2014/2256(INI) | [ParlTrack]

Antanas GUOGA, Dita CHARANZOVÁ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the ~~appoin~~commitment of twohe Commission~~ers who will work~~ on further developing the EU digital agenda ~~and~~, including copyright issues ~~in the course of the new Commission mandate~~; welcomes the Commission Work Programme for 2015 insofar as it promises to deliver a Digital Single Market Package which includes the objective of modernising copyright rules;

Amendment 10 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that Directive 2001/29/EC (Infosoc Directive) was adopted in 2001 and that the digital use of material subject to copyright has changed and dramatically increased since then; highlights the need for the Commission to respond to technological developments and adapt current laws to economic realities;

Amendment 11 #

Antanas GUOGA, Kaja KALLAS, Dita CHARANZOVÁ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Highlights the fact that legislative differences in Member States cause legal uncertainties hindering the creation of Digital Single Market and cross-border accessibility of copyright content;

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Recalls that the primary objective of copyright is the protection of authors and their just rewards;

Amendment 13 #

Antanas GUOGA, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Kaja KALLAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Recalls that the value generated in the digital economy by copyrighted works should be shared fairly with the rights holders; calls on the Commission to assess the extent and impact of this value transfer in favour of digital technical intermediaries;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Recognises the need for more harmonisation at the European Union level in order to improve free movement of services and products based on creative content;

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that copyright and related rights play an important role, as they protect and stimulate both the development and marketing of new products and services and the creation and exploitation of their creative content, thereby contributing to improved competitiveness, employment and innovation across several industry sectors in the EUStresses that protecting copyright represents a fundamental recognition of the performance of creative work which promotes the creation of jobs in all the Member States and provides a guarantee of fair remuneration for creative work;

Amendment 16 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that copyright and related rights play a~~n important~~ key role, as they protect and stimulate both the development and marketing of new products and services and the creation and exploitation of their creative content, thereby contributing to improved competitiveness, employment and innovation across several industry sectors in the EU; points out that the necessary adaptation of Directive 2001/29/EC to the digital era can generate new businesses and start-ups which would be a source of jobs of the future for young people;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that copyright and related rights play an important role, as they protect and stimulate both the development and marketing of new products and services and the creation and exploitation of their creative content, thereby contributing to improved competitiveness, employment and innovation across several industry sectors in the EU, therefore any harmonisation of copyright must be taken at a high level of protection;

Amendment 18 #

Robert ROCHEFORT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that copyright and related rights play an important role, as they protect and stimulate both the development and marketing of new products and services and the creation and exploitation of their creative content, thereby contributing to improved competitiveness, employment and innovation across several industry sectors in the EU; stresses that the EU has strong creative potential and rich cultural diversity that must be protected on the internal market and at international level by a clear and precise legal framework;

Amendment 19 #

Kaja KALLAS, Antanas GUOGA, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Julia REDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that copyright and related rights can play an important role, if they acknowledge the changes of behaviours of users, as they protect and stimulate both the development and marketing of new products and services and the creation and exploitation of their creative content, thereby contributing to improved competitiveness, employment and innovation across several industry sectors in the EU;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcom~~Notes the appointment of two Commissioners who will work on further developing the EU digital agenda and copyright issues in the course of the new Commission mandate; ~~welcom~~notes the Commission Work Programme for 2015 ~~insofar as it promises to deliver a Digital Single Market Package~~, which includes the objective of ~~modernis~~updating copyright rules;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Recalls that copyright and related rights play an important role, as they protect and stimulate both the development and marketing of new products and services and the creation and exploitation of their creative content, thereby contributing to improved competitiveness, employment and innovation across several industry sectors in the EU; stresses that copyright is only as effective as the enforcement measures in place to protect it and that in order to ensure a flourishing and innovative creative sector copyright enforcement must be robust;

Amendment 21 #

Daniel DALTON, Vicky FORD, Ivan ŠTEFANEC, Marc JOULAUD, Sabine VERHEYEN, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Draws the Commission’s attention to the fact that the term of protection of copyright has been harmonised at European level by a directive that was revised in 2011 (Directive 2011/77/EU of 27 September 2011 amending Directive 2006/116/EC), under which protection lasts for 70 years after the author’s death, in line with average life expectancy in the European Union; highlights the economic importance of the cultural and creative industries, which account for more than 7 million jobs in the European Union and generate a total of 4.2% of EU GDP;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Believes that the modernisation of copyright rules in the EU would be incomplete without an update of Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce and suggests that the European Commission should consider actions in this direction;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Recognises th~~e need to ensure appr~~at the purpose of copyri~~ate remuneration and~~ght is to protect the rights of all categories of right holders in a better way and to allow creators to gain appropriate remuneration for their efforts through others making use of their work, and therefore to encourage future creativity; recalls that while the cultural and creative industries (CCI) employ more than seven million people and contribute 4.5% of EU GDP annually, and that even though the services, technologies and options permitting the general public to access creative works grow every day, the earnings of right holders in the CCI sector keep decreasing;

Amendment 24 #

Julia REDA, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Kaja KALLAS, Antanas GUOGA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Recognises the need to ensure appropriate remuneration and to protect the rights of all categories of right holders in a better way; recalls that while the cultural and creative industries (CCI) ~~employ more than seven million people and contribute 4.5% of EU GDP annually,~~are a significant source of employment, and according to the European Parliament's Cost of Non-Europe study 223 000 jobs will be created by the digital single market by 2020 and that even though the services, technologies and options permitting the general public to access creative works grow every day, the earnings of right holders in the CCI sector keep decreasing;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Recognises the need to ensure appropriate remuneration and to protect the rights of all categories of right holders in a better way; recalls that while the cultural and creative industries (CCI) employ more than seven million people and contribute 4.5% of EU GDP annually, and that even though the services, technologies and options permitting the general public to access creative works grow every day, the earnings of right holders in the CCI sector keep decreasing; notes that effective system for the protection of copyright is necessary to ensure the return of the investment required to produce copyright works;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Recognises the need to ensure appropriate remuneration and to protect the rights of all categories of right holders in a better way; recalls that while the cultural and creative industries (CCI) employ more than seven million people and contribute 4.5% of EU GDP annually, and that even though the services, technologies and options permitting the general public to access creative works grow every day, the earnings of right holders in the CCI sector keep decreasing; stresses that this trend is largely due to the excessive value absorbed by intermediaries within the meaning of Directive 2001/29/CE;

Amendment 27 #

Robert ROCHEFORT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Recognises the need to ensure appropriate remuneration and to protect the rights of all categories of right holders in a better way; recalls that while the cultural and creative industries (CCI) employ more than seven million people and contribute 4.5% of EU GDP annually, and that even though the services, technologies and options permitting the general public to access creative works grow every day, the earnings of right holders in the CCI sector keep decreasing; stresses the need to raise consumer awareness of the consequences of infringement of copyright and related rights;

Amendment 28 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Recognises the need to ensure appropriate remuneration and to protect the rights of all categories of right holders in a better way; recalls that while the cultural and creative industries (CCI) employ more than seven million people and contribute 4.5% of EU GDP annually, and that even though the services, technologies and options permitting the general public to access creative works grow every day, the earnings of right holders in the CCI sector keep decreasing, in contrast to the growing profits made by intermediaries;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Stresses the need to strengthen the bargaining position of authors and creators in the value chain in the digital age;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the appointment of ~~two~~a Vice- President of the Commission and a Commissioners who will work on ~~further developing the EU digital agenda~~digital and copyright issues in the course of the new Commission mandate; welcomes the Commission Work Programme for 2015 insofar as it promises to deliver a Digital Single Market Package which would includes the ~~objective of~~legislative proposal for modernising copyright rules;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Highlight~~Takes the ~~fact~~view that ~~Member States’ provisions on copyright and related rights vary considerably, and that the exclusivity which copyright grants its owner is, in principle, limited to the territ~~creating ‘European authors’ rights’ through a single European system of copyright would impose a forimal ~~boundaries of the Member St~~ity thate w~~here the right has been granted, which leads to market fragmentation across the EU~~ould stand in the way of fair remuneration for creative work;

Amendment 31 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Highlights the fact that Member States’ provisions on copyright and related rights vary considerably, and that the exclusivity which copyright grants its owner is, in principle, limited to the territorial boundaries of the Member State where the right has been granted, which leads to market fragmentation across the EU; recalls that the European market is not homogeneous and that national markets evolve at different rates; recalls also that consumption patterns, and hence content also, correspond to specific expectations in each Member State;

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Highlights the fact that Member States’ provisions on copyright and related rights vary considerably, and that the ~~exclusivity which copyright grants its owner is~~y are, in principle, limited to the territorial boundaries of the Member State where the right has been granted~~, which leads to market fragmentation across the EU~~; believes that such territorial restrictions lead often to market fragmentation across the EU; considers that it should be assessed whether they are justified and proportional to the goals of safeguarding intellectual property protection and cultural diversity; considers that alternative solutions, allowing for a broader access to a culturally diverse offer, while respecting these objectives, should also be taken into consideration;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Highlights the fact that Member States’ provisions on copyright and related rights vary considerably, and that the exclusivity which copyright grants its owner is, in principle, limited to the territorial boundaries of the Member State where the right has been granted, which leads to market fragmentation across the EU; points out that territoriality in built into copyright, endowing Member States with their cultural policy instruments;

Amendment 34 #

Robert ROCHEFORT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Highlights the fact that Member States’ provisions on copyright and related rights vary considerably, and that the exclusivity which copyright grants its owner is, in principle, limited to the territorial boundaries of the Member State where the right has been granted, which leads to market fragmentation across the EU; recalls that this fragmentation is also the result of consumer preferences and market adaptation to them;

Amendment 35 #

Marc JOULAUD, Vicky FORD, Daniel DALTON, Sabine VERHEYEN, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 36 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 37 #

Kaja KALLAS, Antanas GUOGA, Julia REDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 38 #

Biljana BORZAN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Highlights the importance of clear communication to consumers about the performances of the content they are buying in line with the EU Consumer Rights Directive;

Amendment 39 #

Vicky FORD, Daniel DALTON, Marc JOULAUD, Ivan ŠTEFANEC, Sabine VERHEYEN, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Catherine STIHLER, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Believes that common effort should be made in combatting copyright infringements in the EU in order to ensure the protection of copyright and fair remuneration for authors of copyrighted online content;

Amendment 4 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcomes~~Takes note of the appointment of two Commissioners who will work on further developing the EU digital agenda and copyright issues in the course of the new Commission mandate; welcomes the Commission Work Programme for 2015 insofar as it promises to deliver a Digital Single Market Package which includes the objective of modernising copyright rules; which must safeguard a fair balance between all interested parties: consumers, users, creators and right holders;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 41 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Stress~~Notes that territorial fragmentation may require users aspiring to offer content-related services across the EU to secure multiple licenses; emphasises the fact that differences in limitations and exceptions create additional legal costs and legal uncertainty; recalls that consumers may be denied access to certain content servioday it is possible to grant contractual multi-territorial licences subject to market conditions; notes, however, that in view of the specific nature of the audiovisual and film sectors with their high production costs, different distribution and financing methods may be justified, depending on the places o~~n geographical grounds~~f consumption;

Amendment 42 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that territorial fragmentation may require users aspiring to offer content- related services across the EU to secure multiple licenses; ~~emphasises the fact~~notes that differences in limitations and exceptions may create additional legal costs and legal uncertainty; recalls that consumers may be denied access to certain content services on geographical grounds; believes that consumers should be able to buy online content from another Member State when it is not easily accessible from a home provider; stresses that clear information should be provided to consumers at the time of purchase of a digital content license on the geographical limitations of the use of that content; highlights that Europe's creative output is one of its richest resources, and those who want to enjoy it should be able to pay to do so, even when it is only sold in another Member State;

Amendment 43 #

Kaja KALLAS, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Julia REDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that territorial fragmentation may require users aspiring to offer content- related services across the EU to secure multiple licenses; ~~emphasises the fact that differences in limitations and exceptions create additional legal costs and legal uncertainty; recal~~notes that this option is available to operators wishing for it; points out also that consumers may be denied access to certain content services on geographical grounds; urges the Member States and operators to introduce content portability mechanisms for European consumers;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that territorial fragmentation may require users aspiring to offer content- related services across the EU to secure multiple licenses; emphasises the fact that differences in limitations and exceptions create additional legal costs and legal uncertainty, thereby undermining innovation and investment, and contributing in some cases to market concentration; recalls that consumers ~~may be~~are too often denied access to certain content services on geographical grounds; therefore urges the Commission to propose adequate solutions for better cross-border accessibility of services for consumers;

Amendment 45 #

Ildikó GÁLL-PELCZ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that territorial fragmentation may require users aspiring to offer content- related services across the EU to secure multiple licenses; emphasises the fact that differences in limitations and exceptions create additional legal costs and legal uncertainty; calls therefore on the Commission to examine which of the optional exceptions and limitations referred to in Directive 2001/29/EC could be transformed to mandatory ones, to allow equal access to cultural diversity across borders within the internal market and to improve legal security; recalls that consumers may be denied access to certain content services on geographical grounds;

Amendment 46 #

Julia REDA, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Kaja KALLAS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that territorial fragmentation may require users aspiring to offer content- related services across the EU to secure multiple licenses; emphasises the fact that differences in limitations and exceptions create additional legal costs and legal uncertainty; recalls that consumers may be denied access to certain content services on geographical grounds, which runs counter to the objective of Directive 2001/29/EC of implementing the four freedoms of the internal market;

Amendment 47 #

Biljana BORZAN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 48 #

Antanas GUOGA, Dita CHARANZOVÁ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that territorial fragmentation may require users aspiring to offer content- related services across the EU to secure multiple licenses; emphasises the fact that differences in limitations and exceptions create additional legal costs and legal uncertainty; recalls that consumers may be denied access to certain content services on geographical grounds; therefore urges the Commission to propose adequate solutions for the better cross-border accessibility to copyright content for consumers;

Amendment 49 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that ~~territorial fragmentation~~disparities between the Member States may require users aspiring to offer content- related services across the EU to secure multiple licenses; emphasises the fact that differences in limitations and exceptions create additional legal costs and legal uncertainty; recalls that consumers may be denied access to certain content services on geographical grounds;

Amendment 5 #

Ivan ŠTEFANEC, Marc JOULAUD, Sabine VERHEYEN, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Welcom~~Notes the appointment of two Commissioners who will work on further developing the EU digital agenda and copyright issues in the course of the new Commission mandate; ~~welcom~~notes the Commission Work Programme for 2015 insofar as it promises to deliver a Digital Single Market Package which includes the objective of modernising copyright rules;

Amendment 50 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Believes that although there is a need to find solutions which would ensure services portability i.e. when consumers travel between different Member States, it is of the utmost importance to preserve consumer choice in regard to access to different, including linguistically, cultural content;

Amendment 52 #

Kaja KALLAS, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Julia REDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Stresses the importance of bringing more clarity and transparency of the copyright regime for copyright users, in particular with regard to user-generated content and copyright levies, to foster creativity, the further development of online platforms, and ensure appropriate remuneration of copyright holders;

Amendment 53 #

Marlene MIZZI, Catherine STIHLER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Highlights the importance of making headway in the tax harmonisation of the cultural sector within the EU, in order to reduce disparities between Member States and to ensure balanced competition that moves beyond the existence of 28 different tax regimes;

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Reiterates the importance of a modern pro-competitive and consumers friendly copyright framework responding to the challenges of the digital environment; recognises the need of a holistic approach in the modernisation of the copyright rules to address the existent market fragmentations in particular for online rights management and to guarantee a safe, adequate and secure environment for consumers, creators and copyright users;

Amendment 55 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Welcomes, therefore, the adoption of Directive 2014/26/EU on collective rights management and multi-territorial licensing of rights, which provides the right balance between public´s access to cultural works, ease for rights clearance for users and adequate remuneration of creators and believes that implementation of this directive will lead to a clearer set of EU- wide standards resulting in a faster and more flexible licensing infrastructure adapted to specific usage;

Amendment 56 #

Julia REDA, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Kaja KALLAS, Antanas GUOGA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Welcomes, therefore, the adoption of Directive 2014/26/EU on collective rights management and multi-territorial licensing of rights, and believes that implementation of this directive will lead to a clearer set of EU-wide standards resulting in a faster and more flexible licensing infrastructure; notes however that fragmentation still remains and further legislative action is required, including harmonisation of exceptions, which are necessary for the completion of the digital single market;

Amendment 57 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Welcom~~Notes, therefore, the adoption of Directive 2014/26/EU on collective rights management and multi-territorial licensing of rights, and believes that implementation of this directive will lead to a clearer set of EU-wide standards resulting in a faster and more flexible licensing infrastructure;

Amendment 58 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Believes ~~that there is a need to further~~it is necessary to provide balanced solutions which help to move beyond and/or to improve cross-border access and the portability of products and services which are essential for consumers to be able to get the services ~~they want,~~and products where and when they want them, in accordance with the latest consumer demands;

Amendment 59 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Believes that there is a need to further improve cross-border access and the portability of services which are essential for ~~consumer~~beneficiaries to be able to ~~get the services they want, where and when they want them~~access knowledge, without discrimination;

Amendment 6 #

Kaja KALLAS, Antanas GUOGA, Dita CHARANZOVÁ, Julia REDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the appointment of two Commissioners who will work on further developing the EU digital agenda and copyright issues in the course of the new Commission mandate; welcomes the Commission Work Programme for 2015 insofar as it promises to deliver a Digital Single Market Package which includes the objective of modernising copyright rules to make them fit for the digital age;

Amendment 60 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Believes that there is a need to further improve cross-border access and the portability of services which are essential for consumers to be able to get the services they want, where and when they want them; believes that Europe's cultural diversity lies in the heart of European identity and should be fostered and promoted between Member States;

Amendment 61 #

Sabine VERHEYEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

Amendment 62 #

Marlene MIZZI, Catherine STIHLER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Stresses that any legislative change in this area should ensure accessibility for people with disabilities to works and services that are protected by copyright and related rights and should adapt to the digital environment;

Amendment 63 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Stresses that consumers often face various limitations and the notion of consumers' rights in the copyright framework is very often absent; calls on the Commission to assess the effectiveness of the current copyright law from a consumers' perspective and to develop a set of clear and comprehensive consumers' rights;

Amendment 64 #

Ivan ŠTEFANEC, Marc JOULAUD, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Sabine VERHEYEN, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Urges the Commission to promote a ~~flexible~~higher level of harmonisation that does not weaken copyright protection and balanced framework for exceptions and limitations that does not cause any harm to right holders and that conforms with consumer expectations; emphasises the important role that exceptions and limitations agreed on for public-interest reasons, for the purpose of education and teaching, play in providing access to knowledge as well as in encouraging cultural and societal participation; urges the Commission and the Member States to consider e-books as part of public lending schemes, provided that all necessary agreements with the relevant right holders have been reached beforehand;

Amendment 65 #

Kaja KALLAS, Antanas GUOGA, Julia REDA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Urges the Commission to pro~~mote a flexible and balanc~~pose an harmonised framework for exceptions and limitations that does not cause any harm to right holders ~~and~~, that conforms with consumer expectations, that fosters both creativity and innovation, and adapts to the technology advances in the digital environment; emphasises the important role that exceptions and limitations agreed on for public-interest reasons, for the purpose of education and teaching, play in providing access to knowledge as well as in encouraging cultural and societal participation; urges the Commission and the Member States to consider e-books as part of public lending schemes, provided that all necessary agreements with the relevant right holders have been reached beforehand;

Amendment 66 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Urges the Commission to promote a ~~flexible and balanced framework for exceptions and limitations that does not cause any harm to right holders and that conforms with consumer expectations~~higher level of common approaches towards narrow, targeted and format- neutral exceptions and limitations that do not weaken copyright protection as part of a balanced framework for exceptions and limitations that does not cause any harm to right holders and that conforms with consumer expectations; encourages Member States to make use of those exceptions in a narrow, targeted and technology-neutral way where evidence demonstrates they would be necessary to promote access to creative content and support creativity; emphasises the important role that exceptions and limitations agreed on for public-interest reasons, for the purpose of education and teaching, play in providing access to knowledge as well as in encouraging cultural and societal participation; highlights the importance of copyright exceptions that allow enhanced accessibility to digital content for persons with disabilities; urges the Commission and the Member States to consider e-books as part of public lending schemes, provided that all necessary agreements with the relevant right holders have been reached beforehand;

Amendment 67 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Urges the Commission to promote a flexible and balanced framework for exceptions and limitations that does not cause any harm to right holders and that conforms with consumer expectations; emphasises the important role that exceptions and limitations agreed on for public-interest reasons, for the purpose of education and teaching, play in providing access to knowledge as well as in encouraging cultural and societal participation; urges the Commission and the Member States to consider e-books as part of public lending schemes, provided that all necessary agreements with the relevant right holders have been reached beforehand; stresses that digital rights management should not be used to limit or impede the exercise of the exceptions and limitations;

Amendment 68 #

Catherine STIHLER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Urges the Commission to promote a flexible and balanced framework for exceptions and limitations that does not cause any harm to right holders and that conforms with consumer expectations; emphasises the important role that exceptions and limitations agreed on for public-interest reasons, for the purpose of education and teaching, play in providing access to knowledge as well as in encouraging cultural and societal participation; urges the Commission and the Member States to consider e-books as part of public lending schemes, provided that all necessary agreements with the relevant right holders have been reached beforehand; urges the Commission and Member States to provide for an updated exception that allows libraries, archives and museums to make protected works in their collections, that are no more in commercial circulation or otherwise actively managed by their right holders, available for online access by the public;

Amendment 69 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

Amendment 7 #

Biljana BORZAN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses that the comprehensive and coherent regulation of digital market is an essential precondition for economic growth;

Amendment 70 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Urges the Member States and the Commission to promote a flexible and balanced framework for exceptions and limitations that does not cause any harm to copyright holders and that conforms ~~with consumer expectations~~to the right of access to knowledge; emphasises the important role that exceptions and limitations agreed on for public-interest reasons, for the purpose of education and teaching, play in providing access to knowledge as well as in encouraging cultural and societal participation; urges the Commission and the Member States to consider e-books as part of public lending schemes, provided that all necessary agreements with the relevant right holders have been reached beforehand;

Amendment 71 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9

9. Urges the Commission to promote a flexible and balanced framework for exceptions and limitations that does not cause any harm to right holders and that conforms with consumer expectations; emphasises the important role that exceptions and limitations agreed on for public-interest reasons, for the purpose of research, education and teaching, play in providing access to knowledge as well as in encouraging cultural and societal participation; urges the Commission and the Member States to ~~consider e-books as part of~~facilitate the inclusion of e-books in public lending schemes, provided that all necessary agreements ~~with the relevant right holders have been reached beforehand~~have been reached beforehand to ensure fair remuneration and respect for the rights of the right holders;

Amendment 72 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)

9a. Recommends studying the rules governing file-sharing for non- commercial purposes, which should provide mechanisms to ensure that intermediaries pay fair compensation for creative work;

Amendment 73 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Welcomes the idea of a structured stakeholder dialogue ‘that would build on the experiences of 'Licenses for Europe’', launched by the Commission in 2013; notes the fact that 'Licences for Europe' was unable to reach consensus thereby highlighting the need for legislative measures; believes that relevant stakeholder engagement and sharing of best practices is essential if a more homogenous and evidence based implementation of copyright laws across the EU is to be reached;

Amendment 74 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Welcomes the structured stakeholder dialogue ‘Licenses for Europe’, launched by the Commission in 2013; notes however that this dialogue did not reach a consensus and remains without prejudice to the possible need for policy action; believes that relevant stakeholder engagement and sharing of best practices is essential if a more homogenous implementation of copyright laws across the EU is to be reached;

Amendment 75 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Welcomes the structured stakeholder dialogue ‘Licenses for Europe’, launched by the Commission in 2013 that showed that there are no copyright-related problems as regards cross-border availability and portability of music; believes that relevant stakeholder engagement and sharing of best practices is essential if a more homogenous implementation of copyright laws across the EU is to be reached;

Amendment 76 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Welcomes the structured stakeholder dialogue ‘'Licenses for Europe’', launched by the Commission in 2013; believes that relevant stakeholder engagement and sharing of best practices is essential if a more homogenous implementation of copyright laws across the EU is to be reached; calls the Commission to monitor and report on the implementation of the Licenses for Europe' pledges;

Amendment 77 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 10

10. Welcomes the structured stakeholder dialogue ‘Licenses for Europe’, launched by the Commission in 2013; believes that relevant stakeholder engagement and sharing of best practices is essential if a ~~more homogenous~~fair implementation of copyright laws across the EU is to be reached;

Amendment 78 #

Ivan ŠTEFANEC, Marc JOULAUD, Sabine VERHEYEN, Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT, Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

Amendment 79 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that Directive 2001/29/EC (Infosoc Directive) was adopted in 2001 and that the digital use of material subject to copyright has changed and dramatically increased since then; stresses the need to adapt it in order to ensure fair remuneration and adequate protection for holders of copyright and related rights in view of new consumer demands and challenges posed by the digital economy and society;

Amendment 80 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Highlights the importance of promoting greater interoperability for software and terminals, as lack of interoperability hampers innovation and reduces competition in the EU and slows down innovation; the resulting lack of interoperability is hampering the development of new content services at the expense of artists seeking a broader public throughout Europe; believes that lack of interoperability may lead to market dominance of one particular product, which in turn stifles competition and limits consumer choice in the EU.

Amendment 81 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11

11. Highlights the importance of promoting greater interoperability for software, as lack of interoperability hampers innovation and reduces competition in the EU; believes that lack of interoperability may lead to market dominance of one particular product, which in turn stifles competition and limits consumer choice in the EU; highlights the importance of copyright exceptions that allow enhanced accessibility to digital content for persons with disabilities; recognises that the inability to purchase content in an appropriate format for users with disabilities also creates a barrier to trade for enterprises; recognises that a number of these issues are linked to competition law and highlights that healthy competition along with the protection of intellectual property rights are essential for doing business with legal content; further recognises that the inability to purchase content in an appropriate format that can support users with disabilities reduces the cultural output and content offer available across the Member States.

Amendment 82 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Enforcement of copyright rules should be proportionate and respect user´s fundamental rights and freedoms, such as the right to presumption of innocence, the right to fair trial, confidentiality of communications. Any restrictions to user´s rights must be foreseen by law.

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Notes that Directive 2001/29/EC (Infosoc Directive) was adopted in 2001 and that the digital ~~use~~supply of material ~~subject to copyright~~in accordance with copyright and the use thereof has changed and dramatically increased since then, with new operators emerging, resulting in an imbalance with regard to value sharing;

source: 549.401

2015/03/05 JURI 556 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1

– having regard to Articles 4, 26, 34, 114, 118 and 11867 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 2

– having regard to Articles 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

Amendment 100 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Pavel SVOBODA, Marc JOULAUD, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Mary HONEYBALL, Giovanni TOTI, József SZÁJER, Milan ZVER, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights enshrines the right to property, drawing a distinction between the protection of possessions, on the one hand (paragraph 1), and the protection of intellectual property, on the other (paragraph 2);deleted

Amendment 101 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights ~~enshrines the right to property, drawing a distinction between the protection of possessions, on the one hand (paragraph 1), and the protection of intellectual property, on the other (paragraph 2)~~protects lawfully acquired possessions and, explicitly, intellectual property;

Amendment 102 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights enshrines the right to property~~, drawing a distinction between the protection of possessions, on the one hand (paragraph 1), and the protection of intellectual property, on the other (paragraph 2)~~ and formally states that intellectual property shall be protected;

Amendment 103 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

D. whereas Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights enshrines the right to property, ~~drawing a distinction between~~which covers both the protection of possessions~~, on the one hand~~ (paragraph 1), and the protection of intellectual property~~, on the other~~ (paragraph 2);

Amendment 104 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. Whereas Article 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights establishes a principle of proportionality, according to which any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms, only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others;

Amendment 105 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas the right of the creator to protection of his or her creative works must continue to apply in the digital age;

Amendment 106 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)

Da. whereas the creative and cultural industries make a major contribution to the EU economy, providing more than 7 million indirect jobs and accounting for 4% of EU GDP, according to the latest estimates;

Amendment 107 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D b (new)

Db. Whereas the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations in the field of cultural rights in her report on copyright policy and the right to science and culture (A/HRC/28/57) highlights the key role of exceptions and limitations for creation, and the importance of fair contractual terms for the protection of authorship;

Amendment 108 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas decisions on technical standards can have a significant impact on human rights – including the right to freedom of expression, protection of personal data and user security – as well as on access to content10 ; __________________ 10Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 16 December 2014 on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Internet policy and governance – Europe’s role in shaping the future of internet governance’.deleted

Amendment 109 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas decisions on technical standards can have a significant impact on human rights – including the right to freedom of expression, protection of personal data and user security – as well as on access to content10; __________________ 10Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 16 December 2014 on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Internet policy and governance – Europe’s role in shaping the future of internet governance’.deleted

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 2

– having regard to Articles 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

Amendment 110 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Pavel SVOBODA, Marc JOULAUD, Tadeusz ZWIEFKA, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Mary HONEYBALL, József SZÁJER, Giovanni TOTI, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas decisions on technical standards can have a significant impact on human rights – including the right to freedom of expression, protection of personal data and user security – as well as on access to content10; __________________ 10Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 16 December 2014 on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Internet policy and governance – Europe’s role in shaping the future of internet governance’.deleted

Amendment 111 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

Amendment 112 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas decisions on technical standards can have a significant impact on human rights – including the right to freedom of expression, protection of personal data and user security – as well as on access to content10 and on the right of creators to receive appropriate remuneration; __________________ 10 Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 16 December 2014 on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Internet policy and governance – Europe’s role in shaping the future of internet governance’.

