European Parliament
2014-20192016/0280(COD)
Changes to Articles 3 related to Text and Data Mining (AM 1-2-15-16-17)
Europe can only develop a successful Artificial Intelligence strategy if a wide variety oforganisations, including start-ups and SME’s, are able to carry out text and data mining. The
JURI proposal would limit this possibility only to a narrow category of organisations. The
wording here of this article is inspired by the IMCO text and suggestions from the European
Parliament’s Research Service.
New article 5a on Freedom of Panorama (AM 18)
Freedom of panorama gives people the right to take photos of landmarks (for instance theEiffel Tower) and post them online. In countries where that freedom doesn’t exist,
photographers must first get permission from the copyright holder or risk being fined.
Roughly half of the EU Member States already have a freedom of panorama exception.
Freedom of Panorama will also be crucial to enable the deployment of self-driving cars,
because autonomous vehicles need to scan, save and share information about theirsurroundings. The wording of the exception is taken from the adopted IMCO-opinion.
New article 5b on user generated content (AM 19)
Bluntly stated: this amendment is needed to "save the meme". Digital use of protected content
would be possible for the purposes of pastiche, parody, criticism, or entertainment. It requiresthat content be legally available, and that the user provide an indication of the source. The
wording of this new exception is taken from a joint JURI compromise amendment of JM
Cavada (ALDE) and Julia Reda (Greens) which accidentally did not make it into the text of
the JURI-report.
Article 11: Protection of press publications concerning digital uses (AM 3-4-5-6-20-2122-23)
The JURI text proposed a new neighbouring right for press publishers, which means - to put it
bluntly - that newspapers or news agencies would have to be paid when Google links to theirstories. This right does not financially benefit journalists, nor does it guarantee investments inquality journalism. It is already illegal to copy news articles in their entirety if you don’t own
the copyright, the JURI proposal did no not add anything new to this existing situation.
The option that we propose would strengthen the enforcement position of press publishers,
giving them greater bargaining power. Press publications contain mostly text but also
increasingly photographs and videos. Due to the large number of authors and rightholders
involved in the creation of a press publication, licensing and enforcement of the rights in press

EN

United in diversityENpublications are often complex and inefficient in the digital environment. Publishers may
notably face difficulties when proving that they have been transferred or licensed the rights insuch works and other subject-matter for the purposes of concluding licences or enforcing therights in respect of their press publications. To facilitate the licensing and enforcement of therights acquired vis-à-vis third parties, it is necessary to provide at Union level a presumption
to allow the publisher to be regarded as the person entitled to conclude licences on andenforce the rights of reproduction and making available to the public concerning the digitaluse of the publication. The amendments on article 11 are based on former EPP rapporteur
Comodini Cacchia’s idea in JURI, before she was replaced by Mr. Voss.
One extra feature that was not a part of Ms. Comodini’s proposal was the idea that Member
States would need to ensure that information society providers, such as Google, would need torespect the wish of a publisher to limit access to its content as expressed in a robots.txt file,which is a standard used by websites to communicate with web robots that crawl the internet
for information. By doing this publishers would get more control over the online use of theirworks. They would be able to manage what parts of the website the robots index, for instance
how much of an article would show up in the snippet that appears in Google News. This
option would avoid the abuse of their content, without the need to create a separate right which has been rejected as a bad idea by 100s of copyright academics.
Article 13: Use of protected content by online content sharing service providers (AM 78-9-10-11-12-13-14-24-25-26)
The goal of the copyright reform is to ensure that artists get better remunerated for the online
use of their music (the so-called “value gap” argument). We are supportive of this goal, but
did not endorse a) the broad scope of this article - as defined by the Commission proposal or
the JURI text, b) the negative impact that it would have on SME’s, c) the disproportionate
impact it would have on fundamental rights (the “upload filter”), d) the inconsistency with thelanguage of the e-commerce directive (as reflected in the IMCO-opinion). We are supportiveof the IMCO-text, and would vote in favour of that text on a voting list. In case there is no
majority for that text we propose the following proportionate solution, which would limit thescope of the proposal to active platforms which give access to audio-visual content only (inlegalese: phonograms, broadcasts, films or musical works). This type of platforms become ade facto distributor of audiovisual content in competition with other licensed-content
platforms such as Spotify: i.e YouTube would be covered here. Image storing services,
Wikipedia or software sharing platforms would not be covered for example. This option
clarifies when these platforms communicate to the public, and subsequently need to takeappropriate measures to ensure the functioning of licensing agreements. It rules out the use of
an upload filter.
This text is based on the IMCO recitals and the JURI text.

