COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Guidance on Article 17 of Directive 2019/790 on Copyright in the Digital Single Market
Date: 2021-06-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: Internet, audiovisual industry, copyright, cross-frontier data flow, digital content, digital distribution, digital single market, reprography, trans-European network, transmission network

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 4.6.2021  COM(2021) 288 final  COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Guidance on Article 17 of Directive 2019/790 on Copyright in the Digital Single Market      
 
 
I. 

INTRODUCTION 

Article  17(10)  of  the  Directive  on  Copyright  in  the  Digital  Single  Market  (Directive 
2019/790/EC,  the  ‘DSM  Directive’1)  requires  the  Commission  to  issue  guidance  on  the 
application  of  Article  17,  in  particular  regarding  the  cooperation  between  online  content-
sharing  service  providers  and  rightholders.  The  guidance  takes  into  account  the  results  of 
stakeholders dialogues organised in cooperation with Member States to discuss best practices 
for cooperation between online content-sharing service providers and rightholders. 

Following  an  open  call  for  interest,  the  Commission  organised  six  stakeholder  dialogue 
meetings  between  October  2019  and  February  2020.  A  targeted  written  consultation  was 
carried out from 27 July to 10 September 2020 to finalise the stakeholder dialogue.  

The  aim  of  this  guidance  is  to  support  a  correct  and  coherent  transposition  of  Article  17 
across  the  Member  States,  paying  particular  attention  to  the  need  to  balance  fundamental 
rights and the use of exceptions and limitations, as required by Article 17(10). The guidance 
could  also  be  of  assistance  to  market  players  when  complying  with  national  legislations 
implementing Article 17.  

Whilst  the  present  document  is  not  legally  binding,  it  has  been  formally  adopted  as  a 
Communication by the Commission and fulfils the mandate given to the Commission by the 
Union legislature under Article 17(10). The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European 
Union  in  the  case  C-401/192  will  have  implications  for  the  implementation  by  the  Member 
States of Article 17 and for the guidance. The guidance may need to be reviewed following 
that judgment. 

II. 

ARTICLE  17  -  A  SPECIFIC  COPYRIGHT  AUTHORISATION  AND 
LIABILITY REGIME  

Article 17 provides for a specific regime of authorisation and liability for copyright and rights 
related  to  copyright  (“copyright”)  which  applies  to  certain  information  society  service 
providers  defined  as  online  content-sharing  service  providers  under  Article  2(6)  of  the 
Directive. Under the previously applicable legal framework3, the copyright liability of these 
service providers for the acts of their users was unclear. Article 17 provides legal certainty as 
to  whether  online  content-sharing  service  providers  engage  in  copyright  relevant  acts  in 
relation to the acts of their users, as well as legal certainty for users.  

Article 17 aims to foster the development of the licensing market between rightholders and 
online  content-sharing  service  providers.  To  that  end,  Article  17  creates  a  legal  basis  for 
rightholders  to  authorise  the  use  of  their  works  when  uploaded  by  users  of  online  content-

1 The DSM Directive is addressed to the Member States who are required to transpose it by 7 June 2021. 
2 Poland vs Council and Parliament. 
3 Article 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC and Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
sharing service providers, thereby increasing their licensing and remuneration possibilities. It 
also  introduces  safeguards  for  users  who  upload  their  content  that  may  include  third  party 
content, which is protected by copyright and rights related to copyright. 

Article  17(1)  and  (2)  provide  that  online  content-sharing  service  providers  carry  out  a 
copyright relevant act of ‘communication to the public’ when they give access to copyright-
protected content uploaded by their users, and therefore need to obtain an authorisation from 
the relevant rightholders. In this case, Article 17(3) provides that, when the service providers 
carry  out  an  act  of  communication  to  the  public  under  these  provisions,  the  limitation  of 
liability established in Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC4 does not apply.  

Article 17 is a lex specialis to Article 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC and Article 14 of Directive 
2000/31/EC. It does not introduce a new right in the Union’s copyright law. Rather, it fully 
and  specifically  regulates  the  act  of  ‘communication  to  the  public’  in  the  limited 
circumstances  covered  by  this  provision  ‘for  the  purposes  of  this  Directive’.  This  is 
confirmed by Recitals 64 and 65. Recital 64 states that Article 17 does not affect the concept 
of communication to the public or of making content available to the public elsewhere under 
Union  law5,  nor  does  it  affect  the  possible  application  of  Article  3(1)  and  (2)  of  Directive 
2001/29/EC  to  other  service  providers  using  copyright-protected  content.  Recital  65  states 
that whilst  Article 14 of Directive 2000/31  does not  apply to  the liability  under Article 17, 
this should not affect its application to such service providers for purposes falling outside the 
scope  of  the  Directive.  Due  to  the  lex  specialis  nature  of  Article  17,  the  Member  States 
should  specifically  implement  this  provision  rather  than  relying  simply  on  their  national 
implementation of Article 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC.  

Where  no  authorisation  is  granted  under  Article  17(1)  and  (2),  Article  17(4)  provides  for  a 
specific  regime  that  allows  the  online  content-sharing  service  providers  to  avoid  liability, 
under specific conditions, for the act of communication to the public within the meaning of 
Article 17(1). As Recital 66 notes, this specific regime takes into account the fact that online 
content-sharing service providers give access to content, which is not uploaded by them but 
by their users.  

These  specific  conditions  must  be  explicitly  introduced  in  national  law.  Article  17(5) 
provides that the assessment of whether online content-sharing service providers comply with 
the  conditions  set  out  in  Article  17(4)  needs  to  be  done  in  light  of  the  principle  of 
proportionality.  Article  17(6)  also  provides  for  a  different  liability  regime  for  new  service 
providers, under certain conditions. 

Article  17(7),  (8)  and  (9)  lay  down  overarching  rules,  which  also  need  to  be  explicitly 
transposed in national laws. Article 17(7), (8) and (9) are formulated as obligations of result. 

4 Under the Commission proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Single 
Market For Digital Services (Digital Services Act) and amending Directive 2000/31/EC, COM (2020) 825 final, 
Article  14  of  Directive  2000/31/EC  shall  be  replaced  by  Article  5  of  that  Regulation.  According  to  Article 
1(5)()c) and recital 11 of the DSA proposal, the Regulation applies without prejudice to Union law on copyright 
and related rights, which establish specific rules and procedures that should remain unaffected. 
5 See by analogy C-114/15, paragraph 29. 

2 

 
 
                                                           
The Member States should therefore ensure in their implementing laws that these obligations 
prevail in case of conflict with the provisions set out elsewhere in Article 17 and in particular 
in Article 17(4).  

Article  17(7)  stipulates  that,  when  online  content-sharing  service  providers  cooperate  with 
rightholders  under  Article  17(4)  to  avoid  unauthorised  content,  such  cooperation  shall  not 
result in the unavailability of works and other subject matter uploaded by users, which do not 
infringe on copyright and related rights.  

Article  17(8)  provides  that  the  application  of  Article  17  shall  not  lead  to  any  general 
monitoring obligation. Article 17(9) provides, among other things, that the Directive shall in 
no  way  affect  legitimate  uses,  such  as  uses  under  exceptions  or  limitations  provided  for  in 
Union law, and shall not lead to any identification of individual users nor to the processing of 
personal  data,  except  in  accordance  with  Directive  2002/58/EC  and  Regulation  (EU) 
2016/679.  Recital  85  further  specifies  that  any  processing  of  personal  data  should  respect 
fundamental rights, including the right to respect for private and family life and the right to 
protection  of  personal  data  and  must  be  in  compliance  with  Directive  2002/58/EC  and 
Regulation  (EU)  2016/679.  When  implementing  Article  17,  the  Member  States  need  to 
respect the Union’s data protection acquis, in particular with regard to possible technological 
measures taken by service providers in cooperation with rightholders under Article 17(4) and 
in  the  context  of  complaints  and  redress  mechanism  for  users  under  Article  17(9).  The 
Member States should ensure the correct application of these rules when transposing Article 
17. 