Amendment 113 #

Virginie ROZIÈRE, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas ~~decisions on~~ technical standards can have a significant impact on ~~human rights – including the right to freedom of expression, protection of personal data and user security – as well~~ access to content, and whereas oin access to content10; __________________ 10Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 16 December 2014 on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Internet policy and governance – Europe’s role in shaping the future of internet governance’.the digital age in particular they can establish a balance between unrestricted reproduction of works and the exclusive right to reproduce works;

Amendment 114 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 c (new)

–1c. Points out that copyright is the tangible means of ensuring that creators are remunerated and that the creative process is funded;

Amendment 115 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. Whereas measures that contribute to the further development of cultural interchange and improve legal certainty; in the sector need to be considered

Amendment 116 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas the harmonious and systematic development of the Europeana digital library, which was founded in 2008 as part of an EU initiative, has made works from Member States’ libraries available;

Amendment 117 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Pavel SVOBODA, Mary HONEYBALL, Constance LE GRIP, József SZÁJER, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Giovanni TOTI, Milan ZVER, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. Whereas the current highly fragmented system of national private copy levies constitutes a deeply unfair, flawed and outdated system for compensating right holders for what amounts to an ordinary and perfectly harmless use by consumers of legally acquired content and whereas there are no objective and fair methods to redistribute the so called compensation from this use as there is no way to establish which legally acquired works citizens are copying in the privacy of their own homes;

Amendment 118 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. Whereas measures that contribute to the further development of cultural interchange and improve legal certainty in the sector need to be considered;

Amendment 119 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Marc JOULAUD, Tadeusz ZWIEFKA, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Giovanni TOTI, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Mary HONEYBALL, József SZÁJER, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Milan ZVER, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas the period during which works are protected in the digital environment is often out of proportion to the time required in order to recover creation costs and to the average marketing life of works;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 2

– having regard to Articles 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

Amendment 120 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)

Ea. whereas creative works are one of the main sources nourishing the digital economy and information technology players such as search engines, social media and platforms for user-generated content, but virtually all the value generated by creative works is transferred to those digital intermediaries, which refuse to pay authors or negotiate extremely low levels of remuneration;

Amendment 121 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 b (new)

-1b. Points out that digital technologies have redefined the value chain in the cultural economy to the detriment of authors, performers or producers of copyrighted works, and in favour of on- line communication service providers; stresses that copyright must not be regarded as the only solution for combating this; calls therefore on the Commission to consider revising the E- Commerce Directive, and in particular Articles 12 to 15 thereof;

Amendment 122 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)

Eb. whereas the Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 and the Directive 2006/116/EC of 12 December 2006 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights harmonised the terms of protection of copyright and neighbouring rights by establishing a complete harmonisation of the period of protection for each type of work and each related right in the Member States;

Amendment 123 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Marc JOULAUD, Mary HONEYBALL, Constance LE GRIP, József SZÁJER, Giovanni TOTI, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)

Eb. Whereas the fragmented system of private copy levies causes disproportional bureaucratic burdens and major problems for the proper functioning of the European internal market for all goods covered by the unjust and outdated levy system which is detrimental to growth and economic development in Europe; whereas the European digital single market will therefore not become a reality until private copy levies have been phased out;

Amendment 124 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)

Amendment 125 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)

Eb. whereas the EU legislative authorities have a duty to promote a clear legal framework for copyright and related rights that can be understood by all stakeholders, in particular the general public, and ensures legal certainty;

Amendment 126 #

Virginie ROZIÈRE, Mady DELVAUX, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Motion for a resolution
Recital E b (new)

Eb. having regard to the competitive advantage and growing power of a number of Internet intermediaries and to the negative impact of this situation on authors' creative potential and on the development of services offered by other distributors of creative works;

Amendment 127 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 a (new)

-1a. Emphasises that any revision of Directive 2001/29/EC should continue to safeguard the principle of fair remuneration for rightholders; calls for a reaffirmation of the principle of territoriality, enabling each Member State to safeguard the fair remuneration principle within the framework of its own cultural policy;

Amendment 128 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E c (new)

Ec. whereas when defining the legal framework for copyright and related rights account should be taken of the need to promote innovative industrial and commercial models, taking advantage of the opportunities offered by new technologies, in order to make EU businesses more competitive;

Amendment 129 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E c (new)

Ec. whereas the Commission’s priority and the focus of its 2014-2019 programme is the creation of growth and jobs;

Amendment 13 #

Virginie ROZIÈRE, Mady DELVAUX, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4

– having regard to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, and expressly to the Three Steps Test,

Amendment 130 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Points out that the existence of copyright and related rights inherently implies territoriality; emphasises that there is no contradiction between that principle and measures to ensure the portability of content;

Amendment 131 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E d (new)

Ed. whereas many creative on-line services have developed thanks to the application of the Directive, and consumers have never before had access to such a wide range of creative and cultural works – with more than 3 000 on-line on-demand audiovisual services, 2 million titles available as e-books, 230 digital music services and 43 million licensed musical works;

Amendment 132 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E d (new)

Ed. whereas technological innovation can be a factor in legal standards becoming obsolete, and whereas in order to counter this the legal framework for copyright and related rights should be simplified and modernised by introducing an open standard relating to the interpretation of exceptions and limitations;

Amendment 133 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E e (new)

Ee. whereas measures taken on an individual basis by Member States to extend the scope of protection beyond the provisions of the EU legal framework on copyright and related rights make for legal fragmentation which impedes the functioning of the internal market and increases legal uncertainty for the public, and are therefore to be deprecated;

Amendment 134 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E e (new)

Ee. whereas users need access to a plentiful and diverse supply of high- quality content;

Amendment 135 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital E f (new)

Ef. whereas the right to charge for private copies, which is provided for in several Member States, appears unclear, obsolete and unjustified in a digital context, in view of the fact that it applies, for example, to the making of back-up copies or to the storage of copyrighted works by a given author, and whereas a proper degree of transparency should be ensured, with information being given to the public on the actual scale and purpose of the copy-taking and on the use to which the copies will be put;

Amendment 136 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

Amendment 137 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s initiative of conducting a consultation on copyright, which attracted great interest from civil society with more than 9 500 replies, 58.7 % of which came from end users11; __________________ 11Commission, DG MARKT, Report on the responses to the Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules, July 2014, p. 5.Points out that all the replies received in the Commission’s consultation should be carefully considered; asserts the importance of ensuring that the interests of the various stakeholders, especially those of the public and consumers, are taken into account, while, at the same time, the protection of authors as the drivers of intellectual and artistic creation is not called into question; notes that it is vital to promote access to culture and to secure authors’ remuneration; notes that the non-material wealth of our society, which is generated by the human imagination, must be protected; points out that Directive 2001/29/EC did not remove the disparities between countries in their treatment of copyright because it failed to address the many factors underlying the most significant disparities; notes, for example, that the concept of originality was not defined and that questions of ownership and moral rights were not resolved, with the result that parallel provisions for copyright and for ‘droit d’auteur’ could continue to exist;

Amendment 138 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’'s initiative of conducting a consultation on copyright, which attracted great interest from ~~civil society with more than 9 500 replies, 58.7 % of which came from end users11~~ all relevant stakeholders; __________________ 11 Commission, DG MARKT, Report on the responses to the Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules, July 2014, p. 5.

Amendment 139 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s initiative of conducting a consultation on copyright, which attracted great interest from ~~civil society with more than 9 500 replies, 58.7 % of which came from end users11~~ a wide range of stakeholders; __________________ 11 Commission, DG MARKT, Report on the responses to the Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules, July 2014, p. 5.

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4

– having regard to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the three-step test,

Amendment 140 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s initiative of conducting a consultation on copyright, which attracted great interest from ~~civil society~~all interested parties, with more than 9 500 replies~~, 58.7 % of which came from end users~~11; __________________ 11 Commission, DG MARKT, Report on the responses to the Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules, July 2014, p. 5.

Amendment 141 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s initiative of conducting a consultation on copyright, which attracted great interest ~~from civil society with more than 9 500 replies, 58.7 % of which came from end users~~among all the stakeholders involved11; __________________ 11 Commission, DG MARKT, Report on the responses to the Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules, July 2014, p. 5.

Amendment 142 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s initiative of conducting a consultation on copyright, which attracted great interest from civil society ~~with more than 9 500 replies, 58.7 % of which came from end users11~~and from all the key players in the sector; __________________ 11 Report on the responses to the Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules, DG MARKT, July 2014, p. 5.

Amendment 143 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

Amendment 144 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s initiative ofin having conduct~~ing~~ed a consultation on copyright, which attracted great interest from civil society ~~with more than 9 500 replies, 58.7 % of which came from end users11~~, from all creative and cultural sectors, as represented by authors, performers, publishers, producers, broadcasters, collective rights management bodies and other rightholders, and from most of the Member States; __________________ 11 Commission, DG MARKT, Report on the responses to the Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules, July 2014, p. 5. (It would be quite one-sided to refer only to users.)

Amendment 145 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s initiative of conducting a consultation on copyright, which attracted great interest ~~from civil society with more than 9 500 replies, 58.7 % of which came from end users11~~; __________________ 11 Commission, DG MARKT, Report on the responses to the Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules, July 2014, p. 5.

Amendment 146 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Pavel SVOBODA, Jean-Marie CAVADA, József SZÁJER, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Giovanni TOTI, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s initiative of conducting a consultation on copyright, which attracted great interest from ~~civil society with more than 9 500 replies, 58.7 % of which came from end users~~all those concerned11; __________________ 11 Commission, DG MARKT, Report on the responses to the Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules, July 2014, p. 5.

Amendment 147 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s initiative of conducting a consultation on copyright, which attracted great interest from ~~civil society with more than 9 500 replies, 58.7 % of which came from end users11~~ all relevant stakeholders; __________________ 11 Commission, DG MARKT, Report on the responses to the Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules, July 2014, p. 5.

Amendment 148 #

Mary HONEYBALL, Dietmar KÖSTER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission’s initiative of conducting a consultation on copyright, ~~which attracted great interest from civil society with more than 9 500 replies, 58.7 % of which came from end users11~~ and encourages ongoing assessment of the issues; __________________ 11 Commission, DG MARKT, Report on the responses to the Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules, July 2014, p. 5.

Amendment 149 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recalls that copyright and related rights protect and stimulate both the development and marketing of new products and services and the creation and exploitation of their creative content, thereby contributing to improved competitiveness, employment and innovation across several industry sectors in the EU;

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4

– having regard to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, in particular to the three-step test established therein,

Amendment 150 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. Considers that lessons may be drawn for other types of content from the approach taken in the Collective Rights Management Directive, but that issues concerning portability and geoblocking may not be solved by one all- encompassing solution but may require several different interventions, both regulatory and market-led, in addition to enhanced enforcement of existing law including in competition, services and copyright;

Amendment 151 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Stresses that copyright is only as effective as the enforcement measures in place to protect it and that in order to ensure a flourishing and innovative creative sector copyright enforcement must be robust;

Amendment 152 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

Amendment 153 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Pavel SVOBODA, Marc JOULAUD, József SZÁJER, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Milan ZVER, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Notes with concern that the vast majority of end-user respondents report facing problems when trying to access online services across the Member States, particularly where technological protection measures are used to enforce territorial restrictioninterest the diversity of uses that technological development offers to consumers which may require further assessment to put forward measures for improving the flexibility of the current legal framework to respond to sustainable and actual demand on online content available across Member States;

Amendment 154 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

Amendment 155 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Notes ~~with concern that the vast majority of end-user respondents report facing problem~~the way in which technological progress makes for diversity of use and competitiveness in Europe, and emphasises wthe~~n trying to access online services across the Member States, particularly where technological protection measures are used to enforce territorial restric~~ need to consider further measures to address the issue of cross- border demand for online services on the basis of flexible legal conditions;

Amendment 156 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Notes with ~~concern that the vast majority of end-user resp~~interest the increased range of condtent~~s report facing problems when trying to access online services across the Member States, particularly where technological protection measures are used to enforce territorial restrictions~~ that has been available to users lawfully since the implementation of Directive 2001/29/EC;

Amendment 157 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

Amendment 158 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Notes ~~with concern~~ that the vast majority of end-user respondents (0.001% of the population of the EU) report facing problems when trying to access online services across the Member States, ~~particularly where technological protection measur~~while institutional users, authors, artists, publishers, producers, broadcasters, collecting societies and other intermediaries and service providers and the Member States confirm that EU- wide - and in some cases even worldwide - licences alre ~~used to enforce territorial restrictions~~ady exist for a whole variety of works, that there is no clear evidence of problems in cross-border access, for example, in the case of musical works, that no further action at EU level is necessary to increase the cross-border availability of content and that many problems are not due to the territoriality of copyright;

Amendment 159 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Notes ~~with concern~~ that the vast majority of end-user respondents report facing problems when trying to access online services across the Member States, particularly where technological protection measures are used to enforce territorial restrictions; points out in this respect that the public consultation report by the Commission’s DG Internal Market shows that a vast majority of stakeholders felt there was a need not just for copyright reform measures but also for other measures to increase the cross-border supply and availability of digital content, such as new rules on consumer protection, the development of e-commerce, the approximation of VAT rates and the expansion of digital networks;

Amendment 16 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Pavel SVOBODA, Marc JOULAUD, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Mary HONEYBALL, Constance LE GRIP, József SZÁJER, Giovanni TOTI, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Milan ZVER, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Citation 4

– having regard to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, and expressly to the Three Steps Test,

Amendment 160 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Notes with concern that the vast majority of end-user respondents report facing problems when trying to access online services across the Member States~~, particularly where technological protection measures are used to enforce territori~~ and that territorial fragmentation may require commercial operators aspiring to offer content related services across the EU to secure multiple licenses for the same content in different geographical are~~striction~~as;

Amendment 161 #

Helga TRÜPEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Notes with concern that the vast majority of end-user respondents report facing problems~~Calls for measures to examine to what extent problems encountered when trying to access online services across the Member States are relevant for end users, particularly where technological protection measures are used to enforce territorial restrictions;

Amendment 162 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Pavel SVOBODA, Marc JOULAUD, Constance LE GRIP, József SZÁJER, Giovanni TOTI, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Emphasizes that any reform of the copyright framework needs to find the right balance between user access and fair remuneration for creators and other rightholders and should take as a basis a high level of protection, and develop an evidence-based approach, taking into consideration the interest of small and medium-sized enterprises, since rights are crucial to intellectual creation and provide a stable, clear and flexible legal base that fosters investment and growth in the creative and cultural sector, whilst removing legal uncertainties and inconsistencies that adversely affect the functioning of the internal market to the prejudice of consumers and rightholders;

Amendment 163 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Emphasizes that any reform of the copyright framework needs to find the right balance between user access and fair remuneration for creators and other rightholders and should take as a basis a high level of protection, and develop an evidence-based approach taking into consideration the interest of small and medium-sized enterprises, since rights are crucial to intellectual creation and provide a stable, clear and flexible legal base that fosters investment and growth in the creative and cultural sector, whilst removing legal uncertainties and inconsistencies that adversely affect the functioning of the internal market to the prejudice of consumers and rightholders;

Amendment 164 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2b. Believes that consumers should be able to access and buy online content from another Member State when it is not accessible from a provider in their own Member State; stresses that clear information should be provided to consumers when purchasing a digital content license regarding any geographical limitations of the use of that content;

Amendment 165 #

Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Evelyn REGNER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Stresses that the creative output of the European Union is one of its richest resources, and those who want to enjoy it should be able to pay to do so, even when it is only sold in another Member State;

Amendment 166 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Believes a reform of the EU copyright system which moves beyond the current fragmentation among Member States to be essential for full and proper development of a digital single market. Considers it important therefore for there to be uniform rules at European level, for the current rules to be updated in response to the dissemination of new technologies and to user and consumer behaviour, and for it to be recognised that copyright holders need to receive appropriate remuneration in the context of a new negotiating position vis-à-vis intermediaries;

Amendment 167 #

Constance LE GRIP, Christian EHLER, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Notes that the creative and cultural sectors, as represented by authors, performers, publishers, producers, broadcasters, collective rights management bodies and other rightholders, as well as the majority of Member States, share the view that the current legal framework is suitable and sufficiently flexible to address in a sustainable way the demand for content available on-line throughout the Member States;

Amendment 168 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Notes with concern the growing number of illegal on-line services and the increasing incidence of piracy and, more generally, of infringements of intellectual property rights, a trend that poses a serious threat to Member States’ economies and to creativity in the European Union;

Amendment 169 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2c. Emphasizes that any reform of the copyright framework should take as a basis a high level of protection, since rights are crucial to intellectual creation and provide a stable, clear and flexible legal base that fosters investment and growth in the creative and cultural sector, whilst removing legal uncertainties and inconsistencies that adversely affect the functioning of the internal market;

Amendment 17 #

Christian EHLER, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 a (new)

– having regard to the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions of the 20th October 2005,

Amendment 170 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2d. Alongside the important task of expanding functioning structures for the digital Single Market, steps must also be taken to ensure that the analogue Single Market continues to function properly;

Amendment 171 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Stresses that Europe's cultural and creative industries are an engine for economic growth and job creation in Europe, employing 3.3% of the EU's workforce and generating more than 4.2% of the EU's GDP; highlights, however, that recent economic growth in the sector has mainly been generated by its ICT-related activities whereas traditional activities have featured a significant decrease of their economic contribution and employment rates;

Amendment 172 #

Constance LE GRIP, Christian EHLER, Marc JOULAUD, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Points out that copyright-intensive industries employ more than seven million people in the Union; asks the Commission, therefore, to ensure that, in line with the principles of better regulation, any legislative initiative to modernise copyright be preceded by an exhaustive ex-ante assessment of its impact in terms of growth and jobs, as well as its potential costs and benefits;

Amendment 173 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Points out that SMEs in the cultural and creative sectors are helping to make the EU more competitive and that they have considerable potential for creating jobs and growth;

Amendment 174 #

Christian EHLER, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. Emphasises that a reform of the EU's copyright acquis should continue to strengthen Europe's cultural and creative industries by improving legal certainty in the digital sphere for all involved parties, including rightholders, businesses and users, and by setting incentives for innovative licensing schemes online and new business models for online distribution of content, thus allowing the sector to benefit from the digital revolution while safeguarding a balanced value chain;

Amendment 175 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. Emphasises that any revision of EU copyright law must be properly focused and must be based on convincing data, with a view to securing the continued development of Europe’s creative industries;

Amendment 176 #

Christian EHLER, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 d (new)

2d. Recognizes that commercial copyright infringing activities pose a serious threat to the functioning of the digital single market and to the development of the legal offer of diversified cultural and creative content online;

Amendment 177 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 e (new)

2e. Deems it indispensable to strengthen the position of authors and creators and improve their remuneration with regard to the digital distribution and exploitation of their works;

Amendment 178 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Acknowledges the necessity for the rights of authors and performers to be pro~~vided with legal protection for~~tected so that their creative and artistic work; is recognised and legally protected;· recognises the role of producers and publishers in bringing works to the market, and the need for appropriate remuneration for all categories of rightholders; calls for improvements to the contractual position of authors and performers in relation to other rightholders and intermediaries;

Amendment 179 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

Amendment 18 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Marc JOULAUD, Giovanni TOTI, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Mary HONEYBALL, Constance LE GRIP, Tadeusz ZWIEFKA, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, József SZÁJER, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Milan ZVER, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Citation 5 a (new)

– having regard to the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions of the 20th October 2005,

Amendment 180 #

Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

Amendment 181 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

Amendment 182 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Acknowledges the necessity for authors and performers to be provided with legal protection for their creative and artistic work; recognises the role of producers and publishers in bringing works to the market, and the need for appropriate remuneration for all categories of rightholders; calls for improvements to the contractual position of authors and performers in relation to other rightholders and intermediarieand appropriate remuneration for their efforts through others making use of their creative and artistic work, thereby facilitating and encouraging future creativity; recognises the role of producers and publishers in bringing works to the market, and the need for appropriate remuneration for rightholders; recognises the role of effective enforcement in supporting creators and rightholders;

Amendment 183 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

Amendment 184 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Acknowledges the necessity ~~for authors and performers to be provided with legal~~to confirm the exclusive rights for authors and performers in order to safeguard their legal recognition and protection for their creative and artistic work; recognises the role of producers and publishers in bringing works to the market, and the need for appropriate remuneration for all categories of rightholders; calls for improvements to the contractual position of authors and performers in relation to other rightholders and intermediaries;

Amendment 185 #

Diane DODDS

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

Amendment 186 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Acknowledges the legal principle and the necessity for authors and performers to be provided with legal protection for their creative and artistic work; recognises the role of producers and publishers in bringing works to the market, and the need for appropriate remuneration for all categories of rightholders; c~~alls for improvements to the contractual position of authors and performers in relation to other rightholder~~onsiders it particularly important in this respect to move swiftly towards full implementation of Directive 2014/26 on collective rights man~~d intermediaries~~agement;

Amendment 187 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Acknowledges the necessity for authors and performers to be provided with legal protection for their creative and artistic work; recognises the role of producers and publishers in bringing works to the market, and the need for appropriate remuneration for all categories of rightholders; calls for improvements to the contractual position of authors and performers in relation to other rightholders and intermediaries;, as contractual exchanges are often marked by an imbalance of power between the parties leading to corporations retaining most of the resulting profit, for instance through right reversion that cannot be waived by contract and that give creators the possibility to retain the right to reclaim copyright interests they have transferred after a set number of years, providing them a second opportunity to negotiate a better return.

Amendment 188 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

Amendment 189 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)

– having regard to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS),

Amendment 190 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

Amendment 191 #

Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Mary HONEYBALL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Acknowledges the necessity for all cultural entities, including authors and performers, to be provided with legal protection for their creative and artistic work; recognises the role of producers and publishers in bringing works to the market, and the need for appropriate remuneration for all categories of rightholders; calls for improvements to the contractual position of authors and performers in relation to other rightholders and intermediaries;

Amendment 192 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

3. Acknowledges the necessity for authors and performers to be provided with up-to-date, EU-wide legal protection for their creative and artistic work; recognises the role of producers and publishers in bringing works to the market, and the need for appropriate remuneration for all categories of rightholders; calls for improvements to the contractual position of authors and performers in relation to other rightholders and intermediaries;

Amendment 193 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

Amendment 194 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Pavel SVOBODA, Marc JOULAUD, József SZÁJER, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

Amendment 195 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

Amendment 196 #

Mary HONEYBALL, Dietmar KÖSTER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3

Amendment 197 #

Mary HONEYBALL, Evelyn REGNER, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Emphasises that any reform of the copyright framework needs to find the right balance between user access and fair remuneration and compensation for creators and other rightholders and should take as a basis the rights of creators, while taking into consideration the interest of small and medium-sized enterprises, since rights are crucial to intellectual creation and provide a stable, clear and flexible legal base that fosters investment and growth in the creative and cultural sector, whilst removing legal uncertainties and inconsistencies that adversely affect the functioning of the internal market to the prejudice of consumers and rightholders;

Amendment 198 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Notes that a proportionate protection of copyright works and other protected matter is of great importance, including from a cultural standpoint; under Article 167 of the Treaty, the Community is required to take cultural aspects into account in its activity;

Amendment 199 #

Constance LE GRIP, Christian EHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Stresses that authors and performers must receive fair remuneration in the digital environment and in the analogue world alike;

Amendment 2 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1

– having regard to Articles 4, 26, 34, 114 and 11867 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter ‘TFEU’),

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)

– having regard to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS),

Amendment 200 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 c (new)

3c. Calls for the introduction of Community provisions in the area of contract law applicable to copyright, particularly safeguarding authors' rights to bring their works to the market in case a rightholder has refrained from making use of an exclusive right to the work in question for an extended period of time;

Amendment 201 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 d (new)

3d. Notes that the existing definitions and scope of the exclusive rights for reproduction, for the communication to the public and for the making available to the public, and for distribution, need clarification to better fit the technological and cross-border nature of digital exploitation acts, and to facilitate the clearance of rights;

Amendment 202 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 e (new)

3e. Points out that copyright is a driving force for social and economic development in the broadest sense; notes that within the EU the cultural and creative industries which rely on copyright generate 4.2% of GDP and provide 7 million jobs; notes that the potential of this kind offered by the cultural and creative industry also derives from the fact that, in the EU, rights last for 70 years from the time of the author’s death, in accordance with the Berne Convention, which lays down minimum standards for the duration of protection;

Amendment 203 #

Milan ZVER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 f (new)

3f. Notes that the right to private property is one of the fundaments of the modern society. Also notes that facilitation of access to educational materials and cultural goods is of extreme importance for the development of knowledge base society and that this should be taken into account by the legislators;

Amendment 204 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 g (new)

3g. Notes that the current legal framework provides for neighbouring rights for performers, phonogram producers, film producers and broadcasting companies, but not for press publishers; calls on the Commission, therefore, to analyse whether neighbouring rights for press publishers can provide appropriate protection and remuneration for their work in a digital media world;

Amendment 205 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 h (new)

3h. Calls on the Commission to restore balance to copyright holders’ contractual powers by imposing a reasonable period for the use of rights transferred by them to third parties, after which those rights would lapse;

Amendment 206 #

Helga TRÜPEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 i (new)

3i. Calls therefore on the Commission to consider introducing a levy which can be levied solely by collecting societies and is applicable to the reproduction and making available for commercial purposes of third-party copyright- protected content provided to the general public by service providers within the meaning of Article 14 of the E-Commerce Directive, provided no other contractual arrangements have been made and the rightholder receives no any other remuneration for this;

Amendment 207 #

Julia REDA, Christian EHLER, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Milan ZVER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 j (new)

3j. Suggests to further investigate the effects and benefits from a country of origin approach in rights clearance to facilitate pan-European commercial services; recommends building upon existing best-practice solutions to cross- border access in the area of satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission;

Amendment 208 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

Amendment 209 #

Constance LE GRIP, Christian EHLER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 b (new)

– having regard to the September 2013 intellectual property rights study carried out jointly by the European Patent Office (EPO) and the office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), entitled 'Intellectual property rights intensive industries: contribution to economic performance and employment in the European Union', which shows that about 39% of total economic activity in the EU, worth some EUR 4 700 billion a year, is generated by IPR-intensive industries, as is, in addition, 26% of direct employment (or 56 million jobs), with indirect employment accounting for a further 9% of the total number of jobs in the EU,

Amendment 210 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

Amendment 211 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

Amendment 212 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

Amendment 213 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Pavel SVOBODA, Tadeusz ZWIEFKA, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, József SZÁJER, Giovanni TOTI, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