2

AMENDMENTS
Amendment 1 (IMCO 4)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment(8)
New technologies enable theautomated computational analysis of
information in digital form, such as text,
sounds, images or data, generally known astext and data mining. Those technologies
allow researchers to process large amounts
of information to gain new knowledge anddiscover new trends. Whilst text and data
mining technologies are prevalent acrossthe digital economy, there is widespreadacknowledgment that text and data mining
can in particular benefit the researchcommunity and in so doing encourage
innovation. However, in the Union,
research organisations such asuniversities and research institutes areconfronted with legal uncertainty as to theextent to which they can perform text anddata mining of content. In certain
instances, text and data mining may
involve acts protected by copyright and/or
by the sui generis database right, notably
the reproduction of works or other subjectmatter and/or the extraction of contentsfrom a database. Where there is no
exception or limitation which applies, anauthorisation to undertake such acts would
be required from rightholders. Text anddata mining may also be carried out inrelation to mere facts or data which are notprotected by copyright and in such
instances no authorisation would be
required.

(8)
New technologies enable theautomated computational analysis of
information in digital form, such as text,
sounds, images or any other type of data,
generally known as text and data mining.
Those technologies allow the processing oflarge amounts of digitally stored
information to gain new knowledge anddiscover new trends. Whilst text and data
mining technologies are prevalent acrossthe digital economy, there is widespreadacknowledgment that text and data mining
can in particular benefit the researchcommunity and in so doing encourage
innovation. However, in the Union,
individuals, public and private entities
who have legal access to content are
confronted with legal uncertainty as to theextent to which they can perform text anddata mining of content. In certain
instances, text and data mining may
involve acts protected by copyright and/or
by the sui generis database right, notably
the reproduction of works or other subjectmatter and/or the extraction of contentsfrom a database. Where there is no
exception or limitation which applies, anauthorisation to undertake such acts would
be required from rightholders. No
authorisation would be required in cases
where text or data mining is carried out inrelation to mere facts or data which are notprotected by copyright. The right to read isin effect the same as the right to mine.

3

Amendment 2 (IMCO 5)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 9
Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment(9)
Union law already provides certain
exceptions and limitations covering uses
for scientific research purposes which may
apply to acts of text and data mining.
However, those exceptions and limitations
are optional and not fully adapted to theuse of technologies in scientific research.
Moreover, where researchers have lawfulaccess to content, for example throughsubscriptions to publications or open
access licences, the terms of the licences
may exclude text and data mining. As
research is increasingly carried out with theassistance of digital technology, there is arisk that the Union's competitive position
as a research area will suffer unless steps
are taken to address the legal uncertainty
for text and data mining.

(9)
Union law already provides certain
exceptions and limitations covering uses
for scientific research purposes which may
apply to acts of text and data mining.
However, those exceptions and limitations
are optional and not fully adapted to theuse of text and data mining technologies
which are relevant far beyond the area of
scientific research. Moreover, where accessto content has been lawfully obtained, forexample through subscriptions topublications or open access licences, theterms of the licences may exclude text anddata mining. As research is increasingly
carried out with the assistance of digitaltechnology, there is a risk that the Union's
competitive position as a research area andits action lines envisaged in the European
Open Science Agenda will suffer unlesssteps are taken to address the legal
uncertainty regarding text and data
mining for all potential users. It isnecessary that Union law acknowledge
that text and data mining is increasingly
used beyond formal researchorganisations and for purposes other thanscientific research which neverthelesscontribute to innovation, technology
transfer and the public interest.