III.  THE SERVICE PROVIDERS COVERED BY ARTICLE 17 : ARTICLE 2(6)  

Article 17 applies to online content-sharing service providers as defined in Article 2(6) (first 
paragraph)  of  the  Directive.  An  online  content-sharing  service  provider  is  defined  as  an 
information society service provider of which the main or one of the main purposes is to store 
and give the public access to a large amount of copyright-protected works or other protected 
subject  matter  uploaded  by  its  users,  which  it  organises  and  promotes  for  profit-making 
purposes.  

Article  2(6)  (second  paragraph)  lays  down  a  non-exhaustive  list  of  providers  of  services 
and/or  services  that  are  not  online  content-sharing  service  providers  within  the  meaning  of 
the  Directive  and  hence  are  excluded  from  the  application  of  Article  17.  These  excluded 
services are: ‘not-for-profit online encyclopaedias’, ‘not-for-profit educational and scientific 
repositories’,  ‘open  source  software-developing  and-sharing  platforms’,  ‘providers  of 
electronic  communications  services,  as  defined  in  Directive  (EU)  2018/1972’,  ‘online 
marketplaces’,  ‘business-to-business  cloud  services’  and  ‘cloud  services  that  allow  users  to 
upload content for their own use’.  

In  order  to  provide  legal  certainty,  the  Member  States  should  explicitly  set  out  in  their 
implementing laws the definition of ‘online content-sharing service provider’ in Article 2(6) 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
(first  paragraph)  in  its  entirety  and  explicitly  exclude  the  service  providers  listed  in  Article 
2(6)  second  paragraph,  while  specifying,  in    light  of  Recital  62,  that  this  list  of  excluded 
service  providers  is  not  exhaustive  .  There  is  no  scope  for  the  Member  States  either  to  go 
beyond i.e. widen the scope of application of the definition, or to reduce its scope. 

Moreover, as an aid to interpretation, the Member States are advised to transpose and apply 
the different elements of the definition in the light of Recitals 61, 62 and 63, which provide 
important clarifications on the types of service providers included or excluded. As explained 
in Recital 62, Article 17 is aimed at online service providers that play an important role on 
the online content market by competing with other online content service providers, such as 
online audio and video streaming service providers, for the same audiences. Recital 62 also 
states that service providers whose main purpose is to engage in or to facilitate piracy should 
not benefit from the liability exception mechanism provided for in Article 176.  

The  Member  States  should  also  bear  in  mind  that  Recital  63  states  that  a  case-by-case 
assessment  is  required  in  order  to  determine  which  online  service  providers  fall  within  the 
scope of Article 17. 

In  order  to  fall  within  the  definition  of  an  online  content-sharing  service  provider  and  the 
scope  of  the  regime  in  Article  17,  a  service  provider  must  cumulatively  meet  each 
requirement of the definition:  

-  be  an  information  society  service,  as  defined  in  Article  1(1)(b)  of  Directive 

(EU) 2015/15357; 

- 

 have as its main or one of its main purposes: 

o 

to store and give the public access to  

o  a large amount of copyright-protected works or other protected subject matter  

o  uploaded by its users, 

o  which it organises and promotes for profit-making purposes. 

The ‘main purpose’ or ‘one of the main purposes’ of the information society service should 
be  understood  to  be  the  (or  one  of  the)  chief  or  predominant  function,  role  of  the  service 
provider8.  The  assessment  of  the  ‘main  or  one  of  the  main  purposes’  should  be  technology 
and business model neutral in order to be future proof.  

The  service  provider  needs  to  ‘store  and  give  the  public  access’  to  the  content  stored.  The 
concept of ‘store’ refers to content storage that is more than temporary, and ‘give the public 
access’ relates to access to the content stored, which is given to the public.  

6 Several stakeholders highlighted that these elements in recital 62 as important for Member States to transpose 
in their national laws 
7 An information society service is defined as any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by 
electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services 
8 For example, as explained in recital 63, online marketplaces may give access to a large amount of copyright 
protected works but this is not their main activity, which is online retail. 

4 

 
 
                                                           
As  regards  ‘large  amount’,  the  directive  does  not  provide  for  any  quantification  of  this 
concept. The Member States should refrain from quantifying ‘large amount’ in their national 
law  in  order  to  avoid  legal  fragmentation  through  a  potentially  different  scope  of  service 
providers covered in different Member States. As explained in recital 63, whether a service 
provider stores and gives access to the public to a large amount of copyright-protected works 
or other protected subject matter uploaded by its users needs be assessed on a case by case 
basis,  taking  into  account  a  combination  of  elements,  such  as  the  audience  of  the  service 
provider  and  the  number  of  files  uploaded  by  users  overall.  It  would  therefore  not  be 
sufficient  to  consider  only  one  of  the  elements  mentioned  to  bring  an  information  society 
service within the scope of Article 17.  

Finally,  to  fall  under  the  definition,  the  information  society  service  needs  to  ‘organise  and 
promote the content uploaded by users for profit-making purposes’. Recital 63 indicates that 
the  profit  from  the  content  uploaded  may  be  obtained  either  directly  or  indirectly  from  its 
organisation and promotion in order to attract a larger audience, including by categorising it 
and  using  targeted  promotion  within  it.  The  profit-making  purpose  should  not  be  taken  for 
granted by the fact that the service is an economic operator as such or based on its legal form. 
The  profit  making  purpose  has  to  be  linked  to  the  profits  made  from  the  organisation  and 
promotion of the content uploaded by the users in a manner to attract a wider audience, for 
example, but not exclusively, by placing advertisement next to the content uploaded by their 
users. The simple fact of receiving a fee from the users to cover the operating costs of hosting 
their content9 or soliciting donations from the public, should not be considered as such as an 
indication of profit-making purpose10. As explained in  Recital  62, service  providers,  whose 
main purpose is not to enable users to upload and share a large amount of copyright-protected 
content  with  the  purpose  of  obtaining  profit  from  that  activity,  are  not  covered  by  the 
definition.  Where  the  information  society  service  provider  provides  more  than  one  service, 
care should be taken to consider each service separately to determine which service providers 
fall within the scope of Article 17 or not.  

IV.  ARTICLE 17(1) and (2): AUTHORISATIONS  

(i)  Authorisation models under Article 17(1) 

Online content-sharing service providers need to obtain an authorisation for the particular act 
of communication to the public or making available to the public set out in Article 17(1). The 
term ‘authorisation’ is not defined in the directive and should be interpreted in the light of the 
aim and objective of Article 17. Article 17(1) does not prescribe how authorisations may be 
obtained  from  rightholders.  Indeed,  both  the  text  of  Article  17(1)  and  the  corresponding 
Recital  64  are  drafted  in  an  open-ended  way  and  refer  to  ‘authorisation…including  [via] a 

9 This may be the case for research archives. 
10 Several organisations representing users underlined the need for further clarifications on this point.   

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
licensing  agreement’.  The  Member  States  can  provide  for  different  authorisation  models  in 
order to ‘foster the development of the licensing market’, which is one of the main goals of 
Article 17.  

The acts of communication to the public and making content available in Article 17(1) should 
be  understood  as  also  covering  reproductions  necessary  to  carry  out  these  acts.  Member 
States  should  not  provide  for  an  obligation  on  online  content-sharing  service  providers  to 
obtain an authorisation for reproductions carried out in the context of Article 17.  