Amendment 214 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

Amendment 215 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

Amendment 216 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

Amendment 217 #

Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

Amendment 218 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Considers the introduction of a single European Copyright Title on the basis of Article 118 TFEU that would apply directly and uniformly across the EU, in accordance with the Commission’s objective of better regulation, as a legal means to remedy the lack of harmonisation resulting from Directive 2001/29/ECUrges the Commission to put forward formulas to remedy the lack of harmonisation resulting from Directive 2001/29/EC, taking into account the need to provide balanced solutions that will help to overcome and/or improve cross- border access and portability of products and services based on new consumer demands;

Amendment 219 #

Helga STEVENS, Julia REDA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Considers~~Points out that the fintroduction of a single European Copyright Title on the basis of Article 118 TFEU that would apply directly and uniformly across the EU, in accordance with the Commission’s objective of better regulation, as a legal means to remedy the lack of harmonisation resulting from Directive 2001/29/ECancing of creative work and the sharing of risks are underpinned by exclusive rights and freedom of contract; underscores the fact that territorial criteria, including local language use and cultural preferences, are fundamental in terms of potential to attract investment in film and television production and coproduction, and that this ‘ecosystem’ works on the principle of exclusive territorial licensing;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 b (new)

– having regard to the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled,

Amendment 220 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Considers that the introduction of ~~a single European C~~targeted and appropyri~~ght Title on the basis of Article 118 TFEU that would apply directly and uniformly across the EU, in accord~~ate measures, based on robust evidence and in compliance with the Commission’'s objective of bBetter rRegulation, ~~as a legal~~could be a means to remedy specific obstacles caused by the lack of harmonisation resulting from Directive 2001/29/EC;

Amendment 221 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Considers the~~Notes with interest the ongoing discussions on introduc~~tion of~~ing a single European Copyright Title on the basis of Article 118 TFEU that would apply directly and uniformly across the EU, in accordance with the Commission’s objective of better regulation~~, as a legal means to remedy the lack of harmonisation resulting from Directive 2001/29/EC~~;

Amendment 222 #

Julia REDA, Victor NEGRESCU, Mary HONEYBALL, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Dietmar KÖSTER, Mady DELVAUX

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Considers~~Invites the Commission to explore the introduction of a single European Copyright Title ~~on the~~ basised ofn Article 118 TFEU that would apply directly and uniformly across the ~~EU, in accordanc~~Union as a legal means to remedy the lack of harmonisation resulting from Directive 2001/29/EC and to improve legal certainty in line with the Commission’'s objective of better regulation~~, as a legal means to reme~~; therefore calls on the Commission to study the limpackt of ~~harmonisation resulting from Directive 2001/29/EC~~a single European Copyright Title on digital jobs and innovation, and on the preservation of consumers' access to regional cultural diversity;

Amendment 223 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

Amendment 224 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. Considers the introduction of an optional single European Copyright Title on the basis of Article 118 TFEU that would apply directly and uniformly across the EU, in ~~accordance with the Commission’s objective of better regulation, as a~~the long term as a possible legal means to remedy the lack of harmonisation resulting from Directive 2001/29/EC; calls for a comprehensive impact assessment as a basis for future discussions on this issue; recommends in the meantime the modernisation of existing legislation which - particularly in relation to the country of origin principle - is designed to be technology-neutral in order to simplify the clarification of rights for audio and audiovisual online services;

Amendment 225 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

Amendment 226 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

Amendment 227 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. ~~Considers~~Demands that the introduction of a single European Copyright Title on the basis of Article 118 TFEU be examined that would apply directly and uniformly across the EU, in accordance with the Commission’s objective of better regulation, as a legal means to remedy the lack of harmonisation resulting from Directive 2001/29/EC;

Amendment 228 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Considers that a large part of the fragmentation of the digital single market for cultural content needs to be tackled with further legislative measures, also besides the review of the Directive 2001/29/EC, targeted at the lack of harmonised approach notably with regards to the licensing of cultural content and in this context welcomes the progress which was achieved through the adoption of the Collective Rights Management Directive as an important first step;

Amendment 229 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Notes the adoption by the Commission of legal instruments aiming at removing obstacles to bringing out the full economic potential from the exploitation of public sector information, and allowing the re-use of such information even in the presence of intellectual property rights;

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 8 a (new)

Member States shall allow companies to build reserves in accordance with their articles of association.

Amendment 230 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 c (new)

4c. Points out that, in the fragile ecosystem which produces and finances creative work, exclusive rights and freedom of contract are key components because they make for improved risk sharing, enable a range of players to get involved in joint projects for a culturally diverse audience and underpin the incentive to invest in professional content production;

Amendment 231 #

Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 d (new)

4d. Considers the introduction of a single European Copyright Title as a long term project, which should be progressed

Amendment 232 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 e (new)

4e. Highlights the importance of making headway in the tax harmonisation of the cultural sector within the EU, in order to reduce disparities between Member States and ensure balanced competition that rises above the existence of 28 different tax regimes;

Amendment 233 #

Virginie ROZIÈRE, Mady DELVAUX, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 f (new)

4f. Draws attention to the fact that multi- territorial licensing, as provided for in Directive 2014/26/EU on collective management of copyright, is an option when broadcasters want Europe-wide coverage;

Amendment 234 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 g (new)

4g. Urges the Commission to present concrete proposals to amend the Directive 2001/29/EG before December 2015

Amendment 235 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 h (new)

4h. Points out that the financing, production and co-production of films and television content depend to a great extent on exclusive territorial licences granted to local distributers on a range of platforms reflecting the cultural specificities of the various markets in Europe; that being so, emphasises that the ability, under the principle of freedom of contract, to select the extent of territorial coverage and the type of distribution platform encourages investment in films and television content and promotes cultural diversity; calls on the Commission to ensure that any initiative to modernise copyright is preceded by a wide-ranging study of its likely impact on the production, financing and distribution of films and television content, and also on cultural diversity;

Amendment 236 #

Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Recommends that the EU legislator further lower the barriers to the re-use of public sector information by exempting works produced by the public sector – as part of the political, legal and administrative process – from copyright protection;deleted

Amendment 237 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

Amendment 238 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

Amendment 239 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 9

– having regard to Directive 2013/37/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 amending Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector information3, __________________ 3deleted OJ L 175, 27.6.2013, p. 1. (This concerns the public sector, not copyright; it is of no relevance.)

Amendment 240 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

Amendment 241 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

Amendment 242 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Marc JOULAUD, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Mary HONEYBALL, József SZÁJER, Giovanni TOTI, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

Amendment 243 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

Amendment 244 #

Jytte GUTELAND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

Amendment 245 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Recommends ~~that the EU legislator further lower~~reducing the barriers to the re-use of public sector information by e~~xempting works produced by the public sector – as part of the political, legal and administrative process – from copyright protection~~ncouraging the use of appropriate licensing;

Amendment 246 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Recommends that the EU legislator further lower the barriers to the re-use of public sector information ~~by exempting works produced by the public sector – as part of the political, legal and administrative process – from copyright protection~~;

Amendment 247 #

Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Recommends that the EU legislator should, while protecting personal information, further lower the barriers ~~to the~~for re-use of public sector information by exempting ~~works produced by the public sector – as part of~~official works, which are produced by government employees as part of their official duty within the political, legal and administrative process –, from copyright protection;

Amendment 248 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Recommends that the EU legislator, to protect the public interest, further lower the barriers to the re-use of public sector information by exempting works produced by the public sector – as part of the political, legal and administrative process – from copyright protection;

Amendment 249 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

5. Recommends that the EU legislator ~~furth~~consider lhow~~er the barriers to~~ to adjust the legislation on the re-use of public sector information ~~by exempting works produced by the public sector – as part of the political, legal and administrative process – from copyright protection~~, with due regard for the principles underpinning the copyright system and the relevant case law of the Court of Justice;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 9

~~– having regard to Directive 2013/37/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 amending Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector information3, __________________ 3~~deleted OJ L 175, 27.6.2013, p. 1.

Amendment 250 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5

Amendment 251 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Recalls the adoption of Directive 2013/37/EU on 26 June 2013 on the re- use of public sector information, which provides a common legal framework for an EU market for government-held data (public sector information) and includes provisions on transparency and competition;

Amendment 252 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission to safeguard public domain works, which are by definition not subject to copyright protection and should therefore be able to be used and re-used without technical or contractual barriers; also calls on the Commission to recognise the freedom of rightholders to voluntarily relinquish their rights and dedicate their works to the public domain;deleted

Amendment 253 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission to safeguard public domain works, which are by definition not subject to copyright protection and should therefore be able to be used and re-used without technical or contractual barriers; also calls on the Commission to recognise the freedom of rightholders to voluntarily relinquish their rights and dedicate their works to the public domain;deleted

Amendment 254 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission to safeguard public domain works, which are by definition not subject to copyright protection and should therefore be able to be used and re-used without technical or contractual barriers; also calls on the Commission to recognise the freedom of rightholders to voluntarily relinquish their rights and dedicate their works to the public domain;deleted

Amendment 255 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Pavel SVOBODA, Marc JOULAUD, József SZÁJER, Giovanni TOTI, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission to safeguard public domain works, which are by definition not subject to copyright protection and should therefore be able to be used and re-used without technical or contractual barriers; also calls on the Commission to recognise the freedom of rightholders to voluntarily relinquish their rights and dedicate their works to the public domain;delete

Amendment 256 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission to safeguard public domain works, which are by definition not subject to copyright protection and should therefore be able to be used and re-used without technical or contractual barriers; also calls on the Commission to recognise the freedom of rightholders to voluntarily relinquish their rights and dedicate their works to the public domain;deleted

Amendment 257 #

Mary HONEYBALL, Virginie ROZIÈRE, Dietmar KÖSTER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 258 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 259 #

Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 9

Amendment 260 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission to safeguard public domain works, which are by definition not subject to copyright protection and should therefore be able to be used and re-used without technical or contractual barriers; ~~also~~ calls on the Commission to ~~recognise~~examine whether individual works may be removed from the catalogue by collecting societies for free licences / public domain use at the fre~~edom of rightholders~~quest of the author; also calls on the Commission to examine whether rightholders may be given the right to voluntarily relinquish their user rights and dedicate their works to the public domain;

Amendment 261 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 262 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission to effectively safeguard public domain works, which are by definition not subject to copyright protection and should therefore be able to be used and re-used without technical or contractual barriers; also calls on the Commission to recognise the freedom of rightholders to voluntarily relinquish their rights and dedicate their works to the public domain;

Amendment 263 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission to safeguard public domain works, which are by definition not subject to copyright protection, and ~~should~~ therefore ~~be able to~~should be used and re-used without technical or contractual barriers; ~~also calls on~~therefore urges the Commission to ~~recognise the freedom of rightholders to voluntarily relinquish their rights and~~clarify that once a work is in the public domain, any digitisation of the work which does not constitute a new, transformative work, stays in the public domain; also calls on the Commission to recognise the freedom of authors to dedicate their works to the public domain;

Amendment 264 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

Amendment 265 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. Calls on the Commission to ~~safeguard~~define more clearly the context for the use of public domain works, which are by definition not subject to copyright protection and should therefore be able to be used and re-used without technical or contractual barriers; also calls on the Commission to recognise the freedom of rightholders to voluntarily relinquish their rights and dedicate their works to the public domain;

Amendment 266 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Considers that the registration of works should be encouraged, in order to clearly identify and locate right holders, as well as to distinguish between copyrighted and non-copyrighted works, thus improving legal certainty, facilitating the licensing of rights and limiting the spread of orphan works; more broadly, is of the opinion that mechanisms allowing to identify the initial rightholder, the transfer of rights and the publication date of the work, should serve as a presumption of authorship;

Amendment 267 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

~~7. Calls on the Commission to harmonise the term of protection of copyright to a duration that does not exceed the current international standards set out in the Berne Convention;~~deleted

Amendment 268 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

~~7. Calls on the Commission to harmonise the term of protection of copyright to a duration that does not exceed the current international standards set out in the Berne Convention;~~deleted

Amendment 269 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Pavel SVOBODA, Marc JOULAUD, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Tadeusz ZWIEFKA, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Mary HONEYBALL, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Giovanni TOTI, József SZÁJER, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

~~7. Calls on the Commission to harmonise the term of protection of copyright to a duration that does not exceed the current international standards set out in the Berne Convention;~~deleted

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 9

Amendment 270 #

José BLANCO LÓPEZ, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

~~7. Calls on the Commission to harmonise the term of protection of copyright to a duration that does not exceed the current international standards set out in the Berne Convention;~~deleted

Amendment 271 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Marc JOULAUD, Pavel SVOBODA, Mary HONEYBALL, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Giovanni TOTI, József SZÁJER, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

~~7. Calls on the Commission to harmonise the term of protection of copyright to a duration that does not exceed the current international standards set out in the Berne Convention;~~deleted

Amendment 272 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Calls on the Commission to harmonise the term of protection of copyright to a duration that does not exceed the current international standards set out in the Berne Convention~~Notes that the term of protection has been harmonised at EU level since 2006 (with Directive 2006/116/EC); notes that Directive 2011/77/EU provides for simplification of the system, aligning the term of protection of related rights with that of copyright and setting out rules on co-authored works; encourages further rationalisation in the directive’s application throughout the EU;

Amendment 273 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Call~~Points onut th~~e Commission to harmonise~~at authors are entitled to profit from their work, and that they ther~~m of protection of copyright to a duration that does not exceed the current international standards set out in the Berne Convention~~efore enjoy universally recognised property rights; advocates observance of the term of copyright extending 70 years from the date of the author’s death, as applicable in many EU countries;

Amendment 274 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to ~~harmonis~~formulate the term of protection of copyright ~~to a duration that does not exceed~~in accordance with currently applicable standards, based on the Berne Convention, of Directive 2006/116 / EC of the cEur~~rent international standards set out in the Berne Convention~~opean Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 and Directive 2011/77 / EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 27 September 2011;

Amendment 275 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Calls on the Commission to harmonise the term of protection of copyright to a duration that does not exceed the current international standards set out in the Berne Conven~~Stresses that Directive 2006/11 / EC sets a term of protection of copyright which takes into account the average life expectancy of authors which has increased in recent decades and reflects the political will to include two subsequent generations;

Amendment 276 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Calls on the Commission to harmonise~~Notes that the term of protection of copyright ~~to a duration that does not exceed the current international standards set out in the Berne Convention;~~has been harmonise at EU level by the Directive 2006/116/EC (which was revised by Directive 2011/77/EU) without prejudice to the current international standards set out in the Berne Convention; encourages Member States to finalise the transposition and implementation of this directive in a streamlined manner

Amendment 277 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to ~~harmonise the term of protection of copyright to a duration that does not exceed the current international standards set out in the Berne Convention~~explore the possibility to significantly shorten the duration of the harmonised terms of protections of copyright within the framework of a modern trade policy agenda;

Amendment 278 #

Virginie ROZIÈRE, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to harmonise the term of protection of copyright to a duration that does not exceed the current international standards set out in the Berne Convention; points out to the Commission that copyright is a driving force for social and economic development in the broadest sense; notes that, with a turnover on the EU market exceeding EUR 535 billion, the cultural and creative industries that rely on copyright generate 4.2% of GDP within the EU and provide 7 million jobs (for local – and mainly younger – people); notes that, by offering stable employment especially at a time of crisis, they are proving highly resilient to the economic crisis and are consequently holding out immense economic potential; notes that the potential of this kind offered by the cultural and creative industry also derives from the fact that, in the EU, in accordance with the Berne Convention, which lays down minimum standards for the duration of protection, rights last for 70 years from the time of the author’s death;

Amendment 279 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to ~~harmonise the term of protection of copyright to a duration that does not exceed the current international standards set out in the Berne Convention~~maintain the high level of harmonisation of the term of protection of copyright, in accordance with the Berne Convention; emphasises that the term of protection for holders of related rights should also be harmonised;

Amendment 28 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 9

Amendment 280 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to harmonise the term of protection of copyright and related rights to a duration that does not exceed the current international standards set out in the Berne Convention, taking into account the time needed to recover investment costs, the average marketing life of a work and the public interest in the dissemination of creative works;

Amendment 281 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Calls on the Commission to harmonise~~Notes that the term of protection of copyright ~~to a duration that does not exceed the current international standards set out in the Berne Convention~~has been harmonised at EU level by Directive 2006/116/EC (which was revised by Directive 2011/77/EU) without prejudice to the current international standards set out in the Berne Convention; and encourages Member States to finalise the transposition and implementation of this directive in a streamlined manner;

Amendment 282 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7

7. Calls on the Commission to harmonise the term of protection of copyright to a duration that does not ~~exceed~~fall below the current international standards set out in the Berne Convention, while refraining from any further extension of the terms of protection;

Amendment 283 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Notes that the current legal Acquis recognises the full harmonisation of exclusive rights, whereas exceptions and limitations to exclusive rights remain optional and not harmonised;

Amendment 284 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Notes the significant number of suggestions that have been put forward in the replies to the consultation of the Commission on the review of the EU copyright rules, to introduce new exceptions and limitations to exclusive rights, as well as broadening the scope of existing exceptions;

Amendment 285 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Calls on the EU legislator to remain faithful to the objective stated in Directive 2001/29/EC of providing an adequate protection for copyright and neighbouring rights as one of the main ways of ensuring European cultural creativity and safeguarding a fair balance between the different categories of rightholders and users of protected subject- matter, as well as between the different categories of rightholders;

Amendment 286 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

8. Calls on the EU legislator to remain faithful to the objective stated in Directive 2001/29/EC of safeguarding a fair balance between the different categories of rightholders and users of protected ~~subject-matter~~content, as well as between the different categories of rightholders;

Amendment 287 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8

Amendment 288 #

Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Recalls that Member States have a positive obligation to provide for a robust and flexible system of copyright exceptions and limitations in order to honour their human rights obligations

Amendment 289 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Emphasises that any legislative change in this field should guarantee people with disabilities access to works and services protected by copyright and related rights and should be adapted to the digital environment;

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 12 a (new)

- having regard to Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the enforcement of intellectual property rights,

Amendment 290 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Notes that ~~exceptions and limitations in the digital environment should be enjoyed without any unequal treatment as compared with those granted in the analogue world~~digital and analogue markets are different, and that therefore use should be made of the techniques introduced since the entry into force of Directive 2001/29/EC;

Amendment 291 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. ~~Not~~Urges th~~at exceptions and limitations in the digital environment should be enjoyed without any unequal treatment as compared with those granted~~ e Commission to adapt and standardise the exceptions and limitations that are permitted in the regulatory framework of the analogue world to the new scenario represented by the digital paradigm, and in particular by cloud computing t~~he analogue world~~echnologies;

Amendment 292 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Notes that exceptions and limitations ~~in the digital environment should be enjoyed without any unequal treatment as compared with those granted in the analogue world~~must be applied in such a way as to take account of the particular respective characteristics of the digital and analogue environments;

Amendment 293 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Notes that technological changes have led to renewed interest in exceptions and limitations, especially their role in the digital environment ~~should be enjoyed without any unequal treatment as compared with~~and considers that the rights enjoyed by the creators of work in the digital world should be identical to those enjoyed in the analogue world, subject to the exceptions and limitations set out. Recognises that further analysis of the exceptions and limitations is sought so as to consider how thoese ~~granted in the analogue world~~can serve the public in the digital age;

Amendment 294 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Notes that exceptions ~~and limitations in the digital environment should be enjoyed without any unequal treatment as compared with those granted in the analogue world~~should be used for the purposes for which they were designed and not to create new business models;

Amendment 295 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Notes thate importance of exceptions and limitations in the digital environment ~~should be enjoyed without any unequal treatment as compared with those granted in the analogue world~~being technologically neutral, where possible, and accessible for persons with disabilities; in this regard, notes the conclusion of the Marrakesh Treaty, which will facilitate access for the visual impaired for books, and encourages ratification in early course; believes that the Treaty is a good step forward, but that much work remains to be done in order to open up access to content for people with disabilities, in addition to those affected by visual impairment;

Amendment 296 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Pavel SVOBODA, József SZÁJER, Giovanni TOTI, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Milan ZVER, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Notes that exceptions and limitations in the digital environment ~~should~~cannot be enjoyed ~~without any unequal treatment as compared with those g~~in the same way in the digital environment and in the analogue environment; calls for exceptions and limitations to be tailored to the environment in which they apply; (The two markets do not operanted in the ~~analogue world;~~same way at all.)

Amendment 297 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

Amendment 298 #

Mary HONEYBALL, Silvia COSTA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Notes that technological changes have led to renewed interest in exceptions and limitations, especially their role in the digital environment ~~should be enjoyed without any unequal treatment as compared with~~and considers that the rights enjoyed by the creators of work in the digital world should be identical to those enjoyed in the analogue world, subject to the exceptions and limitations set out. Recognises that further analysis of the application of the exceptions and limitations is required so as to consider how thoese ~~granted in the analogue world;~~ can serve the public in the digital age;

Amendment 299 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Notes that exceptions and limitations in the digital environment too should be enjoyed ~~without any unequal treatment as compared with those granted in the analogue~~solely for their intended purposes; considers that the purpose of their establishment must not be to create new business models whereby authors’ works would be exploited by applying exceptions and limitations in such a way as to deny authors the royalties arising from the use of their worldks;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1

– having regard to Articles 4, 26, 34, 114, 118 and 11867 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

Amendment 30 #

José BLANCO LÓPEZ, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL

Motion for a resolution
Citation 13

– having regard to ~~Council~~ Directive ~~92/100/EEC of 19 Nov~~2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December ~~1992~~2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property~~7, __________________ 7~~, which amends Council Directive 92/100/EEC7, __________________ 7 OJ L 346, 27.11.1992, p. 61. OJ L 346, 27.11.1992, p. 61.

Amendment 300 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. ~~Notes that~~Calls on the Commission to give careful consideration to the extent to which it is feasible directly to transfer exceptions and limitations infrom the analogue world to a digital environment; s~~hould be enjoyed without any unequal treatment as compared with those granted in the analogue world~~tresses, at the same time, that the right of the creator to protection of his or her creative works must continue to apply in the digital age;

Amendment 301 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Notes that exceptions and limitations in the digital environment should be enjoyed without any unequal treatment as compared with those granted in the analogue world, ensuring that holders of copyright and related rights receive a fair remuneration for their works;

Amendment 302 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Notes that ~~exceptions and limitation~~the rights and protection of creators in the digital environment should be enjoyed without any unequal treatment as compared with those granted in the analogue world;

Amendment 303 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Notes that the ability to benefit from exceptions and limitations should be enjoyed in the digital environment ~~should be enjoyed~~ without any unequal treatment as compared ~~with~~to those granted in the analogue world;

Amendment 304 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

9. Notes that exceptions and limitations and appropriate remuneration for creators in the digital environment should be enjoyed without any unequal treatment as compared with those granted in the analogue world;

Amendment 305 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9

Amendment 306 #

Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – subparagraph 1 (new)

Highlights the advisability of introducing new exceptions and limitations which should take into account technological developments and new forms of both the expression and the use of works in a digital environment;

Amendment 307 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

Amendment 308 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

Amendment 309 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 13 a (new)

- having regard to Directive 2001/84/EC on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art,

Amendment 310 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Views with concern the increasing impact of differences among Member States in the implementation of exceptions, which creates legal uncertainty and has direct negative effects on the functioning of the digital single market, in view of the development of cross-border activitieNotes the right of each Member State to tailor exceptions in accordance with their market and traditions and in line with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; However, Member States may consider that some exceptions may benefit from common approaches and any exceptions pursued should aim to stimulate economic growth, the development of the Digital Single Market and competitiveness;

Amendment 311 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Views with concern the increasing impact of differences among Member States in the implementation of exceptions, which creates legal uncertainty and has direct negative effects on the func~~Recalls that each Member State may continue to legislate on the basis of respect for and conservation and promotion~~ing~~ of ~~the digital single market, in view of the development of cross-border activities~~its cultural identity, contributing to the cultural richness of Europe;

Amendment 312 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Views with concern the increasing impact of differences among Member States in the implementation of exceptions, which creates legal uncertainty and has direct negative effects on the functioning of the digital single market, in view of the developmentObserves that the list of 20 optional exceptions in Directive 2001/29/EC has permitted a flexibility of implementation which was necessary in order to take account of the diversity of the legal traditions of the Member States and their cultural policies, while ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market and respecting the principles of cpro~~ss-border activities~~portionality and subsidiarity;

Amendment 313 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Views with concern the increasing impact of differences among Member States in the implementation of exceptions, which creates legal uncertainty and has direct negative effects on~~Notes the importance of European cultural diversity, which provides opportunities rather than obstacles to the Single Market, and notes that the possible differences in the implementation of exceptions may be handled on a case-by- case basis and market driven solutions , to avoid legal uncertainty and to protect the functioning of the digital single market, in view of the development of cross-border activities;

Amendment 314 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Views with concern the increasing impact of differences among Member States~~Stresses the importance of Member States’ room for manoeuvre in the implementation of exceptions, which cre~~ates legal uncertainty and has direct negative effects on the functioning of the digital single market, in view of the development of cross-border activiti~~flects specific cultural and economic features in the Member States;

Amendment 315 #

Mary HONEYBALL, Theresa GRIFFIN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

Amendment 316 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Views with concern the increasing impact of differences among Member States in the implementation of exceptions, which creates legal uncertainty and has direct negative effects on the functioning of the digital single market, in view of the development of cross-border activitiesNotes the importance of European cultural diversity, which provides opportunities rather than obstacles to the Single Market, and notes that the differences in the implementation of exceptions may have negative effects on the functioning of the internal market, and may also lead to legal uncertainty, but that these should be handled on a case-by- case basis, while stressing that works of cultural value should be available to all to be enjoyed but should also be subject to copyright protection;

Amendment 317 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Marc JOULAUD, Mary HONEYBALL, József SZÁJER, Giovanni TOTI, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Views with concern the increasing impact of differences among Member States in the implementation of exceptions, which creates legal uncertainty and has direct negative effects on~~Notes the importance of European cultural diversity, which provides opportunities rather than obstacles to the Single Market, and notes that the possible differences in the implementation of exceptions may be handled on a case-by- case basis and market driven solutions , to avoid legal uncertainty and to protect the functioning of the digital single market, in view of the development of cross-border activities;

Amendment 318 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. ~~Views with concern the increasing impact of differences among Member States in the implementation of exceptions, which creates legal uncertainty and has direct negative effects on~~Notes the added value that cultural diversity offers for the European internal market, and stresses that possible differences among Member States in the implementation of exceptions should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis in order to avoid legal uncertainty and safeguard the functioning of the digital single market, in view of the development of cross-border activities;

Amendment 319 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Views with concern, in view of the development of cross-border activities, the increasing impact of ~~differences~~the lack of uniformity among Member States in the implementation of exceptions, which creates legal uncertainty and has direct negative effects on the functioning of the digital single market, ion ~~view of the development of cross-border activities~~the incentive to create and promote innovative industrial and trade models and on competition;

Amendment 32 #

Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG

Motion for a resolution
Citation 15 a (new)

– having regard to its resolution of 3 June 2010 on enforcement of intellectual property rights in the internal market,

Amendment 320 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. Views with concern the increasing impact of differences among Member States in the implementation of exceptions, which creates legal uncertainty for authors and users and has direct negative effects on the functioning of the digital single market, in view of the development of cross-border activities;

Amendment 321 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

Amendment 322 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)

10a. Emphasizes that industry geoblocking practices should not prevent cultural minorities living in EU Member States from accessing existing contents or services in their language that are either free or paid for;

Amendment 323 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)

10b. Supports the initiatives aimed at enhancing the portability, within the EU, of online services of legally acquired and legally made available content, whilst fully respecting copyrights and the interests of right-holders;

Amendment 324 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 c (new)

10c. Calls for modern, harmonized EU wide copyright, to ensure innovative startups can flourish and roll out their services on a single European digital market;

Amendment 325 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 d (new)

10d. Recalls that the European cultural markets are naturally heterogeneous because of the European cultural and linguistic diversity, notes that this diversity should be considered as a benefit rather than an obstacle to the Single Market;