Amendment 3 (Comodini Cachia Draft report AM 17)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 31
Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment(31) A free and pluralist press isessential to ensure quality journalism andcitizens' access to information. It provides
a fundamental contribution to public debate
and the proper functioning of a democratic(31) An open internet and a free andpluralist press are essential to ensure
quality journalism and citizens' access to
information. They provide a fundamental
contribution to public debate and the4society. In the transition from print todigital, publishers of press publications arefacing problems in licensing the online useof their publications and recouping theirinvestments. In the absence of recognitionof publishers of press publications asrightholders, licensing and enforcement in
the digital environment is often complex
and inefficient.

proper functioning of a democratic society.
In the transition from print to digital,
publishers of press publications are facing
problems in establishing their standing forthe purpose of asserting the rights theyhold by law or by means of assignment,
licence or any other contractual
arrangement. The sustainability of thepress publishing industry should therefore
be ensured. In the absence of recognitionof publishers of press publications as
benefitting from a presumption that they
can assert the rights in the different
contributions to their press publications,licensing and enforcement in the digital
environment is often complex andinefficient

Amendment 4 (Comodini Cachia Draft report AM 18)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 32
Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment(32) The organisational and financial
contribution of publishers in producing
press publications needs to be recognised
and further encouraged to ensure thesustainability of the publishing industry. It
is therefore necessary to provide at Unionlevel a harmonised legal protection forpress publications in respect of digital uses.
Such protection should be effectively
guaranteed through the introduction, inUnion law, of rights related to copyrightfor the reproduction and making available
to the public of press publications in
respect of digital uses.

(32) The organisational and financial
contribution of publishers in producing
press publications needs to be recognised
and further encouraged to ensure thesustainability of the publishing industry. It
is therefore necessary to provide at Unionlevel a harmonised legal protection forpress publications in respect of digital uses.
Such protection should be effectively
guaranteed through the introduction, inUnion law, of a presumption thatpublishers of press publications areentitled to defend in their own namethe rights of authors and seek
remedies in respect of works
published in their press publicationand in respect of digital uses.

5Amendment 5 (Comodini Cachia Draft report AM 19)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 33
Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment(33) For the purposes of this Directive, itis necessary to define the concept of press
publication in a way that embraces only
journalistic publications, published by aservice provider, periodically or regularly
updated in any media, for the purpose of
informing or entertaining. Suchpublications would include, for instance,
daily newspapers, weekly or monthly
magazines of general or special interest
and news websites. Periodical publications
which are published for scientific or
academic purposes, such as scientificjournals, should not be covered by theprotection granted to press publications
under this Directive. This protection does
not extend to acts of hyperlinking which
do not constitute communication to the
public.

(33) For the purposes of this Directive, itis necessary to define the concept of press
publication in a way that embraces only
journalistic publications, published by aservice provider, periodically or regularly
updated in any media, for the purpose of
informing or entertaining. Suchpublications would include, for instance,
daily newspapers, weekly or monthly
magazines of general or special interest
and news websites. Periodical publications
which are published for scientific or
academic purposes, such as scientificjournals, should not be covered by theprotection granted to press publications
under this Directive. This protection does
not extend to acts of a computationreferencing or indexing system such as
hyperlinking.
.

Amendment 6 (Comodini Cachia Draft report AM 20)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 34
Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment(34) The rights granted to the publishersof press publications under this Directive
should have the same scope as the rights ofreproduction and making available to the
public provided for in Directive
2001/29/EC, insofar as digital uses areconcerned. They should also be subject tothe same provisions on exceptions andlimitations as those applicable to the rights
provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC
including the exception on quotation for
purposes such as criticism or review laid
down in Article 5(3)(d) of that Directive.

