright and related rights claimed to have been infringed and the identification of the uploaded work, including its exact location, that is considered to be using work subject to copyright and related rights.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 492 #
Proposal for a directive
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, 2000/31/EC, 2001/29/EC, 2006/115/EC, 2009/24/EC, 2012/28/EU and 2014/26/EU.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 493 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1. These mechanisms shall in particular ensure that where the removal of the content referred to in paragraph 1 is not justified, the content in question shall be reinstated online within a reasonable time. As a last resort, Member States shall ensure the possibility of judicial redress.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 496 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. In order to ensure uniform protection of users and rightholders across the Union, the Commission shall develop guidelines on the conditions that need to be met for the validity of the notification referred to in paragraph 1a and for the complaint and redress mechanisms referred to in paragraph 2.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 500 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission, in cooperation with Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers referred to in paragraph 1, users and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, am for the implementationg others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developmentsf paragraph 1.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 505 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Member States shall ensure that where service providers take voluntary measures, these measures do not infringe the fundamental rights of users, namely their right to protection of their personal data and their freedom to receive or impart information, in accordance with Articles 8 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular their rights to the use of works made within an exception or limitation to copyright.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 509 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13a User generated content Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC, point (a) of Article 5 and 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 for the digital use of quotations or extracts of works and other subject-matter comprised within user-generated content for purposes such as but not limited to criticism, review, entertainment, illustration, caricature, parody or pastiche, provided that the quotations or extracts: (a) relate to works or other subject- matter that have already been lawfully made available to the public; (b) are accompanied by the indication of the source, including the author's name, unless this turns out to be impossible; and (c) are used in accordance with fair practice and in a manner that does not extend beyond the specific purpose for which they are being used.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 519 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 4
(4) ‘press publication’ means a fixation of a collection of literary works of a journalistic nature, which may also comprise other works or subject-matter and constitutes an individual item within a periodical or regularly-updated publication under a single title, such as a newspaper or a general or special interest magazine, having the purpose of providing information related to news or other topics and published in any media under the initiative, editorial responsibility and control of a service provider.deleted
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 540 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 14 a (new)
Article 14a Establishment of a central database 1. The European Commission is empowered to take measures for the establishment of a central database enabling the electronic transfer of data on works subject to copyright and other related rights from existing databases of collective management organisations and providing the possibility for independent authors or performers to submit individually the data related to their respective works. 2. The database shall provide the following non exhaustive information regarding the work subject to copyright and related rights : (a) the type of use (b) the means of distribution (c) the territory (d) the duration of the copyright (e) the name of the holder(s) of the relevant rights (d) the organisation or person managing the rights (e) the rights metadata 3. For the purpose of paragraph 1, collective management organisations shall make their databases available in the public domain. 4. The database shall provide to the user the possibility to request, obtain and pay for the use of the content subject to copyright and related rights through a secure online platform, or in cases where the content cannot be obtained directly, the possibility to contact the collective management organisation or any other third party managing the rights. 5. The European Commission is empowered to take measures to ensure that the database is managed in an independent and transparent manner.
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 573 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 18 – paragraph 2
2. The provisions of Article 11 shall also apply to press publications published before [the date mentioned in Article 21(1)].deleted
2017/04/05
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 667 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 d (new)
Article 5 d Freedom of Panorama 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 and point (a) of Article 5 and Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, permitting the reproduction and use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places. 2. Any contractual provision contrary to the exception provided for in this Article shall be unenforceable.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 731 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 11
Protection of press publications 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 for the digital use of their press publications. 2. The rights referred to in 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. Articles 5 to 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC and Directive 2012/28/EU shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of the rights referred to in paragraph 1. 4. The rights referred to in 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 concerning digital uses
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 796 #
Proposal for a directive
Chapter 4 – title
Certain uses of protected content by the users of online services.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 797 #
Proposal for a directive
Chapter 4 – title
Certain uses of protected content by users of online services
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 801 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – title
Use of protected content byin certain information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 804 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – title
Use of protected content by information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploainformation provided by their users
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 816 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amouinformation provided by a recipients 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 ervice and enable users to upload works in such a way as to make them available to the public shall, upon obtaining knowledge or awareness that an uploaded work subject to copyright and otheir 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-matterrelated rights is used in an unauthorised manner, act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the content, except where service providers conclude a licensing agreement with rightholders enabling the content to remain available.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 820 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
1. IWhere information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or oinformation provided by recipients of ther 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 oervice, conclude agreements with rightholders, the implementation of such agreements shall respect the users' fundamental rights and shall in particular nother 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 convey an obligation upon the information society service provider to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor a general obligation actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity. The service providers shall cooperate and work together with rightholders to ensure that the functioning and implementation of such agreements are full and transparent towards the users.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 832 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. In order to be valid, the notification of an unauthorised protected content shall include, in particular, the identification by the right holder of the work subject to copyright and related rights claimed to have been infringed and the identification of the uploaded work, including its exact location, that is considered to be using work subject to copyright and related rights.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 833 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. In order to ensure the transparency of the agreements mentioned in paragraph 1, rightholders shall provide, in a publicly accessible database, all the necessary data related to the holder of the right, the protected subject matter and relevant territories, in order to allow the service providers to identify accurately their content.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 835 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. In order to ensure a proportionate implementation of the voluntary agreements mentioned in paragraph 1, Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that rightholders and information society service providers make available to the beneficiary of an exception or limitation provided for in national law in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 2001/29 and with [Articles XXX of this Directive] the means of benefiting from that exception or limitation, to the extent necessary to benefit from that exception or limitation.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 839 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1. These mechanisms shall in particular ensure that where the removal of the content referred to in paragraph 1 is not justified, the content in question shall be reinstated online within a reasonable time. As a last resort, Member States shall ensure the possibility of judicial redress.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 845 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that the servicenational law providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1users with access to a court or other relevant authority for the purpose of asserting their right of use under an exception or limitation.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 848 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. The agreements referred to in paragraph 1 shall be implemented without prejudice to the use of works made within an exception or limitation to copyright. To this end, Member States shall ensure that users are allowed to communicate rapidly and in an effective manner with the rightholders who have requested any measures within the scope of agreements referred to in paragraph 1 in order to challenge the application of those measures.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 850 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. In order to ensure uniform protection of users and right holders across the Union, the European Commission shall develop guidelines on the conditions that need to be met for the validity of the notification referred to in paragraph 1a and for the complaint and redress mechanisms referred to in paragraph 2.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 855 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments.deleted
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 859 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3
3. The Commission, in cooperation with Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers referred to in paragraph 1, users and right holders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, am for the implementationg others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developmentsf paragraph 1.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI
Amendment 864 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Member States shall ensure that where service providers take voluntary measures, these measures do not infringe the fundamental rights of users, namely their right to protection of their personal data and their freedom to receive or impart information, in accordance with Articles 8 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular their rights to the use of works made within an exception or limitation to copyright.
2017/04/28
Committee: JURI