Amendment 326 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 e (new)

10e. Takes note of the importance of territorial licenses in the EU, particularly with regards to audiovisual and film production which is primarily based on broadcasters pre-purchase or pre- financing systems;

Amendment 327 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

Amendment 328 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

Amendment 329 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 16 a (new)

– having regard to its resolution of 16 February 2012 on access by blind people to books and other printed products,

Amendment 330 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

Amendment 331 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

Amendment 332 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

Amendment 333 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

Amendment 334 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Calls on the Commission to ~~make mandatory~~ensure that all the exceptions and limitations referred to in Directive 2001/29/EC~~, to allow~~ are implemented appropriately, that equal access to cultural diversity across borders within the internal market ~~and to improve legal certainty~~is promoted and that legal certainty is improved, taking account of the subsidiarity principle, specific cultural and legal features in the Member States and the clearly demonstrated cross-border impact of the exceptions and limitations concerned;

Amendment 335 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Calls on the Commission to ~~make mandatory all the exceptions and limitations referred to in Directive 2001/29/EC, to allow~~ensure the proper application of the exceptions and limitations and to provide all the information necessary to promote equal access to cultural diversity across borders within the internal market and to improve legal certainty;

Amendment 336 #

Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. ~~Calls on the Commission to make mandatory all~~underlines that the exceptions and limitations referred to in Directive 2001/29/EC, should be implemented in a way to allow equal access to cultural diversity across borders within the internal market and to improve legal certainty;

Amendment 337 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Calls on the Commission to ~~make mandatory~~examine a minimum of harmonisation of all the exceptions and limitations referred to in Directive 2001/29/EC, to allow equal access to cultural diversity across borders within the internal market and to improve legal certainty;

Amendment 338 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Calls on the Commission to ~~make mandatory all the exceptions and limitations referred to in Directive 2001/29/EC, to allow equal access to cultural diversity across borders within the internal market and~~enhance the provision of information to creators and consumers regarding exceptions and limitations in all Member States to improve legal certainty;

Amendment 339 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Calls on the Commission to ~~make mandatory~~ensure the proper implementation of all the exceptions and limitations referred to in Directive 2001/29/EC, ~~to allow~~and to provide all necessary information to promote an equal access to cultural diversity across borders within the internal market and to improve legal certainty, while ensuring respect for the principle of subsidiarity, cultural diversity and evidence of clear cross-border impact;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 a (new)

- having regard to the Green Paper of 13 July 2011 on the online distribution of audiovisual works,

Amendment 340 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Calls on the Commission to ~~make~~propose a list of mandatory ~~all the~~ exceptions and limitations ~~referred to in~~in its review of Directive 2001/29/EC, toas this would allow equal access to cultural diversity across borders within the internal market and to improve legal certainty;

Amendment 341 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Calls on the Commission to make uniform and mandatory all the exceptions and limitations referred to in Directive 2001/29/EC, to allow equal access to cultural diversity across borders within the internal market and to improve legal certainty;

Amendment 342 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Marc JOULAUD, Pavel SVOBODA, Jean-Marie CAVADA, József SZÁJER, Giovanni TOTI, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Calls on the Commission to make mandatory all the exceptions and limitations referred to in Directive 2001/29/EC, to allow equal access to cultural diversity across borders within the internal market and to improve legal certainty; takes the view that any harmonisation of copyright and related rights must be based on a high level of protection, since these rights are crucial for intellectual creation; notes that protecting these rights helps to ensure the maintenance and development of creativity in the interests of creators, performers, producers, consumers, culture, industry and the public at large;

Amendment 343 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

Amendment 344 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. Calls on the Commission to ~~make mandatory all~~examine the application of minimum standards across the exceptions and limitations, and further to ensure the proper implementation of the exceptions and limitations referred to in Directive 2001/29/EC, ~~to allow~~and an equal access to cultural diversity across borders within the internal market and to improve legal certainty;

Amendment 345 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11a. Stresses that the "three-step test" of international copyright law should serve to encourage the establishment of a solid and flexible system of exceptions and limitations;

Amendment 346 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)

11b. Urges the European legislator to ensure that all citizens can enjoy at national level, judicial or administrative procedures enabling to request the implementation and expansion of exceptions and limitations to assure their constitutional and human rights;

Amendment 347 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 c (new)

11c. Calls on the Commission to examine the present limitations and exceptions with a view to bringing about policies to boost the development of the existing market, an aim which can be achieved only by ensuring a proper reward for authors, that is to say, those who create the products offered on that market, and by providing legal certainty;

Amendment 348 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 d (new)

11d. Calls for expanding mandatory exceptions beneficial for public interest institutions, such as libraries, museums and archives, which play a central role in facilitating online access to cultural heritage, and access to information that allows them to make protected works in their collections, that are not in commercial circulation anymore, or otherwise actively managed by their rights holders, available for online access by the public;

Amendment 349 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 e (new)

11e. Temporary acts of reproduction, which are transient or incidental [and] an integral and essential part of a technological process and whose sole purpose is to enable: (a) a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or (b) a lawful use of a work or other subject-matter to be made, and which have no independent economic significance, should remain a mandatory exception.

Amendment 35 #

Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Evelyn REGNER

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 a (new)

- having regard to the Green Paper of the Commission on the online distribution of audiovisual works in the European Union: opportunities and challenges towards a digital single market (COM(2011)427)),

Amendment 350 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 f (new)

11f. Considers it necessary to strengthen exceptions for institutions of public interest, such as libraries, museums and archives, in order to promote wide- ranging access to cultural heritage, including through online platforms;

Amendment 351 #

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Mary HONEYBALL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 g (new)

11g. Calls on the Commission to consider with care the possibility of making certain exceptions mandatory where the purpose is to protect fundamental rights, particularly to combat discrimination or protect freedom of the press; realls in this context that fair compensation should be provided for these exceptions;

Amendment 352 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 h (new)

11h. Recalls the importance of SMEs in the cultural and creative industries in terms of job creation and growth in the European Union; stresses that the vast majority of SMEs in the cultural and creative industries take advantage of the flexibility of copyright rules to produce, invest and distribute cultural and creative works but also to develop innovative solutions which enable users to gain access to creative works on line adapted to the preferences and specificities of local markets;

Amendment 353 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 i (new)

11i. Calls on the Commission to introduce new mandatory exceptions, such as for user-generated content, text and data mining;

Amendment 354 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 j (new)

11j. Exceptions or limitations should be made mandatory in the following cases: (a) in respect of reproductions on paper or any similar medium, effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects, with the exception of sheet music, provided that the rightholders receive fair compensation; (b) in respect of reproductions on any medium made by a natural person for private use and for ends that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial, on condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation; (c) in respect of acts of reproduction made by publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments or museums, or by archives, which are not for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage; (d) in respect of ephemeral recordings of works made by broadcasting organisations by means of their own facilities and for their own broadcasts; the preservation of these recordings in official archives should, on the grounds of their exceptional documentary character, be permitted; (e) in respect of reproductions of broadcasts made by social institutions pursuing non-commercial purposes, such as hospitals or prisons, on condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation. (f) use for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long as the source, including the author's name, is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible and to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved; (g) uses, for the benefit of people with a disability, which are directly related to the disability and of a non-commercial nature, to the extent required by the specific disability; (h) reproduction by the press, communication to the public or making available of published articles on current economic, political or religious topics or of broadcast works or other subject-matter of the same character, in cases where such use is not expressly reserved, and as long as the source, including the author's name, is indicated, or use of works or other subject-matter in connection with the reporting of current events, to the extent justified by the informatory purpose and as long as the source, including the author's name, is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible; (i) quotations for purposes such as criticism or review, provided that they relate to a work or other subject-matter which has already been lawfully made available to the public, that, unless this turns out to be impossible, the source, including the author's name, is indicated, and that their use is in accordance with fair practice, and to the extent required by the specific purpose; (j) use for the purposes of public security or to ensure the proper performance or reporting of administrative, parliamentary or judicial proceedings; (k) use of political speeches as well as extracts of public lectures or similar works or subject-matter to the extent justified by the informatory purpose and provided that the source, including the author's name, is indicated, except where this turns out to be impossible; (l) use during religious celebrations or official celebrations organised by a public authority; (m) use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places; (n) incidental inclusion of a work or other subject-matter in other material; (o) use for the purpose of advertising the public exhibition or sale of artistic works, to the extent necessary to promote the event, excluding any other commercial use; (p) use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche; (q) use in connection with the demonstration or repair of equipment; (r) use of an artistic work in the form of a building or a drawing or plan of a building for the purposes of reconstructing the building; (s) use by communication or making available, for the purpose of research or private study, to individual members of the public by dedicated terminals on the premises of establishments referred to in paragraph 2(c) of works and other subject-matter not subject to purchase or licensing terms which are contained in their collections; (t) use in certain other cases of minor importance where exceptions or limitations already exist under national law, provided that they only concern analogue uses and do not affect the free circulation of goods and services within the Community, without prejudice to the other exceptions and limitations contained in this paragraph;

Amendment 355 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 k (new)

11k. Urges increased legal certainty with regards to sharing copyright protected content through 'peer-to-peer' (P2P) networks;

Amendment 356 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 l (new)

11l. Calls for broad exceptions for non- commercial use of protected works for educational organizations, teachers and students;

Amendment 357 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Notes with interest the development of new forms of use of works on digital networks, in particular transformative uses, and calls for fair remuneration solutions linked to new forms of exploitation of works on platforms and networks in the digital environment;

Amendment 358 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Notes with interest the development of new forms of use of works on digital networks, in particular transformative uses; , and stresses that these should be subject to the same level of copyright protection while keeping the best balance between an efficient protection that provides for a proper remuneration for creators and the objective of the public interest for access to cultural goods and knowledge.

Amendment 359 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Notes with interest the development of new forms of use of works on digital networks, in particular transformative uses, and stresses in this connection the need for service-providers and technical intermediaries on the Internet to remunerate rightholders for the use of works on their platforms and networks;

Amendment 36 #

José BLANCO LÓPEZ, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 a (new)

- having regard to the Commission Green Paper of 13 July 2011 on the online distribution of audiovisual works in the European Union: opportunities and challenges towards a digital single market (COM(2011 427 final),

Amendment 360 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Notes with interest the development of new forms of use of works on digital networks, in particular transformative uses; emphasises the need to ensure copyright is protected to the same extent as in the analogue world;

Amendment 361 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Pavel SVOBODA, Marc JOULAUD, Jean-Marie CAVADA, József SZÁJER, Giovanni TOTI, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Milan ZVER, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Notes with interest the development of new forms of use of works on digital networks, in particular transformative uses, and stresses that these should be subject to the same level of copyright protection while keeping the best balance between an efficient protection that provides for a proper remuneration for creators and the objective of the public interest for access to cultural goods and knowledge;

Amendment 362 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. Notes with interest the development of new forms of use of works on digital networks, in particular transformative uses, and stresses that these should be subject to the same level of copyright protection while keeping the best balance between an efficient protection that provides for proper remuneration and fair compensation for creators and the objective of the public interest for access to cultural goods and knowledge;

Amendment 363 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)

12a. Acknowledges the importance of full exploitation of new technologies in order to increase the legal offer of content by encouraging re-use mechanisms and the birth of a digital second-hand market;

Amendment 364 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 b (new)

12b. Calls for broad exceptions also for informal educational purposes;

Amendment 365 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 c (new)

12c. Calls for open access in publishing, in particular for publicly funded research;

Amendment 366 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 d (new)

12d. Calls for making relevant existing exceptions such as parody, quotation and incidental use and private copying mandatory across all Member States;

Amendment 367 #

Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Calls for the adoption of an open norm introducing flexibility in the interpretation of exceptions and limitations in certain special cases that do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author or rightholder;deleted

Amendment 368 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

Amendment 369 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Marc JOULAUD, Tadeusz ZWIEFKA, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Giovanni TOTI, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, József SZÁJER, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Mary HONEYBALL, Milan ZVER, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 a (new)

Amendment 370 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

Amendment 371 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

Amendment 372 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

Amendment 373 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

Amendment 374 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Jean-Marie CAVADA, József SZÁJER, Giovanni TOTI, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Calls for the adoption of a~~n open norm introducing flexibility in the interpretation of~~ de minimis exceptions and limitation~~s in certain special~~ to analogically apply the discipline already provided in Article 5.3, in cases that doare not ~~conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author or rightholder~~regulated, especially bearing in mind the swift technological evolution. Such de minimis exception should be evaluated in light of the qualitative and quantitative parameters of three-step test, as provided for by Article 5.5 of the Directive;

Amendment 375 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. CRecalls ~~for the adoption of an open norm introducing flexibility in the interpretation of exceptions and limitations in certain special cases that do~~that the exceptions and limitations should not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author or rightholder, while keeping the interpretation of exceptions and limitations on the level of Member States to permit the adaptation of the copyright system to different national circumstances and social needs;

Amendment 376 #

Julia REDA, Mary HONEYBALL, Josef WEIDENHOLZER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Calls for ~~the adoption of an open norm introducing flexibility in the interpretation of exceptions and limita~~a flexible interpretation of exceptions and limitations to exclusive rights, allowing to apply exceptions and limitations to uses that are similar to the ones in the original legal provisions, thereby ensuring that exceptions and limitations can be adapted to new forms of usage emerging due to technological change; such flexibility would be subject to the three-step-test, which grants limitations and exceptions in certain special cases that do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author or rightholder;

Amendment 377 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

Amendment 378 #

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Virginie ROZIÈRE

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. ~~Calls for the adoption of an open norm introducing flexibility in the interpretation of exceptions and limitations in certain special cases that do~~Stresses that exceptions and limitations should not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author or rightholder; takes the view that, where necessary, the Member States should be able to adapt the exceptions and limitations in individual cases;

Amendment 379 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. CRecalls ~~for the adoption of an open norm introducing flexibility in the interpretation of exceptions and limitations in certain special cases that do~~that exceptions and limitations must not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work ~~and do not~~or unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author or rightholder; they are created for quite specific reasons and must be strictly applied by Member States;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 b (new)

- having regard to its resolution of 11 September 2012 on the online distribution of audiovisual works in the European Union (2011/2313(INI)),

Amendment 380 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Calls for the adoption of a~~n open norm introducing flexibility~~ certain norm in the interpretation of exceptions and limitations in ~~certain special~~ cases that do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author or rightholder;

Amendment 381 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. Calls for ~~the adoption of an open norm~~consideration to be given to an open norm making it possible to react promptly to new technologies and content and introducing flexibility in the interpretation of exceptions and limitations in certain special cases that do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author or rightholder, in accordance with the three- step test;

Amendment 382 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)

13a. Calls for exceptions and limitations which have an appropriate level of flexibility and are technologically neutral;

Amendment 383 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Urges the European legislator to ensure the technological neutrality and future-compatibility of exceptions and limitations by taking due account of the effects of media convergence; considers, in particular, that the exception for quotation should expressly includeConsiders that the exception for quotation should continue to be strictly defined, while including the possibility of its extension to audio- visual quotations ~~in its scope~~;

Amendment 384 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Urges the European legislator to ensure the technological neutrality and future- compatibility of exceptions and limitations by taking due account of the effects of media convergence; ~~considers, in particular, that the exception for quotation should expressly include audio- visual quotations in its scope;~~

Amendment 385 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Urges the European legislator to ensure the technological neutrality and future- compatibility of exceptions and limitations ~~by taking due account of the effects of media convergence; considers, in particular, that the exception for quotation should expressly include audio- visual quotations in its s~~while serving the public interest by fostering incentives to create, finance and distribute new works and to make those works available to the public in new, innovative and compelling ways;

Amendment 386 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Urges the European legislator to ensure the technological neutrality and future compatibility of exceptions and limitations ~~by taking due account of the effects of media convergence; considers, in particular, that the exception for quotation should expressly include audio- visual quotations in its scope~~;

Amendment 387 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Urges the European legislator to ensure the technological neutrality and future- compatibility of exceptions and limitations by taking due account of the effects of media convergence; ~~considers, in particular, that the exception for quotation should expressly include audio- visual quotations in its scope;~~

Amendment 388 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Urges the European legislator to ensure the technological neutrality and future compatibility of exceptions and limitations by taking due account of the effects of media convergence; ~~considers, in particular, that the exception for quotation should expressly include audio- visual quotations in its scope;~~

Amendment 389 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Urges the European legislator to ensure ~~the~~ technological neutrality and future- compatibility of exceptions and limitations by taking due account of the effects of media convergence; ~~considers, in particular, that the exception for quotation should expressly include audio- visual quotations in its scope~~therefore calls on the EU legislator to expressly include audio- visual quotations in the existing quotation exception in order to enable the use of quotations in new media formats; these quotations should be adequate in terms of length in relation to the type of source material;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 b (new)

- having regard to its resolution of 11 September 2012 on the online distribution of audiovisual works in the European Union (2011/2313(INI)),

Amendment 390 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Urges the European legislator to ensure the technological neutrality and future- compatibility of exceptions and limitations by taking due account of the effects of media convergence; ~~considers, in particular, that the exception for quotation should expressly include audio- visual quotations in its scope;~~

Amendment 391 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Constance LE GRIP, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, József SZÁJER, Giovanni TOTI, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Milan ZVER, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

Amendment 392 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

Amendment 393 #

Mary HONEYBALL, Silvia COSTA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Urges the European legislator to ensure the technological neutrality and future- compatibility of exceptions and limitations ~~by taking due account of the effects of media convergence; considers, in particular, that the exception for quotation should expressly include audio- visual quotations in its s~~while fostering incentives to create, finance and distribute new works and to make those works available to the public in new, innovative and compelling ways;

Amendment 394 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Urges the European legislator to ensure the technological neutrality and future- compatibility of exceptions and limitations by taking due account of the effects of media convergence; ~~considers, in particular, that the exception for quotation should expressly include audio- visual quotations in its scope;~~

Amendment 395 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. Urges the European legislator to ensure the technological neutrality and future- compatibility of exceptions and limitations by taking due account of the effects of media convergence; considers, in particular, that the exception for quotation should expressly include all content, including audio-visual quotations in its scope;

Amendment 396 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14 a (new)

14a. Notes with interest the recent United States regulations regarding net neutrality, just launched by the US Federal Communications Commission; calls on the Commission to assess what inspiration it can draw from these new rules in the context of the revision of Directive 2001/29;

Amendment 397 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

Amendment 398 #

Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that the ability to ~~freely~~ link from one resource to another, particularly by means of a hyperlink, is one of the fundamental building blocks of the internet; calls on the EU legislator to make it clear that reference to works by means of a hyperlink is not subject to exclusive rights, as it does not consist in a communication to a new public12; __________________ 12Order of the Court of Justice of 21 October 2014 in Case C-348/13, BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes and Stefan Potsch (request for a preliminary ruling from Germany’s Bundesgerichtshof)., and recalls that these hyperlinks may lead either to protected works or to content which is free of rights;

Amendment 399 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that the ability to freely link ~~from~~ one resource to another is one of the fundamental building blocks of the internet; calls on the EU legislator to ~~make it~~provide clear ~~that reference to works by means of a hyperlink is not subject to exclusive rights, as it does not consist in a communication to a new public12~~ification on cases in which the establishment of links does not constitute an act of communication to the original public in line with the judgment of the Court of Justice in C-466/12 of 13 February 2014, the Svensson case; __________________ 12 Order of the Court of Justice of 21 October 2014 in Case C-348/13, BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes and Stefan Potsch (request for a preliminary ruling from Germany’s Bundesgerichtshof).

Amendment 4 #

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Virginie ROZIÈRE

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1

– having regard to Articles 4, 26, 34, 114 and 11867 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter ‘TFEU’),

Amendment 40 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Marc JOULAUD, Tadeusz ZWIEFKA, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Mary HONEYBALL, József SZÁJER, Giovanni TOTI, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Milan ZVER, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Citation 17 b (new)

- having regard to its resolution of 11 September 2012 on the online distribution of audiovisual works in the European Union (2011/2313(INI)),

Amendment 400 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. ~~Stress~~Notes that the ability to ~~freely~~ link from one resource to another is one of the fundamental building blocks of the internet~~; calls on the EU legislator to make it clear that reference to works by means of a hyperlink is not subject to exclusive rights, as it does not consist in a communication to a new public12~~ and underlines that any further legislation must accurately reflect the existing definitions and principles set in the European case law, stating that when the hyperlink allows the recipients to circumvent the restrictions on access to the protected work, so that can access the protected work, which was otherwise unavailable to them, then this constitutes a communication to a new public and it is subject to exclusive rights; __________________ 12 Order of the Court of Justice of 21 October 2014 in Case C-348/13, BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes and Stefan Potsch (request for a preliminary ruling from Germany’s Bundesgerichtshof).

Amendment 401 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that the ability to ~~freely~~ link from one resource to another isby means of a hyperlink is indeed one of the fundamental building blocks of the internet~~; calls on the EU legislator to make~~, but that, itn c~~lear that reference to works by means of a hyperlink is not subject to exclusive rights, as it does not consist in~~ertain cases, the link and the incorporation may be regarded as a communication to a new public12; __________________ 12Order of the Court of Justice of 21 October 2014 in Case C-348/13, BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes and Stefan Potsch (request for a preliminary ruling from Germany’s Bundesgerichtshof). and, by virtue of that very fact, constitute a breach of copyright;

Amendment 402 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that the ability to freely link from one resource to another is one of the fundamental building blocks of the internet; calls on the EU legislator to make it clear that reference to works by means of a hyperlink is not subject to exclusive rights, as it does not consist in a communication to a new publicand the protection of intellectual property are among the fundamental building blocks of the internet; notes that the Court of Justice of the European Union has established a fair balance on the basis of Directive 2001/29/EC12; __________________ 12 Order of the Court of Justice of 21 October 2014 in Case C-348/13, BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes and Stefan Potsch (request for a preliminary ruling from Germany’s Bundesgerichtshof).

Amendment 403 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that the ability to freely link from one resource to another is one of the fundamental building blocks of the internet; calls on the EU legislator to make it clear that reference to works by means of a hyperlink is not subject to exclusive rights, as it does not consist in a communication to a new public12 an important feature of the internet, but stresses that under certain circumstances, embedding and linking may be prejudicial to the rights of the creator; further stresses the need to accurately reflect the existing definitions and principles set out in European case law; __________________ 12 Order of the Court of Justice of 21 October 2014 in Case C-348/13, BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes and Stefan Potsch (request for a preliminary ruling from Germany’s Bundesgerichtshof).

Amendment 404 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. ~~Stress~~Notes that the ability to ~~freely~~ link from one resource to another is one of the fundamental building blocks of the internet; calls on the EU legislator to make it clear that reference to works by means of a hyperlink is not subject to exclusive rights, as it does not consist in a communication to a new publica feature of internet use and stresses that hyperlinks must be used in accordance with the relevant European case law, i.e. they must not be used to circumvent restrictions on access to a work that was originally protected and not accessible to users12; __________________ 12 Order of the Court of Justice of 21 October 2014 in Case C-348/13, BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes and Stefan Potsch (request for a preliminary ruling from Germany’s Bundesgerichtshof). See also: Judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 February 2014 in Case 466/12, Svensson.

Amendment 405 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. ~~Stress~~Notes that the ability to freely link content lawfully made available from one resource to another is one of the fundamental building blocks of the internet; highlights the importance of enhanced user information regarding obligations for anyone who knowingly provides hyperlinks to unauthorised content or links that circumvent paywalls; calls on the EU legislator to make it clear that reference to works by means of a hyperlink is not subject to exclusive rights, as it does not consist in a communication to a new public12 ; __________________ 12 Order of the Court of Justice of 21 October 2014 in Case C-348/13, BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes and Stefan Potsch (request for a preliminary ruling from Germany’s Bundesgerichtshof).

Amendment 406 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Pavel SVOBODA, Marc JOULAUD, Constance LE GRIP, József SZÁJER, Giovanni TOTI, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Milan ZVER, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that the ability to freely link from one resource to another is one of the fundamental building blocks of the free and open internet; calls on the EU legislator to ~~make it~~further clearify that reference to works by means of a hyperlink is not subject to exclusive rights, as it does not consist in a communication to a new public12 ; __________________ 12 Order of the Court of Justice of 21 October 2014 in Case C-348/13, BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes and Stefan Potsch (request for a preliminary ruling from Germany’s Bundesgerichtshof).

Amendment 407 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. ~~Stress~~Notes that the ability to ~~freely~~ link from one resource to another is one of the fundamental building blocks of the internet; calls on the EU legislator to make it clear that reference to works by means of a hyperlink is not subject to exclusive rights, as it does not consist in a communication to a new public12 ; __________________ 12 Order of the Court of Justice of 21 October 2014 in Case C-348/13, BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes and Stefan Potsch (request for a preliminary ruling from Germany’s Bundesge and underlines that any further legislation must accurately reflect the existing definitions and principles set in the European case law stating that when the hyperlink allows the recipients to circumvent the restrictions on access to the protected work so that can access the protected work which was otherwise unavailable to them, then this constitutes a communication to a new public and it is subject to exclusive ricghts~~hof).~~. __________________ 12

Amendment 408 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that the ability to freely link from one resource to another is one of the fundamental building blocks of the internet; calls on the EU legislator to ~~make it~~ clear ~~that reference to works by means of a hyperlink is not subject to exclusive rights, as it does not consist in a communication to a new public12~~ify the status of works that can be accessed through a hyperlink, also by taking account of recent Court of Justice case law; __________________ 12 Order of the Court of Justice of 21 October 2014 in Case C-348/13, BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes and Stefan Potsch (request for a preliminary ruling from Germany’s Bundesgerichtshof).

Amendment 409 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that the ability to freely link from one resource to another is one of the fundamental building blocks of the internet; calls on the EU legislator to ~~make it clear~~incorporate the case-law of the Court of Justice into its positive law so that reference to works by means of a hyperlink is not subject to exclusive rights, as it does not consist in a communication to a new public12; observes that this option must be strictly limited to links which lead to freely available content; observes that the online intermediaries liability regime applicable to links to illicit content should be tightened up, particularly by revising the e-commerce directive; __________________ 12 Order of the Court of Justice of 21 October 2014 in Case C-348/13, BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes and Stefan Potsch (request for a preliminary ruling from Germany’s Bundesgerichtshof).

Amendment 41 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 a (new)

- having regard to the Memorandum of Understanding of 20 September 2011 on key principles on the digitisation and making available of out-of-commerce works, with a view to facilitating the digitisation and making available of books and learned journals for European libraries and similar establishments,

Amendment 410 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. Stresses that the ability to freely link from one resource to another is one of the fundamental building blocks of the iInternet; calls on the EU legislator to ~~make it~~ clearify that reference to works by means of a hyperlink is not subject to exclusive rights, as it does not consist in a communication to ~~a new~~the public12 ; __________________ 12 Order of the Court of Justice of 21 October 2014 in Case C-348/13, BestWater International GmbH v Michael Mebes and Stefan Potsch (request for a preliminary ruling from Germany’s Bundesgerichtshof).

Amendment 411 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 a (new)

15a. Suggests a review of the liability of service providers and intermediaries in order to clarify their legal status and liability with regards to copyrights, to guarantee that due diligence is exercised throughout the creative process and supply chain, and to ensure a fair remuneration for creators and rightholders within the European Union.