Deleted6

Amendment 7 (IMCO 22-23)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment(37) Over the last years, thefunctioning of the online content
marketplace has gained in complexity.
Online services providing access tocopyright protected content uploaded bytheir users without the involvement ofright holders have flourished and havebecome main sources of access to content
online. This affects rightholders'possibilities to determine whether, andunder which conditions, their work andother subject-matter are used as well as
their possibilities to get an appropriate
remuneration for it.

(37) Evolution of digital technologies
has led to the emergence of new businessmodels and reinforced the role of theInternet as the main marketplace for the
distribution of copyright protected
content. Over the years, online services
enabling their users to upload works andmake them accessible to the public haveflourished and have become importantsources of access to content online,
allowing for diversity and ease of accessto content but also generating challenges
when copyright protected content is
uploaded without prior authorisationfrom rightholders.
(37a) Today more creative content isbeing consumed than ever before. That is
facilitated by online platforms andaggregation services. They are a means ofproviding wider access to cultural andcreative works and offer great
opportunities for cultural and creative
industries to develop new businessmodels. At the same time, artists andauthors have struggled to see comparable
increases in revenues from this increasein consumption.

7

Amendment 8 (based on IMCO 24)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

Where information society service
providers store and provide access to the
public to copyright protected works orother subject-matter uploaded by theirusers, thereby going beyond the mere
provision of physical facilities andperforming an act of communication to
the public, they are obliged to conclude
licensing agreements with rightholders,
unless they are eligible for the liability
exemption provided in Article 14 of
Directive 2000/31/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council.

Where information society service
providers offer users content storage
services and provide the public with accessto phonograms, broadcasts, films ormusical works and where such activity
constitutes an act of communication to
the public as interpreted by the Court ofJustice of the European Union thereby
playing an active role beyond the mere
hosting of uploaded works by its users,
they should be obliged to conclude
licensing agreements with rightholders as
regards copyright protected works orother subject-matter. However, micro andsmall-sized enterprises within themeaning of the Commission
Recommendation 2003/361/EC as well as
services acting in a non-commercial
capacity such as online encyclopaedia,
and providers of online services where thecontent is uploaded with the authorisationof all rightholders concerned, such as
educational or scientific repositories andsimilar services, shall not be considered
online content sharing service providers
within the meaning of this Directive.
Providers of cloud services for individual
use which do not provide direct access tothe public, open source softwaredevelopment platforms, software archives
and software repositories, and online
marketplaces, as defined in point (17) of
Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2016/1148,
shall not be considered online content
sharing service providers within themeaning of this Directive.

8

Amendment 9 (IMCO 25)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

In respect of Article 14, it is necessary toverify whether the service provider plays
an active role, including by optimising thepresentation of the uploaded works or
subject-matter or promoting them,irrespective of the nature of the means
used therefor.

deletedAmendment 10 (based on IMCO 26)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

In order to ensure the functioning of any
licensing agreement, information society
service providers storing and providing
access to the public to large amounts ofcopyright protected works or othersubject-matter uploaded by their users
should take appropriate and proportionate
measures to ensure protection of works orother subject-matter, such as
implementing effective technologies. Thisobligation should also apply when theinformation society service providers are
eligible for the liability exemption
provided in Article 14 of Directive
2000/31/EC.

In order to ensure the functioning of any
licensing agreement, information society
service providers playing an essential roleand thereby going beyond a mere
provision of physical or virtualinfrastructure for enabling or making acommunication to the public with the
purpose to make protected phonograms,
broadcasts, films or musical works
available to the users, should takeappropriate and proportionate measures toensure protection of works or othersubject-matter. Such measures should
respect the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the European Union and should
not lead to general monitoring of theinformation which they store.