The  Member  States  should  also  retain  the  possibility  for  rightholders  not  to  grant  an 
authorisation to online content-sharing service providers, as outlined in Recital 61 according 
to  which  “as  contractual  freedom  should  not  be  affected  […]  rightholders  should  not  be 
obliged to give an authorisation or to conclude licensing agreements”.11  

In  certain  cases,  rightholders  may  for  example  authorise  the  use  of  their  content  on  certain 
services in exchange for data or promotional activities. An authorisation can also be granted 
for  free,  under  a  Creative  Commons  licence,  or  can  be  given  when  rightholders  upload  or 
share their own content on online content-sharing services.  

The  Member  States  are  also  encouraged  to  maintain  or  establish  voluntary  mechanisms  to 
facilitate  agreements  between  rightholders  and  service  providers.  For  example,  voluntary 
mediation  mechanisms  could  be  considered  in  specific  cases  or  sectors  in  order  to  support 
parties willing to reach an agreement but facing difficulties in the negotiations. 

The Member States may rely on individual and voluntary collective licensing solutions. For 
example,  stakeholders  discussions  indicated  that  today,  in  the  music  sector,  certain 
rightholders, such as record companies for their own rights and where they hold the rights of 
performers  and  music  publishers  which  hold  the  rights  of  authors  (songwriters)  generally 
license  their  rights  directly.  Remaining  authors’  rights  are  mainly  managed  by  collective 
management organisations (CMOs). Collective licensing is also widely used in the visual arts 
sector (except for photographs) but it is little used in the film sector where direct licensing by 
film  producers  is  more  usual.  Where  rightholders  have  mandated  CMOs  to  manage  their 
rights,  those  CMOs  can  conclude  licensing  agreements  with  online  content-sharing  service 
providers for the repertoire they represent, under the rules defined in Directive 2014/26/EU. 
Collective  licensing  can  thereby  facilitate  obtaining  authorisations  from  a  wide  range  of 
rightholders.  

Collective  licences  with  an  extended  effect  could  be  considered  in  specific  cases  and  for 
specific sectors, provided that they comply with all the conditions set out in EU law, notably 
in Article 12 of the Directive. These schemes could notably be applied where it is particularly 
difficult  to  identify  all  rightholders,  and  where  the  transaction  costs  of  individual  rights 
clearance are prohibitively high  (recital  45).  If the Member States  wish to allow the use of 
collective  licences  with  an  extended  effect  in  the  context  of  Article  17,  they  will  have  to 

11 The specific liability regime applicable under Article 17(4) when no authorisation is granted is described in 
details under section III.1 below. 

6 

 
 
                                                           
transpose Article 12 of the Directive, which provides for a number of safeguards for the use 
of  collective  licensing  with  an  extended  effect.  The  collective  licensing  schemes  with  an 
extended effect, which may be introduced at national level for the uses under Article 17, will 
only cover national uses12.  

(ii)  Authorisations covering users 

The Member States should implement explicitly in their legislation Article 17(2) under which 
an  authorisation  granted  to  online  content-sharing  service  providers  should  also  cover  acts 
carried out by (i) users acting for non-commercial purposes or (ii) users whose activity does 
not  generate  significant  revenues.  The  purpose  of  this  provision  is  to  ensure  legal  certainty 
for as many users as possible when they upload copyright-protected content. 

Under this provision, authorisations granted to service providers should cover the acts, within 
the material  scope of the authorisation,  that are carried out  by users falling in  either one of 
these  two  categories  (non-commercial  purpose  or  non-significant  revenues).  The  first 
situation could cover the sharing of content without any profit-making purpose, such as users 
uploading a home video including music in the background. The second situation could for 
example  cover  users  uploading  tutorials  including  music  or  images  and  which  generate 
limited advertising revenues. It is sufficient for a user to satisfy either one of these conditions 
to  be  covered  by  the  authorisation.  On  the  other  hand,  users  acting  on  a  commercial  basis 
and/or deriving significant revenues from the content they upload would be outside the scope 
of  or  not  covered  by  that  authorisation  (unless  the  parties  have  explicitly  agreed  to  cover 
these users contractually).  

Member States should not set out quantitative thresholds when implementing the concept of 
‘significant revenues’. This concept should be examined on a case-by-case basis, by reference 
to all the circumstances of the user’s activity in question.  

Member  States  should  implement  the  notion  of  authorisation  in  Article  17(2)  in  light  of 
Recital 69, according to which online content-sharing service providers do not have to obtain 
a separate authorisation when rightholders have already explicitly authorised users to upload 
specific content.  In these cases, the act of communication to the public including the act of 
making available have already been authorised within the scope of the authorisation granted 
to the users. Rightholders could be encouraged to provide information to service providers on 
the separate authorisations they have  granted. Recital  69 also  indicates that  no presumption 
applies  in  favour  of  online  content-sharing  service  providers  that  users  have  in  all  cases 
obtained all the necessary authorisations for the content they upload. 

In order to enhance legal certainty, the Member States could encourage both online content-
sharing  service  providers  and  rightholders  to  provide  information  to  users  on  the  content 

12 As provided for by Article 12(6), the Commission will present a report on the use of collective licenses with 
an extended effect in the course of 2021. 

7 

 
 
                                                           
covered  by  rightholders’  authorisations,  leaving  it  to  all  those  concerned  to  decide  how  to 
best to make it known that an authorisation is in place. Such transparency could contribute to 
avoid the risk of blocking of legitimate uses (see section VI).  

V. 

ARTICLE  17(4)  -  A  SPECIFIC  LIABILITY  MECHANISM  IN  THE 
ABSENCE OF ANAUTHORISATION  

The  specific  liability  mechanism  under  Article  17(4)  only  applies  in  the  absence  of  an 
authorisation  for  acts  of  communication  to  the  public  performed  by  online  content-sharing 
service providers in relation to acts of their users within the meaning of Article 17(1). As a 
consequence, the more  authorisations  granted under Article 17(1) and  (2), the less  frequent 
the recourse to the mechanism in Article 17(4) will be.   

Article 17(4) sets out three cumulative conditions, which service providers may invoke as a 
defence against liability. They have to demonstrate that a) they have made their best efforts to 
obtain an authorisation; b) they have made their best efforts, in accordance with high industry 
standards of professional diligence, to ensure the unavailability of specific works and subject 
matter for which rightholders have provided them necessary and relevant information and c) 
they  have  acted  expeditiously,  upon  receipt  of  a  sufficiently  substantiated  notice  from  the 
rightholders, to disable access to or remove content from their websites, and made best efforts 
to prevent future uploads of notified works.  

Article 17(4) is subject to the principle of proportionality provided for in Article 17(5), which 
provides that the following elements may, inter alia be taken into account: 

(a)  the  type,  the  audience  and  the  size  of  the  service  and  the  type  of  works  or  other 

subject matter uploaded by the users of the service; and 

(b) the availability of suitable and effective means and their cost for service providers. 

The notion of ‘best efforts’ is not defined and no reference is made to national law, hence it is 
an  autonomous  notion  of  EU  law  and  it  should  be  transposed  by  the  Member  States  in 
accordance with this guidance and interpreted in light of the aim and the objectives of Article 
17 and the text of the entire Article. 

Member States should ensure that the principle of proportionality, as set out in Article 17(5), 
is taken into account when assessing whether an online content-sharing service provider has 
made  its  best  efforts  under  Article  17(4)(a)  and  (b)  and  complied  with  17(4)(c).  This  is 
relevant in particular to protect the service providers’ freedom to conduct a business.  