Amendment 412 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15 b (new)

15b. Calls for an end to geoblocking, as it prevents the emergence of a single digital market and hinders citizens access to information for which they have already paid taxes;

Amendment 413 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. ~~Calls on the EU legislator to ensure that the use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in public places is permitted~~Notes that the mere presence of a work in the public domain does not deprive the author of his rights;

Amendment 414 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Calls on the EU legislator to ensure that th~~e use of photographs, video footag~~is initiative on copyright makes for wider understanding of artistry and creativity and their importance for othe~~r images of works which are permanently located in public places is permitted~~ development of society and to prevent the parasitic development of new commercial interests at the expense of authors and their rights;

Amendment 415 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. ~~Calls on~~Invites the EU legislator to ~~ensur~~recognise that the use of photographs, video footage or other images of works, which are permanently located in public places ~~is permitted~~shall be considered to be in the public domain, where that use is for a non-commercial purpose or scale;

Amendment 416 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. ~~Calls on the EU legislator to ensure that the~~Stresses that the commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in public places ~~is permitted~~should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or their authors’ society;

Amendment 417 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. ~~Calls on the EU legislator to ensure~~ Acknowledges that the use of photographs, video footage or other images of works considered to be in the public domain which are permanently located in public places is permitted for non- commercial purposes;

Amendment 418 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Calls onfor the ~~EU legislator to ensure that the~~Commission to report on the implementation of the Directive with regard to progress on increasing awareness for consumers regarding exceptions and limitations, in particular with regard to differences across the EU, including use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in public places ~~is permitted~~;

Amendment 419 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Calls on the ~~EU legislator to ensure~~Commission to propose in the review of Directive 2001/29/EC that the use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in public places ishall be permitted;

Amendment 42 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 19 a (new)

- having regard to the report on the online distribution of audiovisual works in the European Union (A7-0262/2012),

Amendment 420 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Calls on the EU legislator to ensure that the use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in public places is permitted and that this initiative on copyright makes for wider understanding of artistry and creativity and their importance for the development of society, and to regulate the development of new commercial interests posing a threat to copyright;

Amendment 421 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Marc JOULAUD, Constance LE GRIP, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Giovanni TOTI, József SZÁJER, Milan ZVER, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. C~~alls on the EU legislator to ensure that the~~onsiders that the commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places ~~is permitted~~should always be subject to prior authorisation from the authors or any proxy acting for them;

Amendment 422 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. ~~Calls on~~Invites the EU legislator to ~~ensur~~recognise that the use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in public places is permitted; shall considered to be in the public domain, where that use is for a non-commercial purpose or scale.

Amendment 423 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. ~~Calls on~~Invites the EU legislator to ~~ensur~~recognise that the use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in physical public places is permitted and should be considered to be in the public domain, where that use is for a non-commercial purpose or scale;

Amendment 424 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Calls on the EU legislator to ensure that the use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in public places is permitted, unless this material is itself already protected by copyright;

Amendment 425 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Calls on the EU legislator to ensure that the use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in public places is permitted for non-commercial purposes;

Amendment 426 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Calls on the EU legislator to ensure that the non-commercial use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in public places is permitted;

Amendment 427 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Calls on the EU legislator to ensure that the use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in public places is permitted, as a mandatory exception;

Amendment 428 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. Calls on the EU legislator to ensure that the use of photographs, video footage or other images of ~~work~~any objects which are permanently located in public places is permitted;

Amendment 429 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Maintains that the development of the digital market is impossible unless creative and cultural industries are developed alongside it;

Amendment 43 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 20 a (new)

- having regard to the September 2013 joint EPO and OHIM study entitled 'Intellectual property rights intensive industries: contribution to economic performance and employment in the European Union',

Amendment 430 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)

16b. Calls on Member States to consider incorporating into their national law the ‘panorama’ exception to the extent that works permanently located in public places are produced by the public sector;

Amendment 431 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

~~17. Emphasises that the exception for caricature, parody and pastiche should apply regardless of the purpose of the parodic use;~~deleted

Amendment 432 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

~~17. Emphasises that the exception for caricature, parody and pastiche should apply regardless of the purpose of the parodic use;~~deleted

Amendment 433 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

~~17. Emphasises that the exception for caricature, parody and pastiche should apply regardless of the purpose of the parodic use;~~deleted

Amendment 434 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. ~~Emphasises that~~Highlights the importance of the exception for caricature, parody and pastiche ~~should apply regardles~~for the protection of authors' freedom of expression, which should therefore be made mandatory; notes with concern the implication of the Deckmyn ruling (C-201/13) that rightholders other than the author of a work can claim moral rights, and therefore calls ofn the ~~purpose of the parodic use~~legislator to clarify that moral rights are rights of the author of a work, that cannot be transferred to third-party rightholders;

Amendment 435 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Emphasises that the existing limitation on the exception for caricature, parody and pastiche ~~should apply regardless of the purpose~~must be kept to strike a fair balance between the interests and rights of the creators and original characters and the freedom of expression of the user of a protected work who is relying ofn the ~~parodic~~ exception for parody, and to avoid uncontrolled abuse;

Amendment 436 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Emphasises thate importance of the exception for caricature, parody and pastiche ~~should apply regardless of the purpose of the parodic us~~as a factor in the vitality of democratic debate;

Amendment 437 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Emphasises that ~~the~~existing exceptions for caricature, parody and pastiche ~~should apply regardless of the purpose of the parodic~~have allowed a fair balance to be struck between the interests of rightholders and users;

Amendment 438 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Mary HONEYBALL, Marc JOULAUD, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Giovanni TOTI, József SZÁJER, Milan ZVER, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Emphasises that the existing exception for caricature, parody and pastiche ~~should apply regardl~~must be maintained in order to ensure a fair balance between the interests of ~~the purpose of the parodic use~~rightholders on the one hand and the freedom of opinion of users on the other;

Amendment 439 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

17. Emphasises that the existing limitation on the exception for caricature, parody and pastiche ~~should apply regardless of the purpose~~must be kept to strike a fair balance between the interests and rights of the creators and original characters and the freedom of expression of the user of a protected work who is relying ofn the ~~parodic use;~~ exception for parody, and to avoid uncontrolled abuse12 a ; __________________ 12 a Order of the Court of Justice of 3 September 2014 in Case C-201/13 (J. Deckmyn)

Amendment 44 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 20 a (new)

- having regard to articles 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

Amendment 440 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17

Amendment 441 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. ~~Stresses the need to enable automated analytical techniques for text and data (e.g. ‘~~Encourages solutions such as the licensing model for text and data mining’) for ~~all purposes, provided that permission to read the work has been acquired~~scientific research purposes;

Amendment 442 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Pavel SVOBODA, Mary HONEYBALL, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Giovanni TOTI, József SZÁJER, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. ~~Stre~~Invites the Commission to assess ~~the need to enable automated analytical techniques for text and data (e.g. ‘text and data mining’) for all purposes~~whether data analysis activities could be covered by the exception for scientific research contained in Article 5.3.a) of the current Directive, which provides for an exception to the right of reproduction, (Article 2) when the protected work is used, and whether it enables automated analytical techniques for text and data, provided that permission to read the work has been acquired;

Amendment 443 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. ~~Stre~~Invites the Commission to assess ~~the need to enable automated analytical techniques for text and data (e.g. ‘text and data mining’) for all purposes~~whether data analysis activities could be covered by the exception for scientific research contained in Article 5.3.a) of the current Directive, which provides for an exception to the right of reproduction (Article 2) when the protected work is used, and whether it enables automated analytical techniques for text and data, provided that permission to read the work has been acquired;

Amendment 444 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. ~~Stress~~Welcomes the ~~need to~~fact that Member States may, on a voluntary basis and subject to licensing, enable automated analytical techniques for text and data (e.g. ‘text and data mining’) ~~for all purposes~~, provided that permission to read the work has been acquired;

Amendment 445 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Stresses the need to ~~enable automated analytical technique~~facilitate formats for text and data (e.g. ‘text and data mining’) for ~~all~~research purposes, ~~provided that permission to read the work has been acquired~~while recognising the investment that this requires by rightholders; highlights that exceptions for text and data should not facilitate the publication or sharing of copies made under the exception;

Amendment 446 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Stresses the need to enable automated analytical techniques for text and data (e.g. ‘text and data mining’) ~~for all purposes, provided that permission to read the work has been acquired~~through licensing agreements;

Amendment 447 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Stresses the need to enable automated analytical techniques for text and data (e.g. ‘text and data mining’) for all purposes, provided that permission to ~~read~~use the work has been acquired;

Amendment 448 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Stresses the need to enable automated analytical techniques for text and data (e.g. ‘text and data mining’) for ~~all~~ purposes which are not directly commercial, provided that permission to read the work has been acquired;

Amendment 449 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Stresses the need to enable automated analytical techniques for text and data (e.g. ‘text and data mining’) ~~for all purposes~~, provided that permission to read the work has been acquired and that the rightholders have been remunerated;

Amendment 45 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 20 b (new)

- having regard to the E-Commerce Directive,

Amendment 450 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Stresses the need to enable automated analytical techniques for text and data (e.g. ‘text and data mining’) for all purposes, provided that permission to read the work has been acquired, as a mandatory exception;

Amendment 451 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18a. Maintains that the development of the digital market is closely linked to, and has to go hand in hand with, the development of creative and cultural industries, this being the only way to achieve lasting prosperity;

Amendment 452 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)

18b. Acknowledges that Text and data Mining is an emerging and promising practice, in particular for the research field, recalls that innovative licensing solutions are established, but that any preferential treatment should only be applied for non-commercial use.

Amendment 453 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Calls for a broad exception for research and education purposes, which should cover not only educational establishments but any kind of educational or research activity, including non-formal education;delete

Amendment 454 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

Amendment 455 #

Jytte GUTELAND

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

Amendment 456 #

Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. ~~Calls for a broad exception for research and education purposes, which should cover not only educational establishments but any kind of educational or research activity, including non-formal education~~Stresses the need for a sound economic and legal analysis of the use of protected works in education and research, and considers that any fresh exception to, or restriction of, copyright should be studied in depth;

Amendment 457 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Calls for a broad exception for research and education purposes, which should cover not only educational establishments but any kind of educational or research activity~~, including non-formal education~~ run under the aegis of educational programmes or institutions;

Amendment 458 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Calls for a broad exception for research and education purposes, which should cover not only educational establishments but a~~ny kind of~~lso educational or research activit~~y, including non-formal education;~~ ies linked to an educational establishment or institution recognised by national authorities or legislation or within the purview of an educational programme;

Amendment 459 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Calls ~~for a broad~~on the Commission to consider making the exception for research and education purposes~~, which should cover not only educational establishments but any kind of educational or research activity, including non-formal education~~ compulsory, and observes that this exception should be strictly defined;

Amendment 46 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European legal framework for copyright and related rights is central to the promotion of creativity and innovation, and to access to knowledge and information, and to the recognition and protection of the intellectual property rights of authors;

Amendment 460 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Calls for a ~~broad~~n exception for research and education purposes, which ~~should cover not only~~, alongside educational establishments ~~but any kind of~~should also cover educational orand research ~~activity, including non-formal education~~programmes;

Amendment 461 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Calls for ~~a broad~~very careful consideration to be given to the importance of exceptions for research and education purposes~~, which should cover not only educational establishments but any kind of educational or research activity, including non-formal education~~; notes with interest, in this regard, the discussion under way on the drafting of a new international treaty governing exceptions for libraries and archives;

Amendment 462 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Calls for ~~a broa~~targeted exceptions for research and education purposes~~, which should cover not only educational establishments but any kind of educational or research activity, including non-formal education~~;

Amendment 463 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Calls for a broad exception for research and education purposes, which should cover not only educational establishments, universities and institutions specialising in high-level artistic, musical and dance training but any kind of educational or research activity, including non-formal education and the digitalisation of cultural traditions and heritage;

Amendment 464 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Calls for a ~~broad~~mandatory exception for research and education purposes, which should ~~cover~~ not only cover educational establishments, but a~~ny kind of~~lso amateur educational orand research activit~~y, including non-form~~ies conducted by non-governmental organisations outside education institutions as well as digital education, for example in the form of so-cal led~~ucation~~ massive open online courses (MOOC), provided that they are not aimed at making a profit;

Amendment 465 #

Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

Amendment 466 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Calls for a broad exception for research and education purposes, ~~which~~in the general public interest and in order to promote a virtuous circulation of knowledge; takes the view that this should cover not only educational establishments but any kind of educational or research activity, including non-formal education;

Amendment 467 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Calls for a broad exception for research and education purposes, which should cover not only educational establishments in cross-border use, but any kind of educational or research activity, including non-formal education;

Amendment 468 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Mary HONEYBALL, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, József SZÁJER, Giovanni TOTI, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

Amendment 469 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Calls for a broad exception for research and education purposes, which should cover not only educational establishments but a~~ny kind of~~lso educational or research activit~~y, including non-formal education~~ies linked to an educational establishment or institution recognised by national authorities or legislation or within the purview of an educational programme;

Amendment 47 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European legal framework for copyright and related rights is central to the promotion of creativity and innovation, cultural diversity, economic growth and to access to knowledge and information;

Amendment 470 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19

19. Calls for a broad exception for research and education purposes, which should cover not only educational establishments but any kind of educational or research ~~activity~~institute, including non-formal education;

Amendment 471 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19a. stresses that any new exceptions or limitations introduced to the EU copyright legal system needs to be duly justified by a sound and objective economic and legal analysis

Amendment 472 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

~~20. Calls for the adoption of a mandatory exception allowing libraries to lend books to the public in digital formats, irrespective of the place of access;~~ deleted (Lending books to the public remotely in digital formats would again favour commercial providers in the digital environment, to the detriment of the protection of authors and of the actual content of the works. From the technical point of view too, this raises numerous piracy issues.)

Amendment 473 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

~~20. Calls for the adoption of a mandatory exception allowing libraries to lend books to the public in digital formats, irrespective of the place of access;~~deleted

Amendment 474 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. ~~Calls for the adoption of a mandatory exception allowing libraries to lend books to the public in digital formats, irrespective of the place of acces~~Recognizes the importance of libraries for access to knowledge and encourages the rightholders to identify appropriate market-based solutions to enable libraries to realise their potential in the digital environment while respecting the interests of all stakeholders, including consumers;

Amendment 475 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. ~~Calls for the adoption of a mandatory exception allowing libraries to lend books to the public in digital formats, irrespective of the place of acces~~Recognises the importance of libraries for access to knowledge; encourages the parties concerned to work out appropriate solutions to enable libraries to realise their potential in the digital environment, while respecting the interests of rightholders;

Amendment 476 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. ~~Calls for the adoption of a mandatory exception allowing libraries to lend books to the public in digital formats, irrespective of the place of acces~~Stresses the importance of taking into account the conclusions of the numerous experiments being undertaken by the book industry to establish fair, balanced and viable business models;

Amendment 477 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Pavel SVOBODA, Marc JOULAUD, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, József SZÁJER, Giovanni TOTI, Milan ZVER, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. ~~Calls for the adoption of a mandatory exception~~Recognises the importance of libraries for access to knowledge and calls for appropriate market-based solutions to be developed that allow~~ing~~ libraries to ~~lend books to the public in digital formats, irrespective of the place of acces~~develop their potential in the digital environment while respecting the interests of all stakeholders, including consumers;

Amendment 478 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

Amendment 479 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. ~~Calls for the adoption of a mandatory exception allowing libraries to lend books to the public in digital formats, irrespective of the place of acces~~Recognises the importance of libraries for access to knowledge and encourages all stakeholders to enable libraries to realise their potential in the digital environment while respecting the rights of creators;

Amendment 48 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European legal framework for copyright and related rights is central to the promotion of creativity and innovation, and to access to knowledge and information, while at the same time also providing authors of literary and artistic works with sufficient recognition and protection of their intellectual property rights;

Amendment 480 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. ~~Calls for the adop~~Emphasises the importance, in the age of digitisation, of ~~a mandatory exception~~licensing agreements in order to allow~~ing~~ libraries to lend books legally to the public in digital formats~~, irrespective of the place of access~~;

Amendment 481 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Calls for the adoption of a ~~mandatory~~n exception allowing libraries to lend books to the public in digital formats, irrespective of the place of access;

Amendment 482 #

Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Calls for the adoption of a mandatory exception allowing public and research libraries to lend books to the public in digital formats for personal use, irrespective of the place of access; recommends that authors should be compensated for e-lending through a statutory licence to the same extent as this is the case for the lending of physical books;

Amendment 483 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Calls ~~for~~on the ~~adoption of a mandatory exception allowing~~Commission to examine ways for libraries to lend books to the public in digital formats, i~~rrespective of the place of acces~~n compliance with copyright law and guaranteeing a fair remuneration for said rights;

Amendment 484 #

Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG, Evelyn REGNER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Calls ~~for the adoption of a mandatory~~on the Commission to consider the introduction of an exception allowing libraries to lend books to the public in digital formats, irrespective of the place of access, provided financial compensation (library royalties) is provided;

Amendment 485 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. Calls for the adoption of a mandatory exception allowing libraries to lend books to the public in digital formats, irrespective of the place of access, so that their public interest duty of disseminating knowledge can be fulfilled effectively and in an up-to-date manner;

Amendment 486 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

Amendment 487 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20a. Stresses the need to ensure the swift ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled, without making the ratification conditional to the revision of the EU legal framework on copyright, and then ensure that the copyright laws of Member States contain adequate exceptions to facilitate the availability of works in formats accessible to persons with visual impairments and other disabilities, such as deafness.

Amendment 488 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 b (new)

20b. Calls for the adoption of a mandatory exception allowing libraries to digitalise content for the purposes of consultation, cataloguing and archiving;

Amendment 489 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

~~21. Calls on the EU legislator to preclude Member States from introducing statutory licences for the compensation of rightholders for the harm caused by acts made permissible by an exception;~~delete

Amendment 49 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European legal framework for copyright and related rights is ~~central to the promotion of~~primarily intended to foster creativity ~~and~~, innovation, and to access to knowledge, culture and information through the dissemination of creative works;

Amendment 490 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

Amendment 491 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

Amendment 492 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

Amendment 493 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. C~~alls on the EU legislator to preclude Member States from introducing statutory licences for the compensation of rightholders for the harm caused by acts made permissible by an exception~~onsiders that the licensing system currently in use should be improved with care;

Amendment 494 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Mary HONEYBALL, Marc JOULAUD, József SZÁJER, Giovanni TOTI, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. ~~Calls on the EU legislator to preclude Member States from introducing statutory licences for th~~Invites the Commission to analyse the necessity of measures, if any, to be implemented by Member States so as to provide compensation tof rightholders for the harm caused by acts made permissible by an exception, while they should ensure that rightholders receive fair compensation and that the exceptions or limitations do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholders ;

Amendment 495 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. ~~Calls on the EU legislator to preclude Member States from introducing statutory licences for th~~Invites the Commission to analyse the necessity of measures, if any, to be implemented by Member States so as to provide compensation tof rightholders for the harm caused by acts made permissible by an exception while they should ensure that rightholders receive fair compensation and that the exceptions or limitations do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder;

Amendment 496 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls on the EU legislator to ~~preclude~~ensure that Member States ~~from introducing statutory licences for the compensation of rightholders~~make provision for measures which are necessary in order to provide compensation for the harm caused to rightholders by acts made permissible by an exception;

Amendment 497 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls on the EU legislator to ~~preclude Member States from introducing statutory licences for the~~continue to guarantee to Member States the option of compensati~~on of~~ng rightholders for the harm caused by acts made permissible by an exception;

Amendment 498 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. ~~Calls on the EU legislator to preclude~~ Respects the possibility available to Member States of~~rom~~ introducing statutory licences for the compensation of rightholders for the harm caused by acts made permissible by an exception;

Amendment 499 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Marc JOULAUD, Tadeusz ZWIEFKA, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Giovanni TOTI, Mary HONEYBALL, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, József SZÁJER, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Milan ZVER, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. ~~Calls on~~Proposes that the EU legislator ~~to preclude Member States from introducing statutory licenc~~examine whether Member States should take measures for the compensation of rightholders for the harm caused by acts made permissible by an exception;

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1

– having regard to Articles 4, 26, 34, 114, 118 and 11867 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

Amendment 50 #

Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas a revision of the European legal framework for copyright and related rights is central to the promotion of creativity ~~and~~, innovation and the cultural and creative industries, and to access to knowledge and information;

Amendment 500 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls on the EU legislator to ~~preclude Member States from introducing statutory licences for the compensation of rightholders~~guarantee rightholders fair remuneration for the harm caused by acts made permissible by an exception;

Amendment 501 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. ~~Calls on the EU legislator to preclude Member States from introducing statutory licences for the compensation of rightholders for the harm caused by acts made permissible by an exception~~Deplores the introduction of statutory licenses in some member states aimed at news aggregators for acts already made permissible by an exception and calls on the EU legislator to preclude Member States from unilaterally introducing such schemes, which can cause significant damage to the digital economy;

Amendment 502 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls on the EU legislator to preclude Member States from introducing statutory licences for the compensation of rightholders for ~~the harm caused by acts made permissible by an exception~~alleged harm in the form of neighbouring rights for press publishers;

Amendment 503 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

Amendment 504 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. ~~Calls on the EU legislator to preclude Member States from introducing statutory licences for th~~Invites the Commission to analyse the necessity of measures, if any, to be implemented by Member States so as to provide compensation tof rightholders for the harm caused by acts made permissible by an exception while they should ensure that rightholders receive fair compensation and that the exceptions of limitations do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder;

Amendment 505 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls on the EU legislator to protect consumers by precludeing Member States from introducing statutory licences for the compensation of rightholders for the harm caused by acts made permissible by an exception;

Amendment 506 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21

21. Calls on the EU legislator to preclude Member States from introducing statutory licences for the compensation of rightholders for the harm caused by acts made permissible by an exception that is legally permitted under that country's own legislation;

Amendment 507 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 a (new)

21a. Requests the Commission to explore the various legal bases at EU level that are necessary to allow, as EU rule or in Member States, the legalization of non- commercial private sharing between individuals of digital works, which is a right of EU citizens that should not be jeopardized by copyright rules;

Amendment 508 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 b (new)

21b. Calls for ensuring access to information for persons with a disability, which is directly related to the disability and of a non-commercial nature;

Amendment 509 #

José BLANCO LÓPEZ, Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21 c (new)

21c. Deplores the lack of harmonisation between Member States as regards the interpretation of Article 5.2 b of Directive 2001/29/EC on exceptions for reproductions on any medium made by a natural person for private use, and as regards the remuneration schemes to compensate for the prejudice to rightholders put in place in some Member States to allow for the fair compensation of the rightholders in relation to these acts of copying, which affects the functioning of the internal market;

Amendment 51 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European legal framework for copyright and related rights is central to the promotion of creativity and innovation, and to access to knowledge and information, and whereas adapting Directive 2001/29/EC to the digital age may give rise to the creation of new businesses and start-ups that would be a source of jobs for the future for young people;

Amendment 510 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Calls for the adoption of harmonised criteria for defining the harm caused to rightholders in respect of reproductions made by a natural person for private use, and for harmonised transparency measures as regards the private copying levies put in place in some Member States13Believes that the private copying system is a virtuous system that balances the exception for copying for private use with the right to fair remuneration of rightholders, and that it is a system worth preserving; __________________ 13 As stated in António Vitorino’s recommendations of 31 January 2013 resulting from the latest mediation process conducted by the Commission in respect of private copying and reprography levies.

Amendment 511 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. C~~alls for the adoption of harmonised criteria for defining the harm caused to right~~onsiders that the right balance should~~ers in respect of reproductions made by a natural person for private use, and for harmonised transparency measures as regards~~ be struck between the interests of the author and those of the public; the private copying levies put in place in some Member States13; __________________ 13As stated in António Vitorino’s recommendations of 31 January 2013 resulting from the latest mediation process conducted by the Commission in respect of private copying and reprography levies.ght of reproduction and adaption and the right to make back-up copies should be granted where the source of the copy is legal;

Amendment 512 #

Constance LE GRIP, Marc JOULAUD, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Calls for the adoption of harmonised criteria for defining the harm caused to rightholders in respect of reproductions made by a natural person for private use, and for harmonised transparency measures as regards the private copying levies put in place in some Member States13 ; __________________ 13As stated in António Vitorino’s recommendations of 31 January 2013 resulting from the latest mediation process conducted by the Commission in respect of private copying and reprography levies.Underlines that citizens in all Member States should have a legal right to make private copies for their own use of legally acquired content without having to pay extra compensation to right holders through cumbersome and illogical levies on technical devices; thus urges the commission to propose a fully harmonised private copy exception which would not cause harm to right holders and which would thus not need to be compensated through a levy system;

Amendment 513 #

Helga TRÜPEL

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Calls for the adoption of harmonised criteria for defining the harm caused to rightholders in respect of reproductions made by a natural person for private use, and for harmonised transparency measures as regards the private copying levies put in place in some Member States13; __________________ 13 As stated in António Vitorino’s recommendations of 31 January 2013 resulting from the latest mediation process conducted by the Commission in respect of private copying and reprography levies.Urges the legislator to secure the right to (digital) private copying coupled with a levy for a reasonable remuneration that may not be technically limited; __________________

Amendment 514 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. CRecalls for the adoption of harmonised criteria for defining the harm caused to rightholders in respect of reproductions made by a natural person for private use, and for harmonised transparency measures as regards the private copying levies put in place in some Member States13the European Parliament resolution of February 2014 which underlined the importance of the system of remuneration for private copying in seeking to strike a balance between the interests of consumers and those of rightholders; __________________ 13 As stated in António Vitorino’s recommendations of 31 January 2013 resulting from the latest mediation process conducted by the Commission in respect of private copying and reprography levies.

Amendment 515 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. ~~Calls for the adoption of harmonised criteria for defining the harm caused to rightholders in respect of reproductions made by a natural person for private use, and for harmonised transparency mea~~Suggests a review of the liability of service providers and intermediaries in order to clarify their legal status and liability with regards to copyright, in order to guarantee and to ensures a~~s regards the private copying levies put in place in some Member States13~~ fair remuneration for creators and rightholders within the EU; __________________ 13 As stated in António Vitorino’s recommendations of 31 January 2013 resulting from the latest mediation process conducted by the Commission in respect of private copying and reprography levies.

Amendment 516 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, József SZÁJER, Giovanni TOTI, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Calls for the adoption of harmonised criteria for defining the harm caused to rightholders in respect of reproductions made by a natural person for private use, and for harmonised transparency measures as regards the private copying levies put in place in some Member States13; __________________ 13As stated in António Vitorino’s recommendations of 31 January 2013 resulting from the latest mediation process conducted by the Commission in respect of private copying and reprography levies.Notes that a further examination of the transparent implementation of measures such as the private copying levy for the fair compensation of rightholders in respect of reproductions made by a natural person for private use is necessary for the protection of authors’ and users’ rights; __________________

Amendment 517 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. ~~Calls for~~ Notes that further a~~doption of harmonised criteria for defining the harm caused to~~nalysis is necessary on the viability of measures to the fair compensation of rightholders in respect of reproductions made by a natural persons for private use, and for harmonised transparency measures as regards the private copying levies put in place in some Member States13 ; __________________ 13 As stated in António Vitorino’s recommendations of 31 January 2013 resulting from the latest mediation process conducted by the Commission in respect of private copying and reprography levies.in particular in regard to more transparency and better optimalisation for the existing measures as digital levies to safeguard rightholder and consumer rights;

Amendment 518 #

Virginie ROZIÈRE, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. ~~Calls for~~ Notes that further a~~doption of harmonised criteria for defining the harm caused to~~nalysis is necessary on the viability of measures to the fair compensation of rightholders in respect of reproductions made by a natural persons for private use, ~~and for harmonised transparency measures as regards the private copying levies put in place in some Member States13~~ in particular in regard to more transparency and better optimalisation for the existing measures as digital levies to safeguard rightholder and consumer rights; __________________ 13 As stated in António Vitorino’s recommendations of 31 January 2013 resulting from the latest mediation process conducted by the Commission in respect of private copying and reprography levies.

Amendment 519 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. CRecalls ~~for the adoption of harmonised criteria for defining~~the importance of fair compensation for the harm caused to rightholders in respect of reproductions made by a natural person for private use, and for harmonised transparency measures as regards the private copying levies put in place in some Member States13; __________________ 13As stated in António Vitorino’s recommendations of 31 January 2013 resulting from the latest mediation process conducted by the Commission in respect of private copying and reprography levies.;

Amendment 52 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European legal framework for copyright and related rights is central to the promotion of creativity and innovation, cultural diversity, economic growth, and to access to knowledge and information;

Amendment 520 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Calls for the adoption of harmonised criteria for defining the harm caused to rightholders in respect of reproductions made by a natural person for private use, taking into account recital 35 of the Directive, which recognises that harm to rightholders in some circumstances is minimal and no payment is made, and for harmonised transparency measures as regards the private copying levies put in place in some Member States13 ; Draws attention to the the discretion of Member States to provide alternative modes of compensation to levies; __________________ 13 As stated in António Vitorino’s recommendations of 31 January 2013 resulting from the latest mediation process conducted by the Commission in respect of private copying and reprography levies.