9

Amendment 11 (IMCO 27)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38 a (new)Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment(38a) For the implementation of suchmeasures, the cooperation between
information society service providers andrightholders is essential. Rightholders
should accurately identify to informationsociety service providers the works orother subject-matter in respect of which
they claim to have the copyright.
Rightholders should retain responsibility
for claims made by third parties over theuse of works which they would haveidentified as being their own in theimplementation of any agreement reachedwith the information society service
provider.

Amendment 12 (IMCO 28)
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment(39) Collaboration between
information society service providers
storing and providing access to the public
to large amounts of copyright protected
works or other subject-matter uploaded bytheir users and rightholders is essential
for the functioning of technologies, suchas content recognition technologies. In
such cases, rightholders should provide
the necessary data to allow the services to
identify their content and the services
should be transparent towards
rightholders with regard to the deployedtechnologies, to allow the assessment of
their appropriateness. The services shouldin particular provide rightholders withinformation on the type of technologies
used, the way they are operated and theirdeleted10

success rate for the recognition ofrightholders' content. Those technologies
should also allow rightholders to get
information from the information society
service providers on the use of theircontent covered by an agreement.

Amendment 13 (IMCO 33)
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

2.
Except in the cases referred to in
Article 6, this Directive shall leave intact
and shall in no way affect existing rules
laid down in the Directives currently inforce in this area, in particular Directives
96/9/EC, 2001/29/EC, 2006/115/EC,
2009/24/EC, 2012/28/EU and 2014/26/EU.

2.
Except in the cases referred to in
Article 6, this Directive shall leave intact
and shall in no way affect existing rules
laid down in the Directives currently inforce in this area, in particular Directives
96/9/EC, 2000/31/EC, 2001/29/EC,
2006/115/EC, 2009/24/EC, 2012/28/EU
and 2014/26/EU.

Amendment 14 (based on JURI AM 61)
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – pragraph 1 – point 4b (new)Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment(4b) ‘online content sharing service
provider’ means a provider of an
information society service provided toconsumers, one of the main purposes ofwhich is to store and give access to the
public to broadcasts, phonograms, films
or musical works, or other audiovisualor music protected subject-matter
uploaded by its users, that intervenes togive access to a protected work to its
customers beyond a mere provision ofphysical or virtual infrastructure forenabling or making a communication to
the public.
Micro and small-sized enterprises within11the meaning of the Commission
Recommendation 2003/361/EC as well as
services acting in a non-commercial
purpose capacity such as online
encyclopaedia, and providers of online
services where the content is uploadedwith the authorisation of all rightholders
concerned, such as educational orscientific repositories, should not be
considered online content sharing
service providers within the meaning of
this Directive. Providers of cloudservices for individual use which do notprovide direct access to the public, open
source software development platforms,
software archives and software
repositories, and online marketplaces ,as defined in point (17) of Article 4 of
Directive (EU) 2016/1148, should not be
considered online content sharing
service providers within the meaning of
this Directive;

Amendment 15
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.
Member States shall provide for an
exception to the rights provided for in
Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles
5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC and
Article 11(1) of this Directive forreproductions and extractions made byresearch organisations in order to carryout text and data mining of works orother subject-matter to which they havelawful access for the purposes of scientificresearch.

1.
Member States shall provide
for an exception to the rights
provided for in Article 2 ofDirective 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a)and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC and
Article 11(1) of this Directive forreproductions and extractions ofworks or other subject matter thatare made in order to carry out
text and data mining and to which
the beneficiary has lawful access

12

Amendment 16
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1a
Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment
1a. Reproductions andextractions made for text anddata mining purposes shall be
stored in a secure manner, forexample by trusted bodies
appointed for this purpose.

Amendment 17
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Rightholders shall be allowed to apply
measures to ensure the security andintegrity of the networks and databases
where the works or other subject-matter are
hosted. Such measures shall not go beyond
what is necessary to achieve that objective.