Member  States  should  also  bear  in  mind  that  Article  17(4)  is  subject  to  the  obligations  in 
Article 17(7) to ensure that legitimate uses remain unaffected by the cooperation of service 
providers with rightholders and in Article 17(8), whereby Article 17 should not be transposed 
or applied in a way, which leads to any general monitoring obligation. Article 17(4) is also 
subject to the overarching obligation in Article 17(9), whereby the Directive shall in no way 

8 

 
 
 
affect  legitimate uses.  Indications on how the best  efforts  could  be achieved in  practice  are 
explained in section IV.  

1.  BEST EFFORTS TO OBTAIN AN AUTHORISATION (ARTICLE 17(4)(a)) 

The  first  condition  in  Article  17(4)(a)  is  that  service  providers  should  be  liable  for 
unauthorised acts of communication to the public, including acts of making available to the 
public  content  which  is  protected  by  copyright  and  related  rights,  unless  they  demonstrate 
they have made best efforts to obtain an authorisation.  

The actions carried out by service providers to seek out and/or engage with rightholders need 
to  be  assessed  on  a  case-by-case  basis  to  determine  whether  they  constitute  best  efforts  to 
obtain  an  authorisation.  For  instance,  elements  such  as  the  specific  market  practices  in 
different  sectors  (e.g.  whether  or  not  collective  management  is  a  widespread  practice)  or 
measures  that  the  Member  States  may  have  taken  to  facilitate  authorisations,  for  example 
voluntary mediation mechanisms, should be taken into account. 

To demonstrate their best efforts, service providers should, as a minimum, engage proactively 
with rightholders that can be easily identified and located, notably those representing a broad 
catalogue  of  works  or  other  subject  matter.  In  particular,  proactively  contacting  collective 
management  organisations  (CMOs)  acting  in  accordance  with  Directive  2014/26/EU  to 
obtain  an  authorisation  should  be  considered  as  a  minimum  requirement  for  all  online 
content-sharing service providers.  

At  the  same  time,  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of  proportionality  and  considering  the 
volume and variety of content uploaded by users, service providers should not be expected to 
proactively seek out rightholders who are not easily identifiable by any reasonable standard. 
In  order  to  facilitate  the  identification  of  rightholders  and  the  grant  of  authorisations,  the 
Member  States  may  encourage  the  development  of  registries  of  rightholders  that  could  be 
consulted  by  online  content-sharing  service  providers,  in  compliance  with  data  protection 
rules, when applicable.  

The efforts to reach out to rightholders in order to obtain the necessary authorisations should 
be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account in particular the size and audience of 
the  service  and  the  different  types  of  content  it  makes  available,  including  the  specific 
situations  where  some  types  of  content  may  appear  only  rarely  on  the  service.  While  large 
service  providers  with  a  big  audience  in  several  or  all  Member  States  may  be  expected  to 
reach out to a high number of rightholders to obtain authorisations, smaller service providers 
with limited or national audience may be expected to contact proactively only relevant CMOs 
and  possibly  a  few  other  easily  identifiable  rightholders.  These  smaller  service  providers 
would  need  to  make  sure  that  other  rightholders  could  contact  them  easily,  for  example  by 
providing  clear  contact  details  or  ad-hoc  tools  on  their  website.  They  would  be  required  to 
engage with all rightholders approaching them to offer a licence. 

Article  17(6)  provides  for  a  special  liability  regime  for  new  online  content-sharing  service 
providers with  an annual  turnover below EUR 10 million (see Section  IV). However, these 

9 

 
 
particular  online  content  sharing  service  providers  are,  nevertheless,  required  to  make  their 
best efforts to obtain an authorisation in accordance with Article 17 (4) (a). A case-by-case 
assessment is therefore essential to make sure that this obligation imposed on start-ups does 
not create a disproportionate burden on them.  

When  a  service  provider  contacts  a  rightholder  but  the  latter  refuses  to  engage  into 
negotiations to grant an authorisation for its content, or dismisses reasonable offers made in 
good faith, the service provider should be considered to have complied with the best efforts 
obligation  under  Article  17(4)(a).  However,  in  order  not  to  be  liable  if  the  unauthorised 
content  is  available  in  its  service,  the  service  provider  would  still  need  to  demonstrate  best 
efforts for the purposes of Article 17(4)(b) and (c).  

Online content-sharing service providers should engage with those rightholders that wish to 
offer  an  authorisation  for  their  content,  irrespective  of  whether  their  type  of  content  (e.g. 
music, audio-visual content,  images,  text) is  prevalent or is  less common on the website of 
the service provider (e.g. images or text for a video-sharing platform).  

Nevertheless,  pursuant  to  the  principle  of  proportionality,  the  amount  and  type  of  content, 
including  whether  it  is  prevalent  or  not  on  the  website  of  the  service  provider,  should  be 
taken into account when assessing the best efforts to obtain an authorisation. 

In the light of recital 61, when licensing agreements are negotiated, these should be fair and 
keep  a  reasonable  balance  between  both  parties.  Rightholders  and  online  content-sharing 
service providers should aim to conclude an agreement as swiftly as possible. Recital 61 also 
states that rightholders should receive appropriate remuneration for the use of their protected 
works or other subject matter.  

The notion of best efforts should therefore also cover the efforts deployed by online content-
sharing service providers, in  cooperation with  rightholders, to  conduct  negotiations in  good 
faith  and  conclude  fair  licensing  agreements.  For  this  purpose,  service  providers  should  be 
transparent  with  rightholders  with  respect  to  the  criteria  they  intend  to  use  to  identify  and 
remunerate  the  content  covered  by  the  agreement,  in  particular  when  service  providers  use 
content recognition technology to report on the uses of content under licenses, and reach an 
agreement with rightholders to the extent possible.  

Service providers refusing to conclude a licence offered on fair terms and which maintains a 
reasonable  balance  between  the  parties  may  be  considered  not  to  have  deployed  their  best 
efforts to obtain an authorisation. On the other hand, service providers should not be required 
to  accept  offers  to  conclude  contracts  that  are  not  on  fair  terms  and  which  do  not  keep  a 
balance  between  the  parties.  The  question  of  what  constitutes  fair  terms  and  a  reasonable 
balance between the parties will be determined on a case by case basis. 

10 

 
 
Negotiations for the licensing of  rights  with  CMOs are subject  to  the obligations set  out  in 
Article 16 of Directive 2014/26/EU, including the need to conduct negotiation in good faith 
and to apply tariffs determined on the basis of objective and non-discriminatory criteria13. 

2.  ‘BEST  EFFORTS’  TO  ENSURE  UNAVAILABILITY  OF  SPECIFIC  PROTECTED 

CONTENT (ARTICLE 17(4)(b))  

The second condition set out in Article 17(4) is that in the absence of an authorisation, online 
content-sharing  service  providers  should  be  liable  for  acts  of  communication  to  the  public, 
including making available to the public of their users, unless they demonstrate that they have 
made their best efforts, in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence, 
to  ensure  the  unavailability  of  specific  works  and  other  subject  matter  for  which  the 
rightholders have provided them with the relevant and necessary information (‘relevant and 
necessary information’).  

When implementing Article 17(4)(b) in their national laws, the Member States should bear in 
mind it is subject to the principle of proportionality provided for in Article 17(5). 

In line with Article 17(4)(b), the best efforts are only to be made to ensure the unavailability 
of  specific  works  and  other  subject  matter  for  which  the  rightholders  have  provided  the 
service providers with the ‘relevant and necessary information’. Recital 66 specifies that if no 
such  information  meeting  the  requirements  of  Article  17(4)  is  provided  by  rightholders, 
online content-sharing service providers are not  liable for unauthorised uploads. Absent  the 
provision of this information, online content-sharing service providers cannot act. Therefore, 
cooperation between online content-sharing service providers and rightholders is essential to 
ensure the effectiveness of Article 17(4)(b).  