Amendment 521 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Calls for the adoption of harmonised criteria for defining the harm caused to rightholders in respect of reproductions made by a natural person for private use, and for harmonised transparency measures ~~as regards~~concerning the expenditure algorithm for funds gained from the private copying levies put in place in some Member States13; __________________ 13 As stated in António Vitorino’s recommendations of 31 January 2013 resulting from the latest mediation process conducted by the Commission in respect of private copying and reprography levies.

Amendment 522 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22

22. Calls for the adoption of harmonised criteria, established on the basis of scientifically proven studies, for defining the harm caused to rightholders in respect of reproductions made by a natural person for private use, and for harmonised transparency measures as regards the private copying levies put in place in some Member States13; __________________ 13 As stated in António Vitorino’s recommendations of 31 January 2013 resulting from the latest mediation process conducted by the Commission in respect of private copying and reprography levies.

Amendment 523 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 a (new)

22a. Notes that the right to impose private copying levies should be governed in such a way as to inform citizens of the actual amount of the levy, its purpose and how it is going to be used;

Amendment 524 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 b (new)

22b. Stresses that digital levies should be made more transparent and optimised to safeguard rightholder and consumer rights and by taking into account 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;

Amendment 525 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 c (new)

22c. Invites the Commission to include alternative types of remuneration in the Directive 2001/29/EG to ensure a fair balance between the copyright owner and the user;

Amendment 526 #

Julia REDA, Josef WEIDENHOLZER, Dietmar KÖSTER

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 d (new)

22d. Cautions against private enforcement of copyright to ensure a clear separation of powers, and the appropriate judicial and democratic oversight;

Amendment 527 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 e (new)

22e. Proposes to strengthen authors' rights by making remuneration rights tied to exceptions and limitations non- transferable to other rightholders;

Amendment 528 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22 f (new)

22f. Asks for further clarification that in the light of a fair balance, no double remuneration should be charged, if the user makes a backup copy, where no harm is caused. The remuneration should refer to the actual damage.

Amendment 529 #

Constance LE GRIP, Christian EHLER, Jean-Marie CAVADA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

Amendment 53 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European legal framework for copyright and related rights is central to the promotion of creativity and innovation, to safeguarding cultural diversity and to access to knowledge and information;

Amendment 530 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

Amendment 531 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Stresses that ~~the effective exercise of exceptions or limitations, and access to content that is not subject to copyright or related rights~~ , especially in the digital age, the use of technological protection measures should be allowed to redress the balance between free reproteduction~~, should not be hindered by technological measures~~ (e.g. in the context of private copying) and the exclusive right to reproduction;

Amendment 532 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Stresses that the effective exercise of exceptions or limitations, and access to content that is not subject to copyright or related rights protection, should not be hindered by technological measures and that member states should have sufficient enforcement measures in place to deter any such actions;

Amendment 533 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. ~~Stress~~Notes that the effective exercise of exceptions or limitations, and access to content that is not subject to copyright or related rights protection, ~~should not be hindered by technological measures~~is guaranteed by Article 6(4) 0f Directive 2001/29/EC;

Amendment 534 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. ~~Stresse~~Considers that the ~~effective exercise of exceptions or limitations, and access to content that is not subject to copyright or related rights protection, should not be hindered by technological measures~~concept of the principle of territoriality should be respected;

Amendment 535 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

Amendment 536 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Stresses that the effective exercise of exceptions or limitations, and access to content that is not subject to copyright or related rights protection, should not be waived by contract or hindered by technological measures of protection or online contracts in the digital environment;

Amendment 537 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23

23. Stresses that the effective exercise of exceptions or limitations, and access to content that is not subject to copyright or related rights protection, should not be unduly hindered by technological measures;

Amendment 538 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)

23a. Points out that the rapid rate of technological development in the digital market calls for a technologically neutral legislative framework for copyrights;

Amendment 539 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

Amendment 54 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas the European legal framework for copyright and related rights is central to the promotion of creativity ~~and~~, innovation, economic growth, competitiveness, the Digital Single Market and to access to knowledge and information;

Amendment 540 #

Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

Amendment 541 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

Amendment 542 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

Amendment 543 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

Amendment 544 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

Amendment 545 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

Amendment 546 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

Amendment 547 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Marc JOULAUD, Pavel SVOBODA, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Mary HONEYBALL, József SZÁJER, Giovanni TOTI, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

Amendment 548 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

Amendment 549 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Recommends making legal protection against the circumvention of any effective technological measures conditional upon the publication of the source code or the interface specification, in order to secure the integrity of devices on which technological Stresses that, especially in the digital age, the use of technological protection measures should be allowed which redress the balance between free reproteductions are employed and to ease interoperability; considers, in particular, that where the circumvention of technological measures is allowed, technological means to achieve such authorised circumvention must be available (e.g. in the context of private copying) and the exclusive right to reproduction;

Amendment 55 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Marc JOULAUD, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Tadeusz ZWIEFKA, Mary HONEYBALL, Constance LE GRIP, József SZÁJER, Giovanni TOTI

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

Amendment 550 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Recommends making legal protection against the circumvention of any effective technological measures conditional upon the publication of the source code or the interface specification, in order to secure the integrity of devices on which technological protections are employed and to ease interoperability; considers, in particular, that where the circumvention of technological measures is allowed, technological means to achieve such authorised circumvention must be availableNotes that the aims of the 2001 directive have not been attained; technologies which make it possible to limit unauthorised use of works, with the exception of software, must ensure interoperability;

Amendment 551 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24

24. Recommends making legal protection against the circumvention of any effective technological measures conditional upon the publication of the source code or the interface specification, in order to secure the integrity of devices on which technological protections are employed and to ease interoperthat the rules governing file-sharing for non-commercial purposes be studied with a view to estabili~~ty; considers, in particular, that where the circumvention of technological measures is allowed, technological means to achieve such authorised circumvention must be available~~shing arrangements requiring intermediaries to pay fair compensation for creative work;

Amendment 552 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)

24a. Urges to establish that the orders against intermediaries to protect copyright are given only by the competent judicial authority with reference to the limits imposed by Directive 2004/48 (ex Art. 11), the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article. 51, par. 1, and Article 6 TEU;

Amendment 553 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 b (new)

24b. Recognises the role of proportionate and effective enforcement in supporting creators, rightholders and consumers;

Amendment 554 #

Enrico GASBARRA, Silvia COSTA, Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 c (new)

24c. Calls on distributors to publish all available information concerning the technological measures necessary to ensure interoperability of their content;

Amendment 555 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 d (new)

24d. Expresses concern and regret with regard to the political obstacles in the Council which are still delaying ratification of the Treaty of Marrakesh for the Blind, which was already signed by the European Union in 2013;

Amendment 556 #

Constance LE GRIP, Marc JOULAUD, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 e (new)

24e. Calls on the Commission and the legislature to consider solutions for the displacement of value from content to services; stresses the need to adjust the definition of the status of intermediary in the current digital environment;

Amendment 56 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas a harmonised legal framework which protects copyright and related rights by establishing a greater degree of legal certainty and a high level of protection can foster substantial investment in creativity and innovation and contribute to growth and greater competitiveness in Europe, as regards both content and the digital economy and, more generally, in broad areas of industry and the arts; whereas in this way existing jobs can be safeguarded and new jobs created;

Amendment 57 #

Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. Whereas copyright law in the EU should reflect the core principles and values of European law, including freedom of expression and information as well as freedom of competition;

Amendment 58 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas Article 167 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that the European Union shall promote the flowering and diversity of the cultures of the Member States, particularly through artistic and literary creation;

Amendment 59 #

Tadeusz ZWIEFKA, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Therese COMODINI CACHIA

Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)

Aa. whereas in pursuit of those objectives the interests of authors, performers, cultural entrepreneurs and the general public, who make use of creative works, need to be set off against each other;

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)

– having regard to TRIPS Agreement of 1994,

Amendment 60 #

Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)

Ab. whereas the purpose of copyright has traditionally been to strike a balance between the opposing interests of stakeholders by, on the one hand, ensuring adequate remuneration for creative work performed and investments made and, on the other, establishing a number of exceptions to and limitations on exclusive rights, in order to foster the dissemination of creative works;

Amendment 61 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society was aimed at adapting legislation on copyright and related rights to reflect technological developments and the need for adjustments in order to ensure fair remuneration and adequate protection for holders of copyright and related rights in view of new consumer demands and challenges posed by the digital economy and society;

Amendment 62 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society was aimed at adapting legislation on copyright and related rights to reflect technological developments, while providing for a high level of protection of intellectual property to foster investment in creativity and innovation and creative developments, and to safeguard employment and encourage job creation;

Amendment 63 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

Amendment 64 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Pavel SVOBODA, Tadeusz ZWIEFKA, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Giovanni TOTI, József SZÁJER, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society wais aimed at adapting legislation on copyright and related rights to reflect technological developments;

Amendment 65 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society was aimed at adapting legislation on copyright and related rights to reflect technological developments, while providing for a high level of protection of intellectual property to foster investment in creativity and innovation and creative developments, and to safeguard employment and encourage job creation;

Amendment 66 #

Mary HONEYBALL, Mady DELVAUX

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the objective of Directive 2001/29/EC ~~on the harmonisation of~~was to adapt the legal framework for certain aspects of copyright and related rights ~~in the information society was aimed at adapting legislation on copyright and related rights to reflect technological development~~so as to take account of technological developments, while ensuring a high level of intellectual property protection and thus guaranteeing the autonomy of creators and performers;

Amendment 67 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society was aimed at adapting legislation on copyright and related rights to reflect technological developments, while providing for a high level of protection of intellectual property, taking as a basis the rights of creators, to foster investment in creativity and innovation and creative developments, and to safeguard employment and encourage job creation;

Amendment 68 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas the objective of Directive 2001/29/EC ~~on the harmonisation of certain aspect~~was to adapt the rules ofn copyright and related rights ~~in the information society was aimed at adapting legislation on copyright and~~ so as to take account of technological developments, promote the dissemination of knowledge and culture, enhance legal certainty and, at the same time, ensure a high level of intellectual property protection, with a view to safeguarding the autonomy and dignity of crelat~~ed rights to reflect technological development~~ors and performers and to encouraging investment in creative and innovative activities in order to foster growth and European industrial competitiveness;

Amendment 69 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. Whereas the European Commission and the Member States are making considerable investments in the digitization and online accessibility of the rich collections of Europe's cultural heritage institutions, so that citizens can enjoy access from everywhere on any device;

Amendment 7 #

Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)

– having regard to the UNESCO Convention of 20 October 2005 on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions,

Amendment 70 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the European cultural and creative industries are an engine for economic growth and job creation in the EU, as they employ more than 7 million people and generate more than 4.2 % of EU GDP, and whereas cultural industries continued to create jobs during the economic crisis of 2008-2012;

Amendment 71 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas the digital revolution has brought with it new technique and means of communication and opened the way to new forms of expression which, while calling into question the long-established three-way relationship between creators, cultural entrepreneurs and users, has spurred the emergence of a knowledge- based economy providing new jobs and helping to promote culture and innovation;

Amendment 72 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)

Ba. whereas Directive 2001/29/EC also addresses a number of EU obligations under international law, including the provisions of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty;

Amendment 73 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)

Bb. Whereas geoblocking is common practice in Europe and limits access to content to national territory;

Amendment 74 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas in the new digital environment consumers are not only users of creative works but are also increasingly becoming creators and distributors of their own works, albeit not on a commercial basis;

Amendment 75 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)

Bb. whereas any political initiative concerning the digital single market must be in keeping with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular Articles 11, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 22 thereof;

Amendment 76 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B c (new)

Bc. Whereas cultural diversity and language diversity exceeds national borders, with some European languages spoken in multiple countries;

Amendment 77 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B c (new)

Bc. whereas the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society sought by Directive 2001/29/EC has not been achieved, in particular as regards the exceptions and limitations for which the directive provides;

Amendment 78 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B d (new)

Bd. Whereas European citizens pay taxes for public broadcasting and in some occasions private copyright levies;

Amendment 79 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B d (new)

Bd. whereas the failure to harmonise laws on copyright and related rights is hampering the completion and operation of the internal market provided for in the Treaties;

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 2

– having regard to Articles 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

Amendment 80 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B e (new)

Be. Whereas the establishment of a fully functioning market for copyright protected works in the European Union, as necessitated in particular by the Internet as the primary means of providing information and entertainment services across the Member States, requires common rules on copyright in the EU that reflect and integrate both the civil and common law traditions of copyright and authors' right respectively;

Amendment 81 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B e (new)

Be. whereas the failure to harmonise laws on copyright and related rights and the resulting restrictions on access to digital content available on line are viewed by the general public as arbitrary and unpredictable, and are thus a source of legal uncertainty;

Amendment 82 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital B f (new)

Bf. Whereas twenty years of harmonization has brought only partial harmonization on certain aspects of the law of copyright in the Member States of the EU;

Amendment 83 #

Sergio GUTIÉRREZ PRIETO, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL, José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Motion for a resolution
Recital B f (new)

Bf. whereas in its communication entitled ‘A single market for 21st century Europe’ (COM(2007)0724), the Commission emphasised the need to promote the free movement of knowledge and innovation as a ‘fifth freedom’ in the single market;

Amendment 84 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the Charter of Fundamental Rights protects the freedom of expression, the freedom of the arts and scientific research, the right to education ~~and~~, the freedom to conduct a business; and the right to intellectual property;

Amendment 85 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

Amendment 86 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

Amendment 87 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

Amendment 88 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the Charter of Fundamental Rights protects the freedom of expression, the freedom of the arts and scientific research, the right to education and the freedom to conduct a business and the protection of intellectual property;

Amendment 89 #

Constance LE GRIP, Christian EHLER

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

Amendment 9 #

Motion for a resolution
Citation 2

– having regard to Articles 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 22, 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

Amendment 90 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the Charter of Fundamental Rights protects the freedom of expression, the freedom of the arts and scientific research, cultural diversity, intellectual property rights, freedom of information, the right to education and the freedom to conduct a business;

Amendment 91 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas the Charter of Fundamental Rights protects ~~the~~ freedom of expression, ~~the~~freedom of information, freedom of the arts and scien~~tific research~~ce, the right to education and ~~the~~ freedom to conduct a business, guarantees protection of personal data and protection of intellectual property, and calls for respect for cultural diversity;

Amendment 92 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Pavel SVOBODA, Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL, Rosa ESTARÀS FERRAGUT, Tadeusz ZWIEFKA, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Mary HONEYBALL, József SZÁJER, Milan ZVER, Sabine VERHEYEN

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

Amendment 93 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

Amendment 94 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

Ca. Whereas Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights defines the right of freedom of expression as including the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers;

Amendment 95 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

Amendment 96 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

Amendment 97 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

Amendment 98 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

Amendment 99 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital D

source: 549.469

2015/03/06 CULT 121 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Marlene MIZZI

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Reiterates the importance of a modern pro-competitive and citizens friendly copyright framework responding to the challenges of the digital environment; recognises the need of a holistic approach in the modernisation of the copyright rules to address the existent market fragmentations in particular for online rights management and to guarantee a safe, adequate and secure environment for consumers, creators and copyright users;

Amendment 10 #

Dietmar KÖSTER, Luigi MORGANO, Mary HONEYBALL, Giorgos GRAMMATIKAKIS, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Highlights the need for a common definition of ‘public domain’ so as to ensure the widespread dissemination of cultural content across the EUnion while having a balanced approach between rights of users and authors;

Amendment 100 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Encourages the Commission to safeguard the fair balance between all key actors in the creative process and supply chain in the copyright framework whilst fully respecting the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

Amendment 101 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Andrea BOCSKOR, Norbert ERDŐS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

Amendment 102 #

Marc JOULAUD, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Sabine VERHEYEN, Bogdan Brunon WENTA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

Amendment 103 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses that digital levies should be moade~~rnised in light of the development of digital technologies~~ more transparent and optimised to safeguard rightholder and consumer rights and by taking into account 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;

Amendment 104 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Andrea BOCSKOR, Norbert ERDŐS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses that digital levies should be modernised in light of the development of digital technologies to safeguard rightholder and consumer rights and by taking into account 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; in particular calls for the adoption of harmonised criteria for the interpretation of the harm caused to rightholders in respect of reproductions made by a natural person for private use, and for harmonised transparency measures as regards the private copying levies put in place in some Member States;

Amendment 105 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Notes that further analysis is necessary on the viability of measures to the fair compensation of rightholders in respect of reproductions made by natural persons for private use, while seeks more transparency and better optimalisation for the existing measures as digital levies to safeguard rightholder and consumer rights;

Amendment 106 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Suggests to follow the instructions included in António Vitorino's recommendations, of 31 January 2013 resulting from the last mediation process on private copying and reprography levies conducted by the Commission, especially with regard to the clear indication of the percentage to be allocated to private copying in sales to consumers and the introduction of the principle of perception of private copying proceeds directly by authors, ensuring that this allocation is not intermediated by a third party, or that there are intermediate steps that do not impair the right of the author to see themselves fully recognised the fair compensation; fair compensation may not apply to the business sector and professional users, given the incompatibility of such use with the concept of private copying;

Amendment 107 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Andrea BOCSKOR, Norbert ERDŐS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Suggests a review of the liability of service providers to guarantee the dissemination of culture across the EU and in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights.deleted

Amendment 108 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Suggests a review of the liability of service providers ~~to guarantee the dissemination of culture across the EU and in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights.~~and intermediaries in order to clarify their legal status and liability with regards to copyrights, to guarantee that due diligence is exercised throughout the creative process and supply chain, and to ensure a fair remuneration for creators and rightholders within the Union.;

Amendment 109 #

Marc JOULAUD, Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Bogdan Brunon WENTA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

Amendment 11 #

Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI, Angel DZHAMBAZKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Notes that the rules laid down by the Term Directive have been implemented in different ways by Member States leading to divergences in termination of copyright protection and when works fall into the public domain in different Member States; therefore calls on the Commission to harmonise the term of protection of copyright and the way it is calculated across the Union to ensure it does not exceed the current international standards set out in the Berne Convention;

Amendment 110 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Suggests a review of the liability of service providers ~~to guarantee the dissemination of culture across the EU and in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights~~and intermediaries in order to clarify their legal status and liability with regards to copyrights to ensure a fair remuneration for creators and rightholders and to guarantee the dissemination of culture across the Union;

Amendment 111 #

Dietmar KÖSTER, Luigi MORGANO, Mary HONEYBALL, Giorgos GRAMMATIKAKIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Suggests ~~a review of the liability of service providers to guarantee the dissemination of culture across the EU and in accordance with~~that the situation of service providers and intermediaries in relation to the profit from exploitation of the Chart~~er of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights~~ist's work should be reviewed;

Amendment 112 #

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Fernando MAURA BARANDIARÁN, Therese COMODINI CACHIA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Suggests a review of the liability and status of service providers to guarantee the legal dissemination of culture a~~cross the EU and in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Un~~nd fair remuneration for creation ~~and~~in the E~~uropean Convention on Human Rights~~U;

Amendment 113 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Calls for the introduction of Community provisions in the area of contract law applicable to copyright, particularly safeguarding authors' rights to bring their works to the market in case a rightholder has refrained from making use of an exclusive right to the work in question for an extended period of time;

Amendment 114 #

Marc JOULAUD, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Sabine VERHEYEN, Bogdan Brunon WENTA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Urges to establish that the orders against intermediaries to protect copyright are given only by the competent judicial authority with reference to the limits imposed by Directive 2004/48 (ex Art. 11), the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article. 51, par. 1, and Article. 6 TEU;

Amendment 115 #

Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Stresses the necessity for authors and performers to be provided with legal protection for their creative and artistic work; taking into account specificity of the audiovisual sector recommends introducing an unwaivable right to remuneration for authors of audiovisual works for making their works available;

Amendment 116 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Recognizes that commercial copyright infringing activities pose a serious threat to the functioning of the digital single market and to the development of the legal offer of diversified cultural and creative content online;

Amendment 117 #

Dietmar KÖSTER, Luigi MORGANO, Mary HONEYBALL, Giorgos GRAMMATIKAKIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

Amendment 118 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Suggests to strengthen the safe harbour principles in the matter of liability of service providers to guarantee widespread dissemination of culture within the EU and in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and ECHR;

Amendment 119 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Points out that the rapid rate of technological development in the digital market calls for a technologically neutral legislative framework for copyrights;

Amendment 12 #

Dietmar KÖSTER, Luigi MORGANO, Mary HONEYBALL, Giorgos GRAMMATIKAKIS, Marlene MIZZI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Calls for the revision of the Directive in the light of development of digital technologies in the last decade and their considerable impact on the way content is created, produced and disseminated;

Amendment 120 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Points out that the rapid rate of technological development in the digital market calls for a technologically neutral legislative framework for copyrights;

Amendment 121 #

Marc JOULAUD, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Sabine VERHEYEN, Bogdan Brunon WENTA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 c (new)

8c. Takes note of the importance of territorial licenses in the Union, particularly with regards to audiovisual and film production which is primarily based on broadcasters pre-purchase or pre-financing systems;

Amendment 13 #

Marc JOULAUD, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Sabine VERHEYEN, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Davor Ivo STIER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Recalls that the European cultural markets are naturally heterogeneous because of the European cultural and linguistic diversity, notes that this diversity should be considered as a benefit rather than an obstacle to the Single Market;

Amendment 14 #

Dietmar KÖSTER, Luigi MORGANO, Mary HONEYBALL, Giorgos GRAMMATIKAKIS, Marlene MIZZI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. Recalls that the European cultural markets are naturally heterogeneous because of the European cultural and linguistic diversity, notes that this diversity should be considered as a benefit rather than an obstacle to the Single Market;

Amendment 15 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Andrea BOCSKOR, Sabine VERHEYEN, Norbert ERDŐS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 e (new)

1e. Recalls that the European cultural markets are heterogeneous representing the European cultural and linguistic diversity, notes that this diversity should be considered as a benefit rather than an obstacle to the Single Market;

Amendment 16 #

Marc JOULAUD, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Sabine VERHEYEN, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Davor Ivo STIER, Therese COMODINI CACHIA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 g (new)

1g. Stresses that the copyright framework and its effective enforcement, that attain and safeguard a fair remuneration for artists, creators and rightholders play a vital role in encouraging creativity, fostering cultural diversity and ensuring the creation of new creative and cultural content across the Union;

Amendment 17 #

Dietmar KÖSTER, Luigi MORGANO, Mary HONEYBALL, Giorgos GRAMMATIKAKIS, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses that the copyright framework and its enforcement on the basis of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, that attains and safeguards a fair remuneration for artists, creators and rightholders plays a vital role in encouraging creativity, fostering cultural diversity and ensuring the creation of new creative and cultural content across the Union;

Amendment 18 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Andrea BOCSKOR, Norbert ERDŐS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Stresses that the copyright framework and its effective enforcement, that attain and safeguard a fair remuneration for artists, creators and rightholders play a vital role in encouraging creativity, fostering cultural diversity and ensuring the creation of new creative and cultural content across the Union;

Amendment 19 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Stresses that a fair remuneration of authors and creators is key to support Union cultural contents and to ensure effective freedom to create; underlines however that interests of intermediaries and rightholders are not equivalent to author's interests and urges therefore the Commission to explore new legal solutions with the objective of strenghtening the contractual position of authors and creators regarding rightholders;

Amendment 2 #

Michel REIMON, Ernest MARAGALL, Helga TRÜPEL

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Highlights that adequate protection of copyright works and subject matter of related rights is also of great importance from a cultural standpoint. Article 167 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union requires the Union to take cultural aspects into account in its action;

Amendment 20 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Recommends that the EU legislator should, while protecting personal information, further lower the barriers for re-use of public sector information by exempting official works, which are produced by government employees as part of their official duty within the political, legal and administrative process, from copyright protection;

Amendment 21 #

Dietmar KÖSTER, Luigi MORGANO, Mary HONEYBALL, Giorgos GRAMMATIKAKIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Acknowledges the important role played by copyright legislation in safeguarding the interests of artists, creators and authors, whilst stimulating creativity, cultural and artistic livelihoods;

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)

1d. Recalls that there is nothing within the current legal framework to prohibit the use of multi-territorial and pan- European licences, notes however that the demand for those licences remains weak, and stresses that these licences should remain optional; emphasizes that multi- territorial and pan-European licenses should ensure the fair remuneration of artists, creators and right-holders;

Amendment 23 #

Marc JOULAUD, Sabine VERHEYEN, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Silvia COSTA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Recalls that there is nothing within the current legal framework to prohibit the use of multi-territorial and pan- European licences, calls for an easier access to those optional licences; emphasizes that multi-territorial and pan- European licenses should ensure the fair remuneration of artists, creators and right-holders;

Amendment 24 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Andrea BOCSKOR, Norbert ERDŐS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. Underlines the need to provide for appropriate remuneration of authors and all categories of rightholders;

Amendment 25 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. Emphasizes that any reform of the copyright framework should take as a basis a high level of protection, and develop an evidence-based approach taking into consideration the interest of small and medium-sized enterprises, since rights are crucial to intellectual creation and provide a stable, clear and flexible legal base that fosters investment and growth in the creative and cultural sector, whilst removing legal uncertainties and inconsistencies that adversely affect the functioning of the internal market to the prejudice of consumers and rightholders;

Amendment 26 #

Dietmar KÖSTER, Luigi MORGANO, Mary HONEYBALL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)

1b. Emphasizes that any reform of the copyright framework should take as a basis of proportional and adequate protection, since rights are crucial to intellectual creation and provide a stable, clear and flexible legal base that fosters investment and growth in the creative and cultural sector, whilst removing legal uncertainties and inconsistencies that adversely affect the functioning of the internal market;

Amendment 27 #

Marc JOULAUD, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Sabine VERHEYEN, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Davor Ivo STIER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 h (new)

1h. Emphasizes that any reform of the copyright framework should take as a basis a high level of protection, since rights are crucial to intellectual creation and provide a stable, clear and flexible legal base that fosters investment and growth in the creative and cultural sector, whilst removing legal uncertainties and inconsistencies that adversely affect the functioning of the internal market;

Amendment 28 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Andrea BOCSKOR, Sabine VERHEYEN, Marc JOULAUD, Norbert ERDŐS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)

1d. Acknowledges the role of producers, publishers and distributors in disseminating cultural works and highlights the need of safeguarding a fair balance between the interests of all parties;

Amendment 29 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)

1d. Stresses that any reform on copyright needs to find the best balance between an efficient protection that provides for a proper remuneration for creators and the objective of the public interest for access to cultural goods and knowledge, and which enables users to access services but at the same time can generate sufficient benefits to promote Europe's cultural content and to generate more content;

Amendment 3 #

Marc JOULAUD, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Sabine VERHEYEN, Bogdan Brunon WENTA

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Urges to improve the contractual position of authors and performers in their relation to other rightholders and intermediaries;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)

1d. Recalls that the Union, as well as the Member States, are parties to international treaties on copyright that involve a certain number of obligations and guarantees that should be respected;

Amendment 31 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Andrea BOCSKOR, Sabine VERHEYEN, Norbert ERDŐS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 g (new)

1g. Acknowledges the high interest of all stakeholders, including consumers, rightholders and other stakeholders in the copyright reform, as indicated by the responses to the public consultation conducted by the Commission;

Amendment 32 #

Marc JOULAUD, Sabine VERHEYEN, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Therese COMODINI CACHIA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 e (new)

1e. Acknowledges the high interest of all stakeholders, including consumers, rightholders and other stakeholders in the copyright reform, as indicated by the responses to the public consultation conducted by the Commission;

Amendment 33 #

Marc JOULAUD, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Sabine VERHEYEN, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Silvia COSTA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)

1c. Supports the initiatives aimed at enhancing the portability, within the Union, of online services of legally acquired and legally made available content, whilst fully respecting copyrights and the interests of right-holders;

Amendment 34 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Andrea BOCSKOR, Sabine VERHEYEN, Norbert ERDŐS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 f (new)