3. Any technical protection measuresthat frustrate the exception provided forin paragraph 1 shall be unenforceable.

Amendment 18 (IMCO 54)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 a (new)Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment
Article 5 a
Freedom of panorama
Member States shall provide for an
exception or limitation to the rights
provided for in Articles 2 and 3 ofDirective 2001/29/EC and point (a) of
Article 5 and Article 7(1) of Directive13

96/9/EC, permitting the reproduction anduse of works, such as works ofarchitecture or sculpture, made to belocated permanently in public places.
Any contractual provision contrary to the
exception provided for in this Article shallbe unenforceable.
Amendment 19 (ALDE/Greens JURI Compromise)
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 b (new)Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment
Article 5b
User-generated content exception(1) Member States shall provide for an
exception to the rights provided for in
Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC,
point (a) of Article 5 and Article 7(1) of
Directive 96/9/EC, point (a) of Article
4(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article
11 of this Directive in order to allow for
the use of extracts from pre-existing
works and other subject-matter incontent uploaded or made available byusers, other than in the course of theirwork, for purposes such as criticism,
review, illustration, caricature, parodyor pastiche, provided that the extracts:(a) relate to works or other subjectmatter that have been lawfully madeavailable to the public;(b) are accompanied by the indication of
the source, including the author’s name,unless this turns out to be impossible;
and(c) are used in accordance with fair
practice and in a manner that does notextend beyond the specific purpose forwhich they are being used.
(2) Any contractual provision contrary
to the exception provided for in this14

Article shall be unenforceable.
(3) Online content sharing services
providers shall not be able invoke for
their benefit the exception provided forin paragraph 1 of this Article in order tolimit their liability or the extent of their
obligations under the agreements
concluded with rightholders inapplication of Article 13 of this Directive
Amendment 20
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1. Member States shall provide
publishers of press publications with therights provided for in Article 2 andArticle 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for
the digital use of their press
publications.

1. Member States shall provide that, inthe absence of proof to the contrary,
the publisher of a press publication shallbe regarded as the party entitled toconclude licences and to seek
application of the measures,procedures and remedies referred toin Directive 2004/48/EC and in Article
8 of Directive 2001/29/EC in respect of
the rights provided for in Article 2 and3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC,
concerning the digital use of the works
and other subject-matter incorporated insuch a press publication, provided thatthe name of the publisher appears on the
publication. Member States shall ensurethat technical rules that are
implemented by a rightsholder throughuniversally used and acknowledged
robot exclusion protocols, which define
parameters for crawling, indexing anddisplaying of works and other subjectmatter by information service providers,
are legally binding for such service
providers.

.

15Amendment 21
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment
2. The presumption provided for inparagraph 1 shall not affect any rights
provided for in Union law to authors andother rightholders, in respect of the works
and other subject matter incorporated in apress publication. Press publishers shall not
invoke the presumption against the authorsand other rightholders and, in particular,
shall not deprive them of their right toexploit their works and other subjectmatter independently from the press
publication in which such works and othersubject-matter are incorporated

Amendment 22 (Comodini Cachia AM 54)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

3. Articles 5 to 8 of Directive
2001/29/EC and Directive 2012/28/EU
shall apply mutatis mutandis in respectof the rights referred to in paragraph
1.

DeletedAmendment 23 (Comodini Cachia AM 55)
Proposal for a directive
Article 11 – paragraph 4
Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

4. The rights referred to in paragraph1 shall expire 20 years after the
publication of the press publication.

Deleted16

This term shall be calculated from thefirst day of January of the year
following the date of publication.

Amendment 24 (based on JURI 77)
Proposal for a directive
Title IV – Chapter 2 – title
Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

13. Certain uses of protected content by
online services

13.Use of protected content by online
content sharing service providers-1 Without prejudice of Art. 3 (1) and (2)of the Directive 2001/29/EC online
content sharing service providers perform
an act of communication to the public
when they store phonograms, broadcasts,
films or musical works uploaded by theirusers and play an active role, including by
optimising the presentation of suchuploaded works or promoting them,allowing them to have knowledge of thecontent or control of the user uploads.
Licensing agreements concluded by the
online content sharing service providers
with rightholders shall cover the liability forworks uploaded by the users of theirservices, provided that those users do notact for commercial purposes or are not therightholder or his representative