The  concept  of  ‘relevant  and  necessary  information’  should  be  transposed  by  the  Member 
States  in  accordance  with  this  guidance  and  the  objectives  of  Article  17.  Whether  any 
information provided by rightholders is both ‘relevant’ and ‘necessary’ should be assessed on 
a  case-by-case  basis.  It  should  also  be  possible  for  rightholders  to  submit  this  information 
through third parties authorised by them.  

In  the  context  of  Article  17(4)  (b),  relevant  and  necessary  information  should  be  provided 
upfront. 

Article 17(4)(b) should be implemented in a technologically neutral and future proof manner. 
Therefore, the Member States should not in their implementing laws mandate either the use 
of  a  technological  solution  nor  impose  any  specific  technological  solutions  on  service 
providers in order to demonstrate best efforts.  

13  This  obligation  however  does  not  prevent  CMOs  to  provide  individualised  licences  for  innovative  online 
service  providers,  which is an important element  for the  negotiations  with  new online content-sharing service 
providers.  

11 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Online  content-sharing  service  providers  have  to  act  in  accordance  with  high  industry 
standards of professional diligence when making their best efforts to implement any relevant 
solutions  aiming  to  ensure  the  unavailability  of  specific  unauthorised  content  for  which 
relevant and necessary information has been provided. As underlined in Recital 66, to assess 
whether  a  given  service  provider  has  made  its  best  efforts,  ‘account  should  be  taken  of 
whether  the  service  provider  has  taken  all  the  steps  that  would  be  taken  by  a  diligent 
operator to  achieve the result of  preventing the availability of  unauthorised works or other 
subject matter on its website taking into account best industry practices and the effectiveness 
of the steps taken in light of all relevant factors and developments.’  

Therefore, in order to determine whether an online content-sharing service provider has made 
its best efforts in line with high industry standards of professional diligence, it is particularly 
relevant to look at the available industry practices on the market at any given point in time. 
This  includes  the  use  of  technology  or  particular  technological  solutions.  As  clarified  in 
Recital  66,  ‘any  steps  taken  by  the  service  providers  should  be  effective  with  regard  to  the 
objectives pursued’. However, online content-sharing service providers should remain free to 
choose  the  technology  or  the  solution  to  comply  with  the  best  efforts  obligation  in  their 
specific situation.  

This  guidance  does  not  seek  to  recommend  the  use  of  any  specific  technology  or  solution. 
Flexibility  should  be  left  to  rightholders  and  service  providers  to  agree  on  mutually 
convenient cooperation arrangements in view of ensuring the unavailability of unauthorised 
content. These arrangements, in particular if based on technology, are likely to evolve over 
time. In principle using technology, such as content recognition, should not in itself require 
the identification of users uploading their  content but  if applicable, relevant  data protection 
rules  need  to  be  respected,  including  the  principles  of  data  minimisation  and  purpose 
limitation. 

With  regard  to  current  market  practices,  the  stakeholder  dialogue  conducted  by  the 
Commission showed that content recognition technology is commonly used today to manage 
the  use  of  copyright  protected  content,  at  least  by  the  major  online  content-sharing  service 
providers  and  as  regards  certain  types  of  content.  Content  recognition  technology  based  on 
fingerprinting appears to be widely used by the major service providers as regards video and 
audio content.14 However, this particular technology should not be necessarily considered as 
the market standard, notably for smaller service providers.  

Other technologies which allow the detection of unauthorised content were also referred to in 
the  stakeholder  dialogue.  These  include  hashing,15  watermarking,16  the  use  of  metadata17, 

14 This technology  works on the basis of the fingerprint of a rightholder’s work which is checked against the 
content uploaded by users on the service. 
15  Hashing  is  a  technique  whereby  a  file  is  transformed  into  a  chain  of  figures  called  ‘the  hashcode’.  That 
hashcode  allows  to  identify  an  upload  by  a  user  and  therefore  detect  potentially  unauthorised  content.  The 
difference with fingerprinting is, according to certain views, that the detection of unauthorised content works in 
particular  when  the  file  uploaded  is  identical  to  the  work  that  has  been  ‘hashed’  (contrary  to  fingerprinting 
which may recognise even differences).  

12 

 
 
                                                           
keyword  search18  or  a  combination  of  different  technologies.  Some  service  providers  have 
developed in-house solutions while others buy-in the services of third parties. Therefore, in 
many  cases,  it is  expected that service providers will rely  (or  continue to rely) on different 
technological tools in order to comply with their obligation under Article 17(4)(b).  

The  assessment  of  whether  an  online  content-sharing  service  provider  has  made  its  ‘best 
efforts’ under paragraph (b)  in  relation  to  specific protected content  for  which relevant  and 
necessary information has been provided in advance should be made on a case-by-case basis, 
according  to  the  proportionality  principle  set  out  in  Article  17(5)  and  within  the  respect  of 
Article  17(7)  to  (9).  This  means  in  practice  that  online  content-sharing  service  providers 
should  not  be  expected  to  apply  the  most  costly  or  sophisticated  solutions  if  this  would  be 
disproportionate in their specific case. This applies also in the case of content earmarked by 
the relevant rightholders as content whose availability could cause significant harm to them, 
as explained in section VI below. Moreover, as explained in Recital 66, it cannot be excluded 
that  in  some  cases  unauthorised  content  can  be  avoided  only  following  a  notification  by 
rightholders19. This may be proportionate for example for content for which technology is not 
readily available on the market or is not developed at a given point in time.  

Member States should consider the following elements : 

-  The  type,  size  and  audience  of  the  service:  larger  service  providers  with  a  significant 
audience  may  be  expected  to  deploy  more  advanced  solutions/technologies  than  other 
service providers, with limited audiences and resources. It could be more proportionate to 
expect smaller service providers to resort to simpler solutions (like metadata or key word 
search)  as  long  as  these  solutions  do  not  result  in  over-blocking  of  content  contrary  to 
paragraphs (7) and (9).  

-  The  availability  of  suitable  and  effective  means  and  the  related  costs  should  also  be 
considered,  for  example  when  service  providers  buy  solutions  from  third  parties/ 
technology providers and when these are developed in-house as well as the costs related 
to  human  review  in  the  context  of  disputes  (see  Section  IV).  The  cumulative  cost  of 
different solutions that may need to be implemented by a service provider should also be 
considered, as well as limitations of technologies depending on the type of content.  For 
example,  different  solutions  may  be  needed  for  different  types  of  content  (e.g.  content 
recognition  technologies for music may  not  be the same  as for still images and may  be 
developed  by  various  technology  providers).  The  cumulative  cost  should  also  be 
considered  when  rightholders  have  themselves  developed  different  protection  solutions, 

16 Watermaking is a solution whereby the original file is ‘watermarked’, and can therefore be recognised once 
uploaded, on the basis of that watermark which acts as a signature.  
17 The use of metadata allows to track whether a given work has been uploaded based on the metadata linked to 
the content, such as the name of the author, the title of the work.  
18 Keyword search was mentioned in particular as a solution for smaller service providers, which may not have 
the  means  to  deploy  more  complex  and  costly  technologies. This  is  the  simplest  technique  whereby a  service 
manually searches its website for titles of e.g. a given song/performer to detect potentially infringing content. 

19 This applies irrespective of whether the service in question meets the criteria of Article 17(6). 

13 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
 
which  require  the  service  providers  to  use  different  software  (e.g.  for  different 
watermarking solutions).  

-  The type of content uploaded by users: when a service makes available different types of 
content,  the  actions  to  be  undertaken  may  vary  depending  on  whether  the  content  is 
prevalent on their website or is less common, provided that the best efforts obligation is 
met. It  can be expected that service providers deploy more complex solutions regarding 
the former as compared to the latter.  