1f. Supports the initiatives aimed at enhancing the portability, within the Union, of online services of legally acquired and legally made available content, whilst fully respecting copyrights and the interests of right-holders;

Amendment 35 #

Dietmar KÖSTER, Luigi MORGANO, Mary HONEYBALL, Giorgos GRAMMATIKAKIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 e (new)

1e. Supports the initiatives aimed at enhancing the portability of online services of legally acquired and legally made available content within the Union, whilst fully respecting copyrights and the interests of right-holders;

Amendment 36 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Andrea BOCSKOR, Norbert ERDŐS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Notes that several studies have demonstrated that the cultural and creative sectors, often copyright intensive, already account for up to 4.5% of GDP and up to 8.5 million jobs in the Union and are not only essential for cultural diversity but also significantly contribute to social and economic development, competitiveness, growth and jobs;

Amendment 37 #

Marc JOULAUD, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Sabine VERHEYEN, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Davor Ivo STIER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 f (new)

1f. Notes that several studies have demonstrated that the cultural and creative sectors, often copyright intensive, already account for up to 4.5% of GDP and up to 8.5 million jobs in the Union and are not only essential for cultural diversity but also significantly contribute to social and economic development;

Amendment 38 #

Dietmar KÖSTER, Luigi MORGANO, Mary HONEYBALL, Giorgos GRAMMATIKAKIS, Marlene MIZZI, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 f (new)

1f. Notes that several studies have demonstrated that the cultural and creative sectors, often copyright intensive, and are not only essential for cultural diversity but also significantly contribute to social and economic development;

Amendment 39 #

Marc JOULAUD, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Sabine VERHEYEN, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Therese COMODINI CACHIA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Stresses the need to address the problematic boundaries that exist between the reproduction right and the right of communication to the public of works, and to clarify the concept of ‘communication to the public’ in light of the recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union;deleted

Amendment 4 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Andrea BOCSKOR, Sabine VERHEYEN, Norbert ERDŐS

Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)

-1. Reminds that any harmonisation of copyright and related rights must take as a basis a high level of protection;

Amendment 40 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 41 #

Marc JOULAUD, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Sabine VERHEYEN, Bogdan Brunon WENTA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. ~~Stresses the need to address the problematic boundaries that exist~~Highlights that the inter-play between the reproduction right and the right of communication to the public of works, a~~nd to clarify the concept of ‘communication to the public’ in light of the recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union~~s seen by the recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, would benefit from further analysis, particularly in light of the continued growth online services;

Amendment 42 #

Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that ~~embedding and linking should not be considered acts of communication to the public and thus should not be subject to Article 3 of the directive~~linking from one resource to another is one of the fundamental building blocks of the internet; calls on the EU legislator to make clear that, as a technical tool, linking may be used both for copyright non-relevant activities and for copyright relevant activities that require rightholders' permission; therefore building business models based on mass linking to illegal content should be regarded as copyright infringement;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that the ability to link one resource to another is one of the fundamental building blocks of the Internet, but stresses that under certain circumstances, embedding and linking ~~should not~~can be considered as acts of communication to ~~the~~a new public and th~~us should not be subject to Article 3 of the directive~~erefore can constitute an infringement to copyrights;

Amendment 44 #

Dietmar KÖSTER, Mary HONEYBALL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that ~~embedding and linking should not~~the ability to link one resource to another or to embedd is an important feature of the internet, but stresses that under certain circumstances, in particular commercial uses, embedding and linking may be considered as acts of communication to ~~the~~a new public and th~~us should not be subject to Article 3 of the directive~~erefore may constitute an infringement to copyrights;

Amendment 45 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Andrea BOCSKOR, Sabine VERHEYEN, Norbert ERDŐS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that under certain circumstances embedding and linking ~~should not~~can be considered as acts of communication to ~~the~~a new public and ~~thus should not be subject to Article 3 of the directive~~emphasizes the importance to protect the internet from any abuse and illegal sites providing links to infringing content;

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that embedding and linking should not be considered acts of communication to the public and thus should not be subject to Article 3 of the directive; There have been recent cases, in particular Svensson, that have dealt with this point and which should be part of the Commission's analysis when it comes forward with proposals.), though encourages further work to be carried out to clarify how to protect from embedding works subject to paywalls and other types of content restrictions; Or. en (Justification

Amendment 47 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that embedding and linking ~~shoul~~do not be consi~~dered~~st in acts of communication to the public and thus should not be subject to Article 3 of the directive;

Amendment 48 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Stresses that ~~embedding and~~ linking should not be considered acts of communication to the public and thus should not be subject to Article 3 of the directive;

Amendment 49 #

Marc JOULAUD, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Sabine VERHEYEN, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Davor Ivo STIER, Therese COMODINI CACHIA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

~~4. Emphasises the need to update the concept of ‘reproduction of works’ by taking into account the possibilities offered by digital technologies in terms of communication to the public;~~deleted

Amendment 5 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

~~1. Highlights the need for a common definition of ‘public domain’ so as to ensure the widespread dissemination of cultural content across the EU;~~deleted

Amendment 50 #

Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI, Angel DZHAMBAZKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 51 #

Marc JOULAUD, Jean-Marie CAVADA, Sabine VERHEYEN, Bogdan Brunon WENTA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 52 #

Dietmar KÖSTER, Luigi MORGANO, Giorgos GRAMMATIKAKIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

Amendment 53 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Andrea BOCSKOR, Sabine VERHEYEN, Marc JOULAUD, Norbert ERDŐS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Emphasises th~~e need to update the concept of ‘reproduction of works’~~at further analysis is necessary to identify measures not enable the current legal framework to the demand for online content by taking into account the possibilities offered by digital technologies ~~in terms of communication to the public~~while ensuring adequate protect to rightholders;

Amendment 54 #

Mara BIZZOTTO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Emphasises the need to update the concept of ‘reproduction of works’ by taking into account the possibilities offered by digital technologies in terms of communication to the public and accessibility for persons with disabilities;

Amendment 55 #

Dietmar KÖSTER, Luigi MORGANO, Giorgos GRAMMATIKAKIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Recalls the European Parliament resolution of 27 February 2014 on private copying levies (2013/2114 (INI)) and ask the Commission to implement those proposals in a coherent manner;

Amendment 56 #

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Therese COMODINI CACHIA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Urges for the establishment of mandatory limitations and exceptions to copyright, at least with regard to the most important exceptions, such as those in the field of education, research and libraries, to allow for the more widespread dissemination of cultural content across the EU;deleted

Amendment 57 #

Dietmar KÖSTER, Luigi MORGANO, Giorgos GRAMMATIKAKIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 58 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Andrea BOCSKOR, Norbert ERDŐS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. UNotes that the ability to benefit from exceptions and limitations should be enjoyed in the digital environment without any unequal treatment compared to those granted in the analogue world; urges for the establishment of mandatory limitations and exceptions to copyright, at least with regard to the most important exceptions, such as those in the field of education, research and libraries, to allow for the more widespread dissemination of cultural content across the EUnion; stresses that the exception for research and education purposes should not only cover educational establishments but any kind of educational and research activities, including distant education; Emphasizes that the exception allowing public and research libraries to lend books to the public in digital formats for personal use, while not conflicting with the normal exploitation of the work should be irrespective of the place of access;

Amendment 59 #

Marc JOULAUD

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Urges ~~for the establishment of mandatory limita~~the Commission, when examining whether certain exceptions and ~~excep~~limitations to copyright~~, at least with regard to the most important exceptions, such as those in the field of education,~~ need to be reviewed or harmonized, to ensure that there is a clear cross-border impact and that these exceptions and limitations are proportionate; moreover stresse~~arch and libraries, to allow for the more widespread disse~~s that national circumstances lead to the need for different exceptions and limintation ~~of cultural content across the EU~~s across Member States and thus there is a need for a flexible framework of optional exceptions;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

~~1. Highlights the need for a common definition of ‘public domain’ so as to ensure the widespread dissemination of cultural content across the EU;~~deleted

Amendment 60 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Andrea BOCSKOR, Norbert ERDŐS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Urges for the establishment of mandatory limitations and exceptions to copyright, at least~~Stresses that different national circumstances indicate a need for flexible legal framework of optional exceptions and the Commission in examining whether certain exceptions and limitations to copyright need to be reviewed, is urged to ensure respect for the principle of subsidiarity and proceed instances where there is evidence of clear cross- border impact, with regard to the most important exceptions, such as those in the field of education, research and libraries, to allow for the more widespread dissemination of cultural content across the EUnion;

Amendment 61 #

Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Urges for the establishment of mandatory limitations and exceptions ~~to copyright, at least with regard to the most important excep~~provided for in existing copyright legislations, such as those in the field of education, research ~~and~~, libraries and museums, to allow for the more widespread dissemination of c~~ultural content across the EU;~~ ontent across the Union, while taking into account the freedom of expression and information, freedom of the arts and sciences, religious and linguistic diversity;

Amendment 62 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Urges for the establishment of mandatory limitations and exceptions to copyright, at least with regard to the most important excep~~Encourages the Member States to take up the limitations and exceptions provided for in existing copyright legislations, such as those in the field of education, research ~~and~~, libraries, and museums to allow for the more widespread dissemination of ~~cultural content~~resources across the EUnion;

Amendment 63 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Urges for the establishment of mandatory limitations and exceptions to copyright, ~~at least~~ with regard to the most important exceptions, such as those in the field of education, research and libraries, to allow for the more widespread dissemination of cultural content across the EUnion;

Amendment 64 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Reminds that a fair balance of rights and interests between the different categories of rightholders, as well as between the different categories of rightholders and users of protected subject-matter must be safeguarded; the existing exceptions and limitations to the rights as set out by the Member States have to be reassessed in the light of the new electronic environment; existing differences in the exceptions and limitations to certain restricted acts have direct negative effects on the functioning of the internal market of copyright and related rights; such differences could well become more pronounced in view of the further development of transborder exploitation of works and cross-border activities; in order to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market, such exceptions and limitations should be defined and implemented more harmoniously; the degree of their harmonisation should be based on their impact on the smooth functioning of the internal market and improving of cultural production, while ensuring fair compensation of authors; ;Or. en

Amendment 65 #

Sylvie GUILLAUME

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Stresses the need to adopt provisions which enable, due to limitations and exceptions to the rights of copyright holders, works published in formats that are accessible to visually impaired people to be reproduced, distributed and made available; these measures are vital for ensuring that people with disabilities are able to fully participate in social, cultural and economic life;

Amendment 66 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Urges the European legislator to ensure technological neutrality and future-compatibility of exceptions and limitations by taking due account of the effects of media convergence; therefore calls on the EU legislator to expressly include audio-visual quotations in the existing quotation exception in order to enable the use of quotations in new media formats; these quotations should be adequate in terms of length in relation to the type of source material;

Amendment 67 #

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Therese COMODINI CACHIA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Encourages, to fully exploit the possibilities offered by new digital technologies and favour learning and widespread culture dissemination, to provide for new mechanisms of content fruition such as e-lending;

Amendment 68 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Notes that the room for manoeuvre left to Member States in accordance with the subsidiarity principle has enabled them to adapt exceptions and limitations to their social and economic circumstances;

Amendment 69 #

Marc JOULAUD, Sabine VERHEYEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Recalls that no Member State has applied, or expressed the desire to apply, all the exceptions listed within the 2001/29/EC Directive, recalls that the facultative list of exceptions results from the variety of national cultural policies and provides a necessary flexibility to the Member States;

Amendment 7 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Andrea BOCSKOR, Sabine VERHEYEN, Marc JOULAUD, Norbert ERDŐS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

~~1. Highlights the need for a common definition of ‘public domain’ so as to ensure the widespread dissemination of cultural content across the EU;~~deleted

Amendment 70 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Stresses that when Member States provide for exceptions and limitations they should ensure that rightholders receive fair compensation and that the exceptions or limitations do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder;

Amendment 71 #

Dietmar KÖSTER, Luigi MORGANO, Mary HONEYBALL, Giorgos GRAMMATIKAKIS, Eider GARDIAZABAL RUBIAL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Stresses that when Member States provide for exceptions and limitations they should ensure that creators or rightholders receive fair compensation and that the exceptions or limitations do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or subject-matter;

Amendment 72 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Calls on the European legislator to ensure that the use of photographs, video footage or other images of works which are permanently located in public places are permitted;

Amendment 73 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Urges the Commission and Member states to provide for an updated exception that allows Libraries, Archives and Museums to make protected works in their collections that are not in commercial circulations anymore or otherwise actively managed by their rightsholders available for online access by the public;

Amendment 74 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Highlights that, in order to widespread disseminate culture and increase educational possibilities, new technologies should be used to increase the legal offer of content by encouraging re-use mechanisms and the birth of a digital second-hand market;

Amendment 75 #

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Angel DZHAMBAZKI, Marc JOULAUD, Sabine VERHEYEN, Juan Carlos GIRAUTA VIDAL, Therese COMODINI CACHIA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Acknowledge that Text and data Mining is an emerging and promising practice, in particular for the research field, recalls that innovative licensing solutions are established, but that any preferential treatment should only be applied for non-commercial use;

Amendment 76 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Calls on the Commission to ensure that exceptions and limitations are properly implemented; calls on Member States, at the same time, to provide all possible information concerning best practices and the obstacles encountered in the implementation of those exceptions and limitations, in order to promote equal access to cultural diversity across borders within the internal market and to improve legal certainty;

Amendment 77 #

Dietmar KÖSTER, Luigi MORGANO, Mary HONEYBALL, Giorgos GRAMMATIKAKIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 f (new)

5f. Where exceptions and limitations are provided for, stresses the need for them to be targeted and narrow whilst reflecting modern digital use, and for clarity to the user with regards to the scope and limits of these exceptions and limitations in order to avoid consumer confusion and ensure legal certainty;

Amendment 78 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Where exceptions and limitations are provided for, stresses the need for them to be targeted whilst reflecting modern digital use, and for clarity to the user with regards to the scope and limits of these exceptions and limitations in order to avoid consumer confusion and ensure legal certainty;

Amendment 79 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5c. Emphasizes that the exception for caricature, parody and pastiche should apply regardless of the purpose of the parodic use;

Amendment 8 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Highlights the need for a common definition of ‘public domain’ works, which are by definition not subject to copyright protection, so as to ensure the widespread dissemination of cultural content across the ~~EU;~~ Union; therefore urges the Commission to clarify that the digitisation of a work that is in the public domain will stay in the public domain; also calls on the Commission to recognise the freedom of authors to dedicate their works to the public domain;

Amendment 80 #

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Marc JOULAUD, Sabine VERHEYEN, Fernando MAURA BARANDIARÁN, Juan Carlos GIRAUTA VIDAL, Therese COMODINI CACHIA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5c. Suggests to the Commission to limit the cases of impediment of free movement of goods and services by blocking the access to content on a territorial basis so that measures put in place are proportionate and applied to avoid the creation of detrimental barriers to legitimate trade and therefore calls for providing safeguards against abuses;

Amendment 81 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5c. Notes the need to carry out an in-depth study of exceptions for research and education purposes before contemplating any changes to the relevant Community rules;

Amendment 82 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Andrea BOCSKOR, Norbert ERDŐS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Recognises the importance of libraries for accessing knowledge and encourages the efforts made by the stakeholders to find market-based, contractual and license-based voluntary solutions to allow libraries to make use of the digital environment while respecting the rightholders' interests; notes that the technology allows e-lending of digital content in a way that permit an effective control, calls the Commission to take this into account;

Amendment 83 #

Marc JOULAUD, Bogdan Brunon WENTA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5c. Recognises the importance of libraries for accessing knowledge and encourages the efforts made by the stakeholders to find voluntary solutions to allow libraries to make use of the digital environment while respecting the rightholders' interests; notes that the technology allow e-lending of e-books in a way that permit an effective control, making it similar to the lending of physical copies, calls the Commission to take this into account;

Amendment 84 #

Dietmar KÖSTER, Luigi MORGANO, Mary HONEYBALL, Giorgos GRAMMATIKAKIS, Marlene MIZZI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5c. Recognises the importance of libraries for accessing knowledge and encourages the efforts made by the stakeholders to find solutions to allow libraries to make use of the digital environment while respecting the rightholders' interests; notes that the technology allows e-lending of e-books in a way that permits an effective control, making it similar to the lending of physical copies;

Amendment 85 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 d (new)

5d. Acknowledges the importance of libraries for access to knowledge; encourages stakeholders to find appropriate solutions to enable libraries to fulfil their potential in the digital environment whilst respecting rightholders’ interests;

Amendment 86 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Andrea BOCSKOR, Norbert ERDŐS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 d (new)

5d. Stresses the need to enable automated analytical techniques for text and data ('text and data mining'), for all purposes, provided that the permission to read the work has been acquired;

Amendment 87 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5c. Recalls that the Marrakech Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works by Visually Impaired Persons and Persons with Print Disabilities requires to have a mandatory exception to copyrights for the non-commercial uses to the benefit of persons with a disability, which are directly related to the disability, to the extent required by the specific disability;

Amendment 88 #

Marc JOULAUD, Sabine VERHEYEN, Bogdan Brunon WENTA, Silvia COSTA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 d (new)

5d. Recalls that the Marrakech Treaty will require the Union to have a mandatory exception to copyrights for the non- commercial uses to the benefit of persons with a disability, which are directly related to the disability, to the extent required by the specific disability;

Amendment 89 #

Dietmar KÖSTER, Luigi MORGANO, Mary HONEYBALL, Giorgos GRAMMATIKAKIS, Marlene MIZZI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 d (new)

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Highlights the need for a common definition of ‘public domain’ so as to ensure the widespread dissemination of cultural content across the EUnion and guaranteeing a common level of protection of works out of copyright in Member States;

Amendment 90 #

Zdzisław KRASNODĘBSKI, Angel DZHAMBAZKI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Highlights the fact that a general exception should be introduced to offer a broader interpretation of the current exceptions based on the analogue model, while taking into account the freedom of expression and information, freedom of the arts and sciences and cultural, religious and linguistic diversity, as referred to in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;deleted

Amendment 91 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 92 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 93 #

Dietmar KÖSTER, Luigi MORGANO, Mary HONEYBALL, Giorgos GRAMMATIKAKIS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Highlights the fact that a general flexible exception should be introduced to offer a broader interpretation of the current exceptions based on the analogue model, while taking into account the freedom of expression and information, freedom of the arts and sciences and cultural, religious and linguistic diversity, as referred to in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Unionis not adapted to the European legal system and would undermine the legal certainty necessary for both the consumers and the creative and cultural sectors;

Amendment 94 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

Amendment 95 #

Therese COMODINI CACHIA, Andrea BOCSKOR, Norbert ERDŐS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Highlights the fact that a general exception should be introduced to offer a broader interpretation of the current exceptions based on the analogue model~~Notes that technological changes have led to renewed interest in exceptions and limitations, especially their role in the digital environment and considers that the rights enjoyed by the creators of work in the digital world should be identical to those enjoyed in the analogue world, subject to the exceptions and limitations set out. Stresses that further analysis is necessary of these exceptions and limitations designed in an analogue environment can serve the public in the digital age, while taking into account the freedom of expression and information, freedom of the arts and sciences and cultural, religious and linguistic diversity, as referred to in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

Amendment 96 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Calls for the introduction of a de minimis exception and limitation that applies analogically the discipline already provided in Article 5.3, in cases that are not regulated, especially bearing in mind the swift technological evolution; this de minimis exception should be evaluated in light of the qualitative and quantitative parameters of three-step test, as provided for by Article 5.5 of the Directive;

Amendment 97 #

Jean-Marie CAVADA, Marc JOULAUD, Sabine VERHEYEN, Therese COMODINI CACHIA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Calls for a flexible interpretation of exceptions and limitations to exclusive rights, allowing to apply exceptions and limitations to uses that are similar to the ones in the original legal provisions, thereby ensuring that exceptions and limitations can be adapted to new forms of usage emerging due to technological change; such flexibility would be subject to the three-step-test, which grants limitations and exceptions in certain special cases that do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author or rightholder;

Amendment 98 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Stresses the fact that exceptions and limitations should be applied whilst taking account of the specific individual features of digital and analogue environments and should neither conflict with the normal exploitation of the work nor unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author or rightholder; they are established for very specific reasons and should be strictly interpreted by the Member States;

Amendment 99 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

source: 549.431

2015/03/25 ITRE 134 amendments...

Amendment 1 #

Catherine STIHLER, Theresa GRIFFIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that ~~the~~ European's cultural and creative industries are an engine for economic growth and job creation in ~~the EU, as they employ more than 7 million peopl~~Europe, employing 3.3% of the EU's workforce and generateing more than 4.2 % of the EU's GDP; ~~emphasises that cultural industries continued to c~~highlights, however, that recent economic growth in the sector has mainly been generated by its ICT- relate ~~jobs during~~d activities whereas traditional activities have featured a significant decrease of their economic c~~risis of 2008-2012~~ontribution and employment rates;

Amendment 10 #

Fredrick FEDERLEY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines that copyright and related rights should constitute ~~the~~a balanced legal framework for the European cultural and creative industries ~~and form the basis for their ability~~ to generate economic activity and employment; however, stresses that the current fragmented and outdated levy system causes major problems for the development of the European digital single market and therefore is a threat to growth and economic develoypment;

Amendment 100 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses that any legislative change in this area should ensure accessibility for people with disabilities to products and services protected by copyright and related rights; and adapt accordingly to the digital environment; recognises that the inability to purchase content in an appropriate format for users with disabilities may create a barrier to trade for enterprises as well as reduce the cultural output and content offer available across the Member States.

Amendment 101 #

Theresa GRIFFIN, Mary HONEYBALL, Catherine STIHLER, Jude KIRTON-DARLING

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses that any legislative change in this area should ensure accessibility for people with disabilities to products and services protected by copyright and related rights; Notes the conclusion of the Marrakesh Treaty and requests that an exception be made to allow any person who cannot access a library because of their disability to receive library loans electronically.

Amendment 102 #

Hans-Olaf HENKEL, Anneleen VAN BOSSUYT

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses that any legislative change in this area should ensure accessibility for people with disabilities to products and services protected by copyright and related rights; in this regard, notes the importance of the Marrakesh Treaty; underlines that much work remains to be done in order to open up access to content for people with disabilities, in addition to those affected by visual impairment;

Amendment 103 #

Juan Carlos GIRAUTA VIDAL, Pavel TELIČKA, Kaja KALLAS, José BLANCO LÓPEZ, Morten PETERSEN, Philippe DE BACKER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses that any legislative change in this area should ensure accessibility for people with disabilities to products and services protected by copyright and related rights; expresses concern and regret with regard to the political obstacles in the Council which are still delaying ratification of the Treaty of Marrakesh for the Blind, which was signed by the European Union in 2013;

Amendment 104 #

Nadine MORANO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. Stresses that any legislative change in this area should ensure ~~accessibility~~better access for all, and in particular for people with disabilities, to products and services protected by copyright and related rights;

Amendment 105 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls on the Commission to propose an harmonised framework for exceptions and limitations to address the fragmented market, improve legal security and foster cross-border accessibility of copyright content, to allow equal access to cultural diversity across the EU and to conform to consumer expectations;

Amendment 106 #

Theresa GRIFFIN, Mary HONEYBALL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Stresses the importance of allowing for content mining (also known as text and data mining) for research projects including both commercial and non- commercial purposes, provided that permission to read the work has been obtained.

Amendment 107 #

Nadine MORANO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Stresses that any changes to legislation in this field must help improve security of remuneration for copyright holders and the balance of the European cultural economy;

Amendment 108 #

Kaja KALLAS, Fredrick FEDERLEY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Underlines the need for a broad and mandatory exception for research purposes, text and data mining, which should cover any kind of research activity.

Amendment 109 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)

7a. Calls on the Commission to propose a mandatory exception for text and data mining to allow researchers to maintain Europe's competitive edge in a global environment.

Amendment 11 #

Hans-Olaf HENKEL, Anneleen VAN BOSSUYT, Branislav ŠKRIPEK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines that copyright and related rights constitute the legal framework for the European cultural and creative industries and form the basis for their ability to generate economic activity and employment; and develop new products and services; emphasises, therefore, the importance of respecting the contribution of stakeholders to the Digital Single Market; recognises the role of effective enforcement in protecting the rightsholders;

Amendment 110 #

Juan Carlos GIRAUTA VIDAL, Pavel TELIČKA, José BLANCO LÓPEZ, Morten PETERSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Calls for a flexible interpretation of exceptions and limitations to exclusive rights, allowing to apply exceptions and limitations to uses that are similar to the ones in the original legal provisions, thereby ensuring that exceptions and limitations can be adapted to new forms of usage emerging due to technological change;

Amendment 111 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. Recalls that when Member States provide for exceptions and limitations, they should ensure that the exceptions or limitations do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder;

Amendment 112 #

Theresa GRIFFIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)

7b. As copyright protection is only as effective as the enforcement measures which protect it. Therefore, in order to ensure that the CCI sector in Europe can flourish and to protect innovation, copyright protection must be robust;

Amendment 113 #

Pervenche BERÈS, José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Urges the Commission to take into account the rapidly growing user-created content on the internet when reviewing copyright rules; any new proposal should aim to find a fair balance between protecting IPR and fostering a dynamic and creative internet. For instance, the Commission should propose a legal definition of 'public domain' works that are by definition not subject to copyright protection giving to authors the freedom to dedicate their works to the public domain, and making sure that these works to be protected against private appropriation, either through digitisation or through other means;

Amendment 114 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Urges the Commission to take into account the rapidly growing us~~er-created content on the internet~~age of creative works on user-generated content and social media platforms on the internet that benefit from public's access to those works without remunerating their creators, when reviewing copyright rules; any new proposal should aim to find a ~~fair balance between~~way to address this transfer of value to fairly remunerate creators, protecting IPR and fostering a more dynamic and creative internet.

Amendment 115 #

Sampo TERHO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Urges the Commission to take into account the rapidly growing us~~er-created content on the internet when reviewing copyright rules; any new proposal should aim to find a fair balance between protecting IPR and fostering a~~age of creative works on user generated content and social media platforms on the internet that benefit remarkably from public´s access to those works without remunerating their creators, when reviewing copyright rules; any new proposal should aim to find a way to address this transfer of value to fairly remunerate creators to foster a more dynamic and creative internet.

Amendment 116 #

Hans-Olaf HENKEL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Urges the Commission to take into account the rapidly growing user-created content on the internet and the importance of enhanced user information regarding obligations for anyone who knowingly provides hyperlinks to unauthorised content or links that circumvent paywalls when reviewing copyright rules; any new proposal should aim to find a fair balance between protecting IPR and fostering a dynamic and creative internet.

Amendment 117 #

Adina-Ioana VĂLEAN, Seán KELLY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Urges the Commission to take into account the rapidly growing user-created content on the internet when reviewing the copyright ~~rules~~framework; any new proposal should aim to find a fair balance between protecting IPR and fostering a dynamic internet, where technology and internet access can continue to empower individuals to be innovative and creative ~~internet~~.

Amendment 118 #

Juan Carlos GIRAUTA VIDAL, Pavel TELIČKA, Kaja KALLAS, Morten PETERSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Urges the Commission to take into account the rapidly growing user-created content on the internet when reviewing copyright rules; any new proposal should aim to find a fair balance between ~~protecting IPR~~copyright and fostering a dynamic and creative internet by making limitations and exceptions mandatory, thereby achieving greater harmonisation.

Amendment 119 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

8. Urges the Commission to take into account the rapidly growing user-~~cre~~ generated content on the internet and text and data mining when reviewing copyright rules; any new proposal should aim to find a fair balance between protecting ~~IPR~~copyrights and intellectual property rights and fostering a dynamic and creative internet.