Amendment 25 (based on JURI 77)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1.
Information society service
providers that store and provide to the
public access to large amounts of works orother subject-matter uploaded by theirusers shall, in cooperation withrightholders, take measures to ensure thefunctioning of agreements concluded with

1. Online content sharing service
providers referred to in Article 2 shall, in
cooperation with rightholders, takeappropriate and proportionate measures
to ensure the functioning of licensing
agreements where concluded withrightholders for the use of their works or
17rightholders for the use of their works orother subject-matter or to prevent theavailability on their services of works orother subject-matter identified byrightholders through the cooperation withthe service providers. Those measures,such as the use of effective content
recognition technologies, shall beappropriate and proportionate. The
service providers shall provide
rightholders with adequate informationon the functioning and the deployment of
the measures, as well as, when relevant,adequate reporting on the recognition anduse of the works and other subject-matter.

other subject-matter on those services.

1a.
Member States shall ensure thatthe online content sharing service
providers referred to in paragraph -1 shallapply the measures referred to inparagraph 1 based on the relevant
information provided by rightholders.
The online content sharing service
providers shall be transparent towards theconcerned rightholders and its users andshall inform both rightsholders and its
users of the measures employed, theirimplementation, as well as when relevant,shall periodically report on the use of theworks and other subject-matter.
1b.
Members States shall ensure thatthe implementation of such measures
shall ensure a fair balance is struck
between the various fundamental rights
protected by the Community legal orderand shall not lead to general monitoringby online content sharing service
providers of the information which theytransmit or store.

2.
Member States shall ensure that theservice providers referred to in paragraph 1
put in place complaints and redress
mechanisms that are available to users incase of disputes over the application of the

2. To prevent misuses or limitations in theexercise of exceptions and limitations tocopyright, Member States shall ensure thatthe service providers referred to inparagraph 1 put in place effective and18

measures referred to in paragraph 1.

expeditious complaints and redress
mechanisms that are available to users incase of disputes over the application of themeasures referred to in paragraph 1. Anycomplaint filed under such mechanisms
shall be processed without undue
delayand be subject to human review by atrusted third party designated by theMember States. Liability shall be incurred
for any unjustified use of the measuresreferred to in paragraph 1, and dismissalof complaints should be motivated.
Moreover, in accordance with
Regulation (UE) 2016/679 and
Directive 2002/58/EC, the measuresreferred to in paragraph 1 shall not
require the identification of individual
users and the processing of theirpersonal data.
Member States shall also ensure that,in the context of the application of themeasures referred to in paragraph 1,
users have access to a court or otherrelevant judicial authority to assert theuse of an exception or limitation tocopyright.

3.
Member States shall facilitate,
where appropriate, the cooperation
between the information society service
providers and rightholders throughstakeholder dialogues to define bestpractices, such as appropriate andproportionate content recognition
technologies, taking into account, among
others, the nature of the services, theavailability of the technologies and theireffectiveness in light of technologicaldevelopments.

3. Member States shall facilitate, whereappropriate, the cooperation between the
online content sharing service
providers, users and rightholders
through stakeholder dialogues to define
best practices for the implementation of
the measures referred to in paragraph 1
in a manner that is proportionate andefficient, taking into account, among
others, the nature of the services, theavailability of technologies and theireffectiveness in light of technologicaldevelopments.

19

Amendment 26 (JURI 78)
Proposal for a directive
Article 13 a (new)Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment
Article 13a
Member States shall provide that
disputes between successors in title andinformation society services regarding
the application of Article 13(1) may besubject to an alternative dispute
resolution system.
Member States shall establish or
designate an impartial body with thenecessary expertise, with the aim ofhelping the parties to settle theirdisputes under this system.
The Member States shall inform theCommission of the establishment of thisbody no later than (date mentioned in
Article 21(1)).

20