Finally,  online  content-sharing  service  providers  could,  based  on  the  scale  of  the  content 
available on their services, choose to provide different tools to different rightholders, as long 
as the solutions meet their obligation of best efforts for the purpose of Article 17(4)(b).  

The  information  in  question  must  be  accurate  to  allow  an  online  content-sharing  service 
provider to act. What may constitute ‘relevant’ information will vary depending on the works 
concerned  and  the  circumstances  that  pertain  to  the  specific  works  or  other  subject  matter. 
The  information  should,  as  a  minimum,  be  accurate  about  the  rights  ownership  of  the 
particular  work  or  subject  matter  in  question.  What  may  constitute  ‘necessary’  would  vary 
depending  on  the  solutions  deployed  by  service  providers.  It  should  allow  the  service 
providers to apply effectively their technological solutions, where used. For example, when 
fingerprinting  is  used,  rightholders  may  be  asked  to  provide  a  fingerprint  of  the  specific 
work/subject-matter or a file that will be fingerprinted by the service provider itself, together 
with information on the ownership of the rights. When metadata-based solutions are used, the 
information  provided can for example consist in the title, the author/producer, the duration, 
the date, or other information that is relevant and necessary for online content-sharing service 
providers to take action. In this context, it is important that metadata provided by rightholders 
is not removed subsequently. 

At  the  same  time,  given  that  cooperation  is  key,  the  concept  of  ‘necessary  and  relevant 
information’ presupposes that the service providers take into account the nature and quality 
of the information that rightholders can realistically provide. In that regard, rightholders and 
online content-sharing service providers should be encouraged to cooperate on the best way 
to approach identification of the works.  

When providing the relevant and necessary information to the service providers, rightholders 
may choose to identify specific content which is protected by copyright and related rights, the 
unauthorised  online  availability  of  which  could  cause  significant  economic  harm  to  them. 
The prior earmarking by rightholders of such content may be a factor to be taken into account 
when assessing whether online content-sharing service providers have made their best efforts 
to  ensure  the  unavailability  of  this  specific  content  and  whether  they  have  done  so  in 
compliance with the safeguards for legitimate uses under Article 17(7), as explained in part 
VI below.  

3. 

‘NOTICE  AND  TAKE  DOWN’  AND  ‘NOTICE  AND  STAY  DOWN’  (ARTICLE 
17(4)(c)) 

14 

 
 
 
The third condition set out in Article 17(4)(c) is that online content-sharing service providers 
should  be  liable  for  unauthorised  acts  of  communication  to  the  public  including  making 
available  to  the  public,  unless  they  demonstrate  that  they  have  acted  expeditiously,  upon 
receiving a sufficiently substantiated notice from the rightholders, to disable access to, or to 
remove  from  their  websites,  the  notified  works  or  other  subject  matter,  and  that  they  have 
made best efforts to prevent their future uploads in accordance with Article 17(4)(b).  

This notice and take-down and notice and stay down system applies when content that is not 
authorised has become available on the online content-sharing service providers’ websites. In 
practice,  the  main  scenarios  where  unauthorised  content  may  become  available  and  require 
action under Article 17(4)(c) are the following :  

(i)  Rightholders  have  not  provided  online  content-sharing  service  providers  in  advance 
with  the  ‘relevant  and  necessary’  information  under  Article  17(4)(b)  to  avoid  the 
availability of unauthorised content. They act ex post, once a given content has become 
available,  to  ask  for  its  removal  and  stay  down  based  on  the  necessary  and  relevant 
information from rightholders; or 

(ii)  Online  content-sharing  service  providers  have  made  their  ‘best  efforts’  to  avoid 
unauthorised  content  under  Article  17(4)(b)  but  despite  these  efforts  unauthorised 
content  becomes  available  for  objective  reasons,  for  example,  when  some  content 
cannot be recognised due to the inherent limitations of technologies; or 

(iii) 

in some specific cases online content-sharing service providers may be expected to act 
only after a notice has been submitted by rightholders, as explained in recital 66. 

The  ‘best  efforts’  that  service  providers  should  make  to  prevent  future  uploads  of  notified 
works should be approached in the same way as in relation to Article 17(4)(b), as explained 
in subsection 2. The assessment of whether best efforts have been made by service providers 
needs  to  be  carried  out  on  a  case-by-case  basis  and  taking  into  account  the  principle  of 
proportionality provided for in Article 17(5).  

Member States should bear in mind that the application of Article 17 should not lead to any 
general monitoring obligation as laid down in paragraph (8) and that legitimate uses have to 
be safeguarded as provided for in paragraphs (7) and (9), as further explained in section VI. 
This is particularly relevant for the application of the second part of (c), according to which 
service providers have to make their best efforts to prevent future uploads of notified works.  

As with Article 17(4)(b), the rightholders must provide certain information before the online 
content -sharing service provider can act. 

When implementing Article 17(4)(c), the Member States need to clearly differentiate the type 
of information rightholders provide in a ‘sufficiently substantiated notice’ for the removal of 
content  (the  ‘take  down’  part  of  (c))  from  the  ‘relevant  and  necessary  information’  they 

15 

 
 
 
provide for the purposes of preventing future uploads of notified works (the ‘stay-down’ part 
of (c), which refers back to (b)).  

As  regards  the  information  to  be  provided  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  take  down  obligation 
under  paragraph  4(c),  and  specifically  on  the  elements  to  be  included  in  a  ‘sufficiently 
substantiated  notice’,  the  Commission  recommends  the  Member  States  to  follow  in  their 
implementation the Commission Recommendation on Measures to Effectively Tackle Illegal 
Content Online20. Points 6 to 8 of the Recommendation list elements that could be included in 
the notices. The notices should be sufficiently precise and adequately substantiated to enable 
the  service  providers  to  take  an  informed  and  diligent  decision  in  respect  of  the  content  to 
which the notice relates, in particular whether or not that content is to be considered illegal 
content. In particular, the notices should contain an explanation of the reasons why the notice 
provider considers that content to be illegal content and a clear indication of the location of 
that  content.  This  particular  information  would  not  necessarily  be  required  under  Article 
17(4)(b)  but  should  be  required  as  a  rule  under  Article  17(4)(c)  first  limb.  The 
Recommendation  also  provides  for  the  possibility  for  notice  providers,  if  they  so  wish,  to 
include their contact details in a notice.  

As regards the so-called ‘stay down’ obligation, Article 17(4)(c) second part requires service 
providers to  make best  efforts  to  avoid  future uploads of the works  or other subject  matter 
notified  by  rightholders.  This  provision  refers  back  to  (b)  of  the  same  paragraph,  which 
means that in order for the service providers to be able to deploy their best efforts to avoid 
future uploads under this provision, rightholders have to provide them with the same type of 
‘relevant and necessary’ information, as for the application of (b). This means for example 
that, if a service provider uses fingerprinting technologies to avoid future uploads of notified 
works,  receiving  as  information  only  the  information  provided  in  a  notice  would  be 
insufficient. In this case, to allow service providers to avoid future uploads of notified works, 
rightholders would need to provide the service providers with fingerprints or content files.  

4.  THE  SPECIFIC  LIABILITY  REGIME  FOR  NEW  SERVICE  PROVIDERS  (ARTICLE 

17(6)) 

Article  17(6)  provides  for  a  specific  liability  regime  with  different  conditions  for  ‘new’ 
companies,  which  have  been  active  in  the  EU  for  less  than  3  years  and  have  an  annual 
turnover of less than 10 million euros.  

When implementing Article 17(6), the Member  States should not  go beyond the conditions 
set  in  the  Directive  and  bear  mind  that  this  lighter  liability  regime  is  intended  to  take  into 
account  the  specific  case  of  new  companies  working  with  user  uploads  to  develop  new 
business models, as explained in recital 67.  