Amendment 12 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines that copyright and related rights constitute the legal framework for the European cultural and creative industries ~~and form the basis for their ability to generate economic activity and employmen~~but in their current form have become an obstacle to creativity and innovation, in particular with respect to transformative uses of works of art;

Amendment 120 #

Krišjānis KARIŅŠ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8

Amendment 121 #

Adina-Ioana VĂLEAN, Michał BONI, Seán KELLY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Notes with concern that the value generated in the digital economy from the exploitation of copyright protected works is not fairly shared, including because of the taxation regime of services providers, with the rightholders; calls on the Commission to investigate the extent and the impact of this transfer of value to the internet intermediaries;

Amendment 122 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Encourages the Commission to continue dialogue and collaboration with the United States, on the respective copyright legislative frameworks, within the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations, to address potential market access barriers and trade obstacles;

Amendment 123 #

Hans-Olaf HENKEL, Anneleen VAN BOSSUYT, Branislav ŠKRIPEK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Deplores the introduction of statutory licenses in some MS aimed at news aggregators for acts already made permissible by an exception and calls on the EU legislator to preclude Member States from unilaterally introducing such schemes, which have caused significant damage to the digital economy;

Amendment 124 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Stresses that business models in the cultural and creative industries are constantly changing and the aim of the legal framework should be to ensure technological neutrality and facilitate the adjustment process to stimulate future growth, competitiveness and innovation of the Digital Single Market;

Amendment 125 #

José BLANCO LÓPEZ, Marco ZULLO, Juan Carlos GIRAUTA VIDAL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Calls for a broad exception for research and education purposes, which should cover educational and research activities linked to an educational establishment or institution recognised by national authorities or legislation or within the purview of an educational or research programme.

Amendment 126 #

Juan Carlos GIRAUTA VIDAL, Pavel TELIČKA, Morten PETERSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Acknowledges that text and data mining is an emerging and promising practice, in particular for research; recalls that innovative licensing solutions are established, but that preferential treatment should be applied for non- commercial purpose;

Amendment 127 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Calls on the Commission to adapt and standardise the exceptions and limitations permitted in the regulatory framework of the analogue world to the new scenario represented by the digital paradigm, and in particular by cloud computing technologies;

Amendment 128 #

Theresa GRIFFIN, Mary HONEYBALL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Supports the initiatives aimed at enhancing the portability, within the EU, of online services of legally acquired and legally made available content, whilst fully respecting copyrights and the interests of right-holders;

Amendment 129 #

Edouard MARTIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 a (new)

8a. Calls on the Commission to relaunch its work to improve ‘notice-and-action’ procedures’ with a view to bringing forward a legislative proposal without a revision of Directive 2000/31/EC (e-commerce).

Amendment 13 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines that copyright and related rights constitute the legal framework for the European ~~cultural and creative industries~~CCI sector and form the basis for their ability to generate economic activity and employment. Highlights that while the productivity of the CCI sector continues to grow, the earnings of rights- holders in the sector are decreasing;

Amendment 130 #

Juan Carlos GIRAUTA VIDAL, Pavel TELIČKA, Philippe DE BACKER, José BLANCO LÓPEZ, Morten PETERSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Believes that common effort should be made in combatting copyright infringements in the EU in order to ensure the protection of copyright and fair remuneration; stresses the need to raise consumer awareness of the consequence of infringement of copyright and related rights;

Amendment 131 #

Hans-Olaf HENKEL, Anneleen VAN BOSSUYT, Branislav ŠKRIPEK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. whereas the Directive 2013/37/EU on 26 June 2013 on the re-use of public sector information, which provides a common legal framework for an EU market for government-held data (public sector information) and also includes provision on transparency and competition;

Amendment 132 #

José BLANCO LÓPEZ, Marco ZULLO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Acknowledges that Text and data Mining is an emerging and promising practice, in particular for the research field, recalls that innovative licensing solutions are established, but that any preferential treatment should only be applied for non-commercial use.

Amendment 133 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Urges the Commission to find ways for public and research libraries to lend books to the public in digital formats, irrespective of the place of access and ensuring a fair remuneration to rightholders

Amendment 134 #

Catherine STIHLER, Theresa GRIFFIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 8 b (new)

8b. Urges to find a proper solution to ensure that no one should make a profit out of copyright infringements;

Amendment 14 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines that copyright and related rights constitute the legal framework for the European cultural and creative industries and form the basis for their ability to generate economic activity and employment;, thereby contributing to improved competitiveness, enhanced creativity and innovation across several industry sectors.

Amendment 15 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines that copyright and related rights constitute the legal framework for the European cultural and creative industries and form the basis for their ability to generate economic activity and employment; views with interest the current debate on the merits of introducing a single European Copyright Title on the basis of Article 118 TFEU;

Amendment 16 #

Adina-Ioana VĂLEAN, Christian EHLER, Seán KELLY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

2. Underlines that copyright and related rights constitute the legal framework for the European cultural and creative industries, as well as the educational and research sector and form the ~~basis for their ability to generate economic~~sector benefiting form exceptions and limitations these rights and form the basis for their activity and employment;

Amendment 17 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 18 #

Pervenche BERÈS, José BLANCO LÓPEZ, Juan Carlos GIRAUTA VIDAL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2

Amendment 19 #

Juan Carlos GIRAUTA VIDAL, Kaja KALLAS, Philippe DE BACKER, Pavel TELIČKA, Morten PETERSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Emphasizes that any reform of the copyright framework should take as a basis a high level of protection, since rights are crucial to intellectual creation and provide a stable, clear and flexible legal base that fosters investment and growth in the creative and cultural sector, whilst removing legal uncertainties and inconsistencies that adversely affect the functioning of the internal market;

Amendment 2 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that the European cultural and creative industries are an engine for economic growth and job creation in the EU, as they employ more than 7 million people and generate more than 4.2 % of EU GDP; ~~emphasises that cultural~~stresses that new business models and innovative services online have been created and that according to the European Parliament's Cost of Non- Europe, 223 000 jobs will be created by the Digital Single Market by 2020; emphasises that cultural, creative and innovative industries continued to create jobs during the economic crisis of 2008- 2012; ;

Amendment 20 #

Theresa GRIFFIN, Jude KIRTON-DARLING

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Copyright and related rights are the rights on which the whole creative industries and this value chain are built upon; therefore calls on the Commission to support and protect creators' intellectual property rights to enable creative industries in Europe to flourish.

Amendment 21 #

Adina-Ioana VĂLEAN, Christian EHLER, José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Stresses that cultural and creative contents online are key drivers of development of the information society, information technologies and investments in digital infrastructure and services, which thereby foster innovation, growth and creativity.

Amendment 22 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Reiterates that the European Union should support its cultural and creative sectors, through a stable, clear and flexible legislative framework, allowing these industries to produce, invest and grow;

Amendment 23 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Underlines the need for a modernised copyright that will provide innovative individuals and SMEs the flexibility to contribute to a European single digital market;

Amendment 24 #

Krišjānis KARIŅŠ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Underlines that the modernisation of the existing copyright rules is an integral part of the Digital Economy;

Amendment 25 #

Adina-Ioana VĂLEAN, Christian EHLER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. Reassesses that copyright is one of the driving forces of innovation and creativity;

Amendment 26 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Emphasizes that the reform of the EU copyright framework should ensure a high level of protection for the rightholders, provide the necessary legal clarity and certainty, as well as the flexibility needed to foster investment and growth in the creative and cultural sector; highlights the necessity of removing the legal uncertainties and inconsistencies that adversely affect the functioning of the internal market;

Amendment 27 #

Pervenche BERÈS, José BLANCO LÓPEZ, Juan Carlos GIRAUTA VIDAL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Recognizes that the development of e- commerce and online activities has brought benefits for society as a whole, but has changed the way IPR enforcement should be considered, particularly because it affords new possibilities for infringement and for spreading tolerance for the idea that IPR infringements could be considered legitimate, especially among the young generation;

Amendment 28 #

Theresa GRIFFIN, Catherine STIHLER, Jude KIRTON-DARLING

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Innovation in creativity and technological advances can have a significant impact on people's lives by enabling different groups to communicate creatively and work collaboratively, thereby both improving the existing skills of creative people and creating added value. This contribute to improved competitiveness, employment and innovation across Europe;

Amendment 29 #

Adina-Ioana VĂLEAN, Michał BONI, Seán KELLY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Recognizes that commercial copyright infringing activities pose a serious threat to the functioning of the digital single market and to the development of the legal offer of diversified cultural and creative content online;

Amendment 3 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that the European cultural and creative industries are an engine for economic growth and job creation in the EU, as they employ more than 7 million people and generate more than 4.2 % of EU GDP; emphasises that cultural industries continued to create jobs during the economic crisis of 2008-2012 and have played an important role in boosting European Union's competitiveness;

Amendment 30 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. Calls on the Commission to propose a copyright reform built around the indispensable moral rights of authors and creators;

Amendment 31 #

Pervenche BERÈS, José BLANCO LÓPEZ, Juan Carlos GIRAUTA VIDAL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. Recalls that the European cultural markets are naturally heterogeneous because of the European cultural and linguistic diversity, notes that this diversity should be considered as a benefit rather than an obstacle to the Single Market.

Amendment 32 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)

2c. Stresses that enforcement of intellectual property rights plays a significant role in ensuring consumers' confidence and safety, whereas counterfeiting is very often linked with a black economy, cybercrime and terrorism;

Amendment 33 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Acknowledges the need to review Directive 2001/29/EC in order to ensure appropriate remuneration for copyright holders and appropriate protection of these rights in a changing and constantly evolving technological environment, which brings both opportunities and challenges;Deems it indispensable to strengthen the position of authors and creators and improve their remuneration with regard to the digital distribution and exploitation of their works.

Amendment 34 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Acknowledges the need to review Directive 2001/29/EC in order to ensure appropriate remuneration for copyright holders and appropriate protection of these rights, as well the rights of users in a changing and constantly evolving technological environment, which brings both opportunities and challenges. One of the main aim should be copyright modernization in order to facilitate cross- border access to services and content, while preserving high level of protection of intellectual property rights, serving development and cultural diversity;

Amendment 35 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Welcomes the commitment of the Commission on further developing the EU Digital Agenda, including the objective of modernising copyright rules. Acknowledges the need to review Directive 2001/29/EC in order to ensure ~~appropriate~~fair remuneration for authors, performers, and other copyright holders ~~and~~, appropriate protection of these rights ~~in a changing and~~and to adapt to a constantly evolving technological environment , which brings about changes in user's behaviours, with opportunities and challenges;

Amendment 36 #

Juan Carlos GIRAUTA VIDAL, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Philippe DE BACKER, Pavel TELIČKA, Morten PETERSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Acknowledges the need to review Directive 2001/29/EC in order to ensure appropriate remuneration for copyright holders and appropriate protection of these rights in a changing and constantly evolving technological environment, which brings both opportunities and challenges; In this regards, emphasizes the need to ensure a fair balance between the different categories of rightholders, as well as between the different categories of rightholders and users of protected subject-matters;

Amendment 37 #

Pervenche BERÈS

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Acknowledges the need to review Directive 2001/29/EC in order to ensure appropriate remuneration for copyright holders and appropriate protection of these rights in a changing and constantly evolving technological environment, which brings both opportunities and challenges; but also asks for a strong engagement on the principle to re-open as soon as possible by coherence, the Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce, or at the very least Articles 12 to 15 of this legislation.

Amendment 38 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. AWelcomes the commitment of the Commission on further developing the EU Digital Agenda, including the objective of modernising copyright rules; acknowledges the need to review Directive 2001/29/EC in order to ensure appropriate remuneration for copyright holders and appropriate protection of these rights in a changing and constantly evolving technological environment, which brings both opportunities and challenges;

Amendment 39 #

Catherine STIHLER, Mary HONEYBALL, Theresa GRIFFIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Acknowledges the need to review Directive 2001/29/EC in order to ensure appropriate remuneration for copyright holders and appropriate protection of these rights in a changing and constantly evolving technological environment, which brings both opportunities and challenges; stresses that modernised copyright rules should achieve a fair balance between all parties involved: consumers, users, creators and right holders.

Amendment 4 #

Hans-Olaf HENKEL, Anneleen VAN BOSSUYT, Branislav ŠKRIPEK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. Stresses that the European cultural and creative industries are an engine for economic growth, innovation, competitiveness and job creation in the EU, as they employ more than 7 million people and generate more than 4.2 % of EU GDP; emphasises that cultural industries continued to create jobs during the economic crisis of 2008-2012; underlines the importance of the Digital Single Market for SMEs;

Amendment 40 #

Flavio ZANONATO, Patrizia TOIA, Enrico GASBARRA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Acknowledges the need to review Directive 2001/29/EC in order to ensure appropriate remuneration for copyright holders and appropriate protection of these rights in ~~a changing and constantly evolving technological environment,~~ response to the dissemination of new technologies and consumer behaviour patterns, which brings both opportunities and challenges;

Amendment 41 #

Theresa GRIFFIN, Mary HONEYBALL, Catherine STIHLER, Jude KIRTON-DARLING

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Acknowledges the need to review Directive 2001/29/EC in order to ensure appropriate remuneration for ~~copyright hold~~authors and performers and appropriate protection of these rights in a changing and constantly evolving ~~technological environment~~world, which brings both opportunities and challenges;

Amendment 42 #

Pilar del CASTILLO VERA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. ~~Acknowledg~~Stresses the need to review Directive 2001/29/EC in order to adapt it to the Digital Era ensureing appropriate remuneration for copyright holders and appropriate protection of these rights in a changing and constantly evolving technological environment, which brings both opportunities and challenges;

Amendment 43 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3

3. Acknowledges the need to review Directive 2001/29/EC in order to ensure a~~ppropriate~~n unwaiverable right to fair remuneration for copyright holders and appropriate protection of these rights in a changing and constantly evolving technological environment, which brings both opportunities and challenges;

Amendment 44 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls on the Commission to carry out an assessment of the different private copying mechanisms in Europe, taking into account the effectiveness and transparency of levies and the changes in the use of private copying ; Considers that the Commission should address the divergences of private copying mechanisms to ensure the free movement of goods and services in the internal market, the fair remuneration of creative and cultural contents and to facilitate the development of new and innovative business models

Amendment 45 #

José BLANCO LÓPEZ, Juan Carlos GIRAUTA VIDAL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Emphasises that a reform of the EU's copyright acquis should continue to strengthen Europe's cultural and creative industries by improving legal certainty in the digital sphere for all involved parties, including rightsholders, businesses and users, and by setting incentives for innovative licensing schemes online and new business models for online distribution of content, thus allowing the sector to benefit from the digital revolution while safeguarding a balanced value chain.

Amendment 46 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Believes that the digital environment is generating new forms of production, distribution and consumption that call for adaptation of the current limitations and exceptions in the analogue world to the reality and requirements of the digital environment so as to enable a response to the growth in, and new demand for, online products and services while at the same time ensuring appropriate protection for copyright and related rights and fair remuneration for right holders;

Amendment 47 #

Edouard MARTIN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Believes this review also to be justified by the number of optional exceptions provided for in the Annex to the Directive, which has resulted in a patchwork of national solutions detrimental to intelligibility and legal certainty at a European level; considers therefore that this list of exceptions should be harmonised as fully as is possible;

Amendment 48 #

Adina-Ioana VĂLEAN, José BLANCO LÓPEZ, Michał BONI, Seán KELLY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Recognises that an appropriate adaptation of Directive 2001/29/EC to the digital era may give rise to entrepreneurship and new business models, thus fostering innovation and employment.

Amendment 49 #

Fredrick FEDERLEY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Calls on the Commission to explore the possibility to significantly shorten the duration of the harmonised terms of protections of copyright within the framework of a modern trade policy agenda;

Amendment 5 #

Adina-Ioana VĂLEAN, Michał BONI

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1

1. SNotes the importance of European cultural diversity, which provides opportunities rather than obstacles to the Single Market and stresses that the European cultural and creative industries are an engine for economic growth and job creation in the EU, as they employ more than 7 million people and generate more than 4.2 % of EU GDP; emphasises that cultural industries continued to create jobs during the economic crisis of 2008-2012;

Amendment 50 #

Pilar del CASTILLO VERA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3a. Welcomes the European Commission commitment to modernise EU legislation on copyright and on audiovisual media service.

Amendment 51 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Notes that the application of the European Union legal framework for copyright and related rights is varying widely among Member States, which may create obstacles to the full development and functioning of the Digital Single Market;

Amendment 52 #

José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)

3b. Calls on the Commission to consider a minimum of harmonisation of the exceptions and limitations referred to in Directive 2001/29/EC, including as a means to ensure greater legal certainty;

Amendment 53 #

Juan Carlos GIRAUTA VIDAL, Pavel TELIČKA, Morten PETERSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. CUnderlines the importance of contractual freedom for all rightholders, who should be able to freely exercise and transfer their rights; considers it necessary to develop a legal framework to strengthen the negotiating and contractual position of authors ~~and~~, performers and other creators in relation to other right holders and intermediaries, in particular in view of ensuring an equitable remuneration;

Amendment 54 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Considers it necessary to develop a legal framework to strengthen the negotiating and contractual position of authors and performers in relation to other right holders and intermediaries, while keeping the interpretation of exceptions and limitations on the level of Member States to permit the adaptation of the copyright system to different national circumstances and social needs;

Amendment 55 #

Flavio ZANONATO, Patrizia TOIA, Enrico GASBARRA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Considers it necessary to develop a legal framework that will be evidence-based, taking into account the experience of all relevant stakeholders, while also strengthening the negotiating and contractual position of authors and performers in relation to other right holders and intermediaries;

Amendment 56 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. CBelieves it important that the need for appropriate remuneration for authors be recognised and therefore considers it necessary to develop a European legal framework to strengthen the negotiating and contractual position of authors and performers in relation to other right holders and intermediaries;

Amendment 57 #

Hans-Olaf HENKEL, Branislav ŠKRIPEK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Considers it necessary to develop a legal framework to ~~strengthen the negotiating and contractual position of authors and performers in relation to other right holders and intermediarie~~provide legal protection and appropriate remuneration for authors and performers;

Amendment 58 #

Theresa GRIFFIN, Catherine STIHLER

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4

4. Considers it necessary to develop a legal framework to strengthen the negotiating and contractual position of a~~uthors and performer~~ll creatives in relation to other right holders and intermediaries;

Amendment 59 #

Theresa GRIFFIN, Mary HONEYBALL, Catherine STIHLER, Jude KIRTON-DARLING

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Considers the necessity of strengthening the legal framework of exceptions and limitations for education and research, which in particular supports new educational services and innovative research. The law should also clarify that researchers are allowed to read and analyse all available information, also through text and data mining – taking into account economic added value and competitiveness of European research;

Amendment 6 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Given the importance of creative and cultural industries (CCI) in Europe and, given that employment in cultural industries cannot be easily outsourced, stresses the importance of the role of creative and cultural industries both in job creation and as an engine of growth for the European economy;

Amendment 60 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Suggests a review of the liability of service providers and intermediaries in order to clarify their legal status and liability with regards to copyrights, to guarantee that due diligence is exercised throughout the creative process and supply chain, and to ensure a fair remuneration for creators and rightholders within the European Union.

Amendment 61 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Considers it necessary, as part of an overall reform of copyright, also to introduce measures apt to increase the cross-border supply and availability of digital content, such as new rules on consumer protection, the development of e-commerce, the approximation of VAT rates and the expansion of digital networks;

Amendment 62 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)

4a. Acknowledges that Internet users are increasingly becoming content creators and vectors in opening the knowledge to the general public, thus requiring more legal flexibility when generating new content, remixing or sharing copyright protected content online;

Amendment 63 #

Hans-Olaf HENKEL, Anneleen VAN BOSSUYT, Branislav ŠKRIPEK

Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)

4b. Considers it necessary to provide a clear updated framework for cultural institutions that allow libraries to conduct e-lending and allows libraries, archives and museums to make available online protected works that are no longer in commercial circulation;

Amendment 64 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcomes the multi-territorial licensing of rights under Directive 2014/26/EU as an example and a way of overcoming the fragmented internal market; e~~Encourages the development of balanced and flexible solutions that help overcome the existing barriers to cross- border access and availability of products and services since territorial fragmentation may require commercial operators aspiring to offer content related services across the EU to secure multiple licenses for the same content in different geographical areas;

Amendment 65 #

Catherine STIHLER, Mary HONEYBALL

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the multi-territorial licensing of rights under Directive 2014/26/EU as an example and a way of overcoming the fragmented internal market; encourages the development of balanced and flexible solutions that help overcome the existing barriers to cross-border access and availability of products and services; stresses that territorial fragmentation and differences in limitations and exceptions often create additional legal costs and exacerbate legal uncertainty; highlights that in order to allow equal access to cultural diversity and to improve legal certainty within the internal market and across borders, the Commission should consider making certain optional exceptions and limitations referred to in Directive 2001/29/EC mandatory.

Amendment 66 #

Kaja KALLAS, Juan Carlos GIRAUTA VIDAL, Fredrick FEDERLEY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes the multi-territorial licensing of rights under Directive 2014/26/EU as an example and a way of overcoming the fragmented internal market; ~~encourages the development of balanced and flexible solutions that help overcome~~recalls however that users are often denied access to certain content services ; Believes that they should be able to access online content from another Member state and calls therefore on the Commission to address the existing barriers to cross- border access and availability of products and services;

Amendment 67 #

Adina-Ioana VĂLEAN, José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. WBelieves that citizens should be able to access and buy online content from another Member State, when it is not accessible from a provider in their own Member State; welcomes the multi- territorial licensing of rights under Directive 2014/26/EU as an example and a way of overcoming the fragmented internal market; encourages the development of balanced and flexible solutions that help overcome the existing barriers to cross- border access and availability of products and services;

Amendment 68 #

Esther DE LANGE

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 69 #

Flavio ZANONATO, Patrizia TOIA, Enrico GASBARRA

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 7 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Considers that EU copyright law needs to be reformed so as to overcome the current lack of uniformity among the Member States and thus develop the digital single market to the full;

Amendment 70 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. ~~Welcomes the multi-territorial licensing of rights under Directive 2014/26/EU~~Considers a single European Copyright Title as an example and a way of overcoming the fragmented internal market~~; encourages the development of balanced and flexible~~ and as a balanced solutions that would help overcome the existing barriers to cross-border access and availability of products and services;

Amendment 71 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

5. Welcomes ~~the multi-territorial licensing of rights under~~ Directive 2014/26/EU as an example and a way of overcoming the fragmented internal market; encourages the development of balanced ~~and~~, flexible and market-driven solutions that help overcome the existing barriers to cross- border access and availability of products and services;

Amendment 72 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 73 #

José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5

Amendment 74 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Notes that, subject to exceptions and limitations, the rights of the creators should be identical in the analogue and digital world; acknowledges that the list of exceptions and limitations requires further consideration so that it is appropriate for the digital era, thus contributing to economic growth, the full development of the Digital Single Market and competitiveness;

Amendment 75 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Takes note of the importance of territorial licenses in the EU, particularly with regards to audiovisual and film production which is primarily based on broadcasters pre-purchase or pre- financing systems;

Amendment 76 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. Recalls that Member States have a positive obligation to provide for a robust and flexible system of copyright exceptions and limitations in order to honour their human rights obligations;

Amendment 77 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Calls for a flexible interpretation of exceptions and limitations to exclusive rights, allowing to apply exceptions and limitations to uses that are similar to the ones in the original legal provisions of the directive 2001/29/CE, thereby ensuring that exceptions and limitations can be adapted to new forms of usage emerging due to technological change; such flexibility would be subject to the three- step-test, which grants limitations and exceptions in certain special cases that do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author or rightholder;

Amendment 78 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)

5b. Stresses that digital levies should be made more transparent and optimised to safeguard rightholder and consumer rights and by taking into account 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;

Amendment 79 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)

5c. Calls for a mandatory exception for research and education purposes, which should cover any kind of educational and research activities, including distance education; This should cover not only educational establishments and institutions but also non-governmental organisations recognised by national authorities or legislation or within the purview of an educational or research programme, as well as digital education;

Amendment 8 #

Fredrick FEDERLEY

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Welcomes the great interest shown as well as the contributions made by EU citizens in the European Commission Public Consultation round on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules;

Amendment 80 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 d (new)

5d. Calls for the adoption of a mandatory exception allowing public and research libraries to lend books to the public in digital formats for personal use, irrespective of the place of access;

Amendment 81 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 e (new)

5e. Stresses the need to enable automated analytical techniques for text and data ('text and data mining'), for all purposes, provided that the permission to read the work has been acquired, as a mandatory exception;

Amendment 82 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 f (new)

5f. Considers that the practice to restrict access to online content based on the location of the users, that had previously paid for the service to access that content, is harmful to the functioning of the networks and hinders the development of the single digital market;

Amendment 83 #

Theresa GRIFFIN, Catherine STIHLER, Jude KIRTON-DARLING

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. ~~Stresses that protection of copyright and related rights must respect~~Points out that the rapid rate of technological development in the digital market calls for a technologically neutral~~ity~~ legislative framework for copyrights;

Amendment 84 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that protection of copyright and related rights must respect technological neutrality; But also notes that the digital environment is not the same as the analogue world and stresses the need to closely examine whether additional or alternative forms of copyright protection are needed to address this;

Amendment 85 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that protection of copyright and related rights must respect technological neutrality while providing for a high level of protection of intellectual property to foster investment in creativity and innovation and creative developments, and to safeguard employment and encourage job creation;

Amendment 86 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that protection of copyright and related rights must respect technological neutrality; furthermore stresses that all rights and limitations in the digital environment should be equal to those granted in the analogue world;

Amendment 87 #

Sampo TERHO

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that protection of copyright and related rights must respect technological neutrality; and be respected both online and offline

Amendment 88 #

Juan Carlos GIRAUTA VIDAL, Kaja KALLAS, Fredrick FEDERLEY, José BLANCO LÓPEZ, Pavel TELIČKA, Morten PETERSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Stresses that protection of copyright and related rights must respect technological neutrality and be respected both online and offline;

Amendment 89 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Highlights the need to promote greater interoperability in particular for software and terminal, as lack of interoperability hampers innovation, reduces competition and harms consumer; believes that lack of interoperability leads to market dominance of one particular product or service, which in turn stifles competition and limits consumer choice in the EU;

Amendment 9 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. Reminds that notable contribution to the economic growth, innovation, and job creation in the EU is also generated by institutions relying on exceptions and limitations to copyright;

Amendment 90 #

Theresa GRIFFIN, Catherine STIHLER, Jude KIRTON-DARLING

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Recommends that the EU legislator should, while protecting personal information, further lower the barriers for re-use of public sector information by exempting official works, which are produced by government employees as part of their official duty within the political, legal and administrative process, from copyright protection;

Amendment 91 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Recalls that copyright protection is only as effective as the enforcement measures which protect it. Therefore, in order to ensure that the CCI sector in Europe can flourish and to protect innovation, copyright protection must be robust;

Amendment 92 #

Adina-Ioana VĂLEAN, José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. Recognises the necessity and benefits of ensuring portability of online services of legally acquired and legally made available content, within the European Union;

Amendment 93 #

Juan Carlos GIRAUTA VIDAL, Fredrick FEDERLEY, Morten PETERSEN

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Notes that the current highly fragmented system of national private copy levies constitutes a deeply unfair and outdated system for compensating rightholders for what amounts to an ordinary and perfectly harmless use by consumers of legally acquired content and that there are no objective and fair methods to redistribute the so-called compensation; therefore, calls on the Commission to phase out private copy levies to fully realise the Digital Single Market;

Amendment 94 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Acknowledges that the wide roll-out of internet coverage has given rise to the development of new forms of use of works and calls for adequate return solutions for the rightholders in the digital environment, while also ensuring citizens' access to cultural goods and knowledge;

Amendment 95 #

Adina-Ioana VĂLEAN, José BLANCO LÓPEZ

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)

6b. Stresses that private entities, e.g. Internet Service Providers and platform owners, should not be obliged to participate in extra-judiciary copyright enforcing;

Amendment 96 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)

6c. Calls on the Commission to assess the available solutions for text and data mining for non-commercial scientific research purposes, taking into account options such as the licensing model, already developed in some Member States;

Amendment 97 #

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)

6d. With full respect to the principle of subsidiarity, calls on the Commission to explore whether measures to ensure the fair compensation of rightholders in respect of reproductions made by natural persons for private use, such as the private copying levies, are up-to-date and efficient solutions;

Amendment 98 #