20  See  Commission  Communication  of  1  March  2018  available  at:  https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-
market/en/news/commission-recommendation-measures-effectively-tackle-illegal-content-online  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
With regard to the annual turnover, Article 4 of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC 
is of main relevance. More detailed guidance on how to calculate the turnover, including in 
cases  where  an  enterprise  may  have  relationships  with  other  enterprises,  is  provided  in  the 
User Guide to the SME Definition 21, prepared by the Commission services.  

Article 17(6) provides for a two-tier system with different rules applying to the ‘new’ service 
providers depending on the audience they attract. In particular: 

a)  if  those  ‘new’  service  providers  have  less  than  5  million  unique  visitors,  they  are 
required to make their best efforts to obtain an authorisation (Article 17(4)(a)) and they 
have to comply with the ‘notice and take down’ obligation under Article 17(4)(c) first 
part; 

b) if  those  ‘new’  service  providers  have  more  than  5  million  unique  visitors,  they  are 
subject to the same obligations of best efforts to obtain an authorisation and ‘notice and 
take down’ as service providers with a smaller audience but in addition, they also need 
to comply with the obligation to avoid  future uploads of notified works under Article 
17(4)(c) second part (‘stay down’ obligation).  

For  both  categories  of  service  providers,  the  condition  of  best  efforts  to  ensure  the 
unavailability of unauthorised content, provided for in Article 17(4)(b), is not applicable.  

The  important  differentiating  factor  between  the  two  categories  of  service  providers  is  the 
number  of  monthly  unique  visitors.  Article  17(6)  specifies  that  the  average  number  of 
monthly  unique  visitors  of  such  service  providers  is  to  be  calculated  on  the  basis  of  the 
previous  calendar  year.  As  further  explained  in  recital  66,  visitors  across  all  the  Member 
States need to be taken into account in this calculation. Privacy and data protection rules have 
to be respected when calculating the number of unique visitors. 

When  assessing  whether  the  ‘new’  service  providers  have  complied  with  their  respective 
obligations to avoid liability for unauthorised acts of communication to the public, as outlined 
above, the principle of proportionality, set out in Article 17(5) has to be taken into account22. 
This means that best efforts that can be expected from the ‘new’ service providers to obtain 
an authorisation may differ depending on their specific situation (as explained under section 
III).  

With  regard  to  the  best  efforts  that  ‘new’  service  providers  with  more  than  five  million 
monthly unique visitors need to make to prevent future uploads of notified works, less could 
be expected from them than from the service providers falling under Article 17(4). It would 
be proportionate for them to rely on less complex and less costly solutions.  

When  applying  solutions  to  prevent  future  uploads,  the  safeguards  for  legitimate  users 
contained  in  Article  17(7)  and  17(9)  need  to  be  complied  with  as  outlined  in  section  IV 
below, notably if the ‘new’ service providers apply automated content recognition tools. 

21 https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/conferences/state-aid/sme/smedefinitionguide_en.pdf 
22 Article 17(6) refers back to Article 17(4), which is referenced in Article 17(5) 

17 

 
 
                                                           
VI. 

SAFEGUARDS FOR LEGITIMATE USES OF CONTENT (Article 17(7)) and 
COMPLAINT AND REDRESS MECHANISM FOR USERS (Article 17(9))  

Article 17(7) and 17(9) provide that any action undertaken together by service providers and 
rightholders does not lead to the unavailability of content, which does not infringe copyright 
or  related  rights  including  because  of  the  application  of  any  exception  or  limitation.  Such 
non-infringing  use  is  often  referred  to  as  ‘legitimate  use’.  In  addition,  Article  17(7)  also 
provides that the Member States must ensure that users in each Member State are able to rely 
on  the  existing  exceptions  or  limitations  for  quotation,  criticism,  review  and  use  for  the 
purpose  of  caricature,  parody  or  pastiche  when  uploading  and  making  available  content 
generated  by  users  on  online  content-sharing  services.  The  obligations  in  Article  17(7)  and 
17(9) are of particular importance for the application of the ‘best efforts’ under Article 17(4).  

Member  States  should  explicitly  transpose  in  their  law  the  text  of  Article  17(7)  first 
paragraph related to uses that do not infringe copyright.  

Member States are also required to transpose in their national laws the mandatory exceptions 
in  Article 17(7) second paragraph covering the  use of content generated by users on online 
content-sharing service providers for: 

(a)  quotation, criticism, review; 

(b) use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche. 

The exceptions or limitations in Directive 2001/29/EC are optional in nature and addressed to 
any user and, in the case of quotation, criticism and review, they are subject to the application 
of specific conditions. Conversely, the particular exceptions and limitations in Article 17(7) 
are mandatory  for the Member States to  implement,  they apply specifically  and only to  the 
online environment and to all users when uploading and making available content generated 
by  users  on  online  content-sharing  services,  and  there  are  no  further  conditions  for  their 
application.  

It is important to bear in mind that in respect of the various fundamental rights at issue, the 
Union  legislature  has  chosen  to  make  these  particular  exceptions  or  limitations  mandatory. 
Recital  70  explains  that  allowing  users  to  upload  and  make  available  content  generated  by 
them  for  the  purposes  of  the  exceptions  or  limitations  in  Article  17(7)  is  particularly 
important for ‘striking a balance between the fundamental rights laid down in the Charter of 
Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union  (‘the  Charter’),  in  particular  the  freedom  of 
expression  and  the  freedom  of  the  arts,  and  the  right  to  property,  including  intellectual 
property’.  

(i) 

Legitimate uses under Article 17(7) and (9) 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Legitimate uses which do not infringe copyright or related rights may include (a) uses under 
exceptions  and  limitations,  (b)  uses  by  those  who  hold  or  have  cleared  the  rights  in  the 
content they upload or uses covered by the authorisation under Article 17(2) and (c) uses of 
content not covered by copyright or related rights, notably works in the public domain or, for 
example, content where the threshold of originality or any other requirement pertaining to the 
threshold for protection, is not met.  

In  relation  to  uses  under  exceptions  and  limitations,  the  above  mentioned  exceptions  laid 
down  in  Article  17(7)  should  be  read  as  autonomous  notions  of  EU  law  and  should  be 
considered in  the specific context  of this  provision23. Member States  that may have already 
implemented  these  exceptions  under  Directive  2001/29/EC  should  review  their  legislation, 
and, if need be, amend it to make sure it complies with Article 17(7) especially for the online 
environment.  Member States whose laws do not  provide for these exceptions or limitations 
will have to transpose them as a minimum for the uses covered by Article 17. 

With  regard  to  the  notions  of  quotation  and  parody,  the  Court  of  Justice  of  the  European 
Union  (CJEU)  has  indicated  that  as  these  notions  are  not  defined  in  Directive  2001/29/EC, 
the meaning and scope of these terms must be determined by considering their usual meaning 
in everyday language, while also taking into account the context in which they occur and the 
purposes  of  the  rules  of  which  they  are  part24.  The  same  approach  can  be  applied  to  the 
notions of pastiche, criticism and review, which are not defined in Article 17(7).   

Member  States  should  implement  or  adapt  the  mandatory  exceptions  and  limitations  in 
Article  17(7)  in  a  manner  that  allows  them  to  be  applied  consistently  with  the  Charter  of 
Fundamental rights25 and ensures their effectiveness in line with the case law of the CJEU26.  

The reference to legitimate uses in Article 17(7) and (9) should also cover uses that may fall 
under  other  exceptions  and  limitations  provided  for  in  Directive  2001/29/EC,  which  are 
optional  for  the  Member  States.  These  exceptions  and  limitations  will  be  applicable  in  the 
context of Article 17 if the Member States have implemented them in their national laws. The 
most  relevant  of  such  optional  exceptions  and  limitations  could  for  example  be  incidental 
use27  and  use  of  works,  such  as  works  of  architecture  or  sculpture,  made  to  be  located 
permanently in public places28.  

Other  legitimate  uses  for  the  purposes  of  Article  17(7)  include  authorised  uses.  These  are 
uses where an uploader has all the relevant rights in the content uploaded, either because the 

23 See C‑201/13, Deckmyn, para 14 …. the terms of a provision of EU law which makes no express reference 
to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given 
an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union, having regard to the context of the 
provision  and  the  objective  pursued  by  the  legislation  in  question  (judgment  in  Padawan,  C-467/08, 
EU:C:2010:620, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited). 
24 C-476/17 Pelham, para 70, and C-201/13 Deckmyn, para 19. 
25 For example, C-516/17 Spiegel online, para 52; C-314/12 UPC Telekabel Wien, para 46 
26 For example in C-145/10, Eva Painer para 133; C-117/13 and Darmstadt, para 43 
27 Article 5.3 (i) of Directive 2001/29/EC 
28  Article  5.3  (h)  of  Directive  2001/29/EC.  The  Commission  specifically  recommended  Member  States  to 
transpose this exception in its Communication Promoting a fair, efficient and competitive European copyright-
based economy in the Digital Single Market COM(2016)592 

19 

 
 
                                                           
uploader has created the content uploaded and it contains no third party content, or because 
they  have  obtained  all  the  necessary  authorisations  from  rightholders.  The  latter  would  for 
example cover uploads by professional users, such as broadcasters, when they have cleared 
all the necessary rights.  

Finally,  the  concept  of  ‘legitimate  uses’  also  includes  uses  of  content  not  covered  by 
copyright or related rights, notably works in the public domain, that is works whose term of 
protection has expired and therefore are no longer protected by copyright; and material which 
does not meet the criteria for protection in the light of the CJEU’s case law29.  

(ii) 

Application of Article 17(4) in compliance with Article 17(7) and (9) 

Article 17(7), according to which the cooperation between rightholders and service providers 
must not result in the prevention of availability of legitimate content, must be read together 
with the ‘best effort’ provisions laid down in Article 17(4), since it is in that context that the 
cooperation  takes  place,  in  relation  to  content  for  which  no  authorisation  has  been  granted. 
The  need  for  service  providers  and  rightholders  to  respect  legitimate  uses  should  be  taken 
into  account  when  assessing  whether  a  service  provider  has  made  its  ‘best  efforts’  under 
Article  17(4)(b)  and  second  part  of  (c),  regardless  of  the  specific  solution  or  technology 
applied by the service.  

The complaint and redress mechanism provided for under Article 17(9) (see section below) 
applies in addition to the obligations in Article 17(7). Therefore, it would not be enough for 
the transposition and application of Article 17(7) to restore legitimate content ex post under 
Article 17(9), once it has been removed or disabled. 

The  application  of  the  obligation  of  result  in  Article  17(7)  is  particularly  relevant  when 
service providers apply automated content recognition technology under Article 17(4). In the 
present  state  of  the  art,  no  technology  can  assess  to  the  standard  required  in  law  whether 
content,  which  a  user  wishes  to  upload,  is  infringing  or  a  legitimate  use.  However,  content 
recognition  technology  may  identify  specific  copyright-protected  content  for  which 
rightholders have provided relevant and necessary information to service providers.  

Therefore, in order to ensure compliance with Article 17(7) in practice, and leave unaffected 
legitimate uses, including uses under exceptions and limitations, when an upload matches a 
specific file provided by rightholders , automated blocking, i.e. preventing the upload by the 
use of technology, should in principle be limited to manifestly infringing uploads.  

As  indicated  more  in  details  below,  other  uploads,  which  are  not  manifestly  infringing, 
should  in  principle  go  online  and  may  be  subject  to  an  ex  post  human  review  when 
rightholders oppose by sending a notice.  

This approach, according to which service providers should determine at the upload whether 
content  is  manifestly  infringing  or  not,  is  a  reasonable  practical  standard  to  determine 
whether an upload should be blocked or go online, and to ensure the respect for Article 17(7), 
taking  into  account  the  existing  limitations  of  technology.  The  identification  of  manifestly 

29 C-469/17 Funke Medien, paragraphs 18-20 

20 

 
 
                                                           
infringing  content  and  other  content  by  automated  means  does  not  represent  a  legal 
assessment of the legitimacy of an upload, including whether  it is covered by an exception. 
Therefore,  the  criteria  applied  to  operate  this  distinction  should  not  have  an  impact  on  the 
best efforts to be made by service providers to obtain an authorisation under Article 17.4 (a).   

*** 

In  practice,  when  service  providers  apply  content  recognition  tools,  they  should  take  into 
account  the  information  provided  by  rightholders  for  their  specific  content  in  order  to 
determine  whether  the  specific  upload  is  manifestly  infringing  or  not30.  At  the  same  time, 
rightholders  should  take  legitimate  uses  into  account  when  providing  their  instructions  to 
service providers. Content for which the rightholders have not given a blocking instruction to 
the online content-sharing service provider should not be considered manifestly infringing.  

the 

identified  content  used 

Relevant  criteria  to  detect  manifestly  infringing  uploads  in  practice  could  include  the 
length/size  of 
the 
matching/identified content in relation to the entire upload (e.g. whether the matched content 
is used in isolation or in combination with other content) and the level of modification of the 
work (e.g. whether the upload matches only in part the identified content because it has been 
modified by the user). These criteria could be applied taking into account the type of content, 
the business model31, as well as the risk of significant economic harm to rightholders.  

the  proportion  of 

the  upload, 

in 

Exact  matches  of  entire  works  or  of  significant  proportions  of  a  work  should  normally  be 
considered  manifestly  infringing  (e.g.  when  the  recording  of  a  whole  song  is  used  as 
background in a user created video). This would also be the case for uploads of an original 
work, which has simply  been technically altered/distorted to  avoid its identification (like in 
the case of adding an outside frame to the picture or flipping it by 180°). 

On the other hand, an upload which matches only partially with the information provided by 
the  rightholders  because  the  user  has  significantly  modified  the  work  in  a  creative  manner, 
for  example  by  adding  elements  to  a  picture  to  create  a  ‘meme’,  would  generally  not  be 
manifestly infringing (this example may be covered by the parody exception).  

Another example of uploads which should generally not be considered manifestly infringing 
are  those  including  short  extracts  which  represent  a  small  proportion  of  the  entire  work 
identified by rightholders (such use may be covered by the quotation exception). This could 
be the case of a user-generated video including an extract of a feature film or an extract of a 

30  This  approach  takes  into  account  the  current  market  practices  of  cooperation  between  rightholders  and 
service providers For example, when rightholders provide the service providers with a fingerprint or a file with 
relevant rights’ information for their specific content, they also provide the service providers with instructions as 
to whether and when this content should be blocked, if recognised in the users’ uploads, taking into account the 
different  characteristics  of  the  upload. The  stakeholder  dialogue  showed  that  already  today  some  rightholders 
may  instruct  service  providers  to  apply  some  margins  of  tolerance  to  permit  the  availability  of  some 
unauthorised content, for example extracts of films of a short duration. 
31 For example, a very large number of very short extracts uploaded on a service could cause significant harm to 
rightholders when taken together in an aggregated form. There are services that have structured their business 
model on the large scale use of short content, for example excerpts of music of very short duration.  

21 

 
 
 
                                                           
song32. The length of an extract is not as such a legal criterion to determine whether a use is 
legitimate. This is however a relevant indication, together with the context of the use, that a 
given upload may be covered by one of the exceptions laid down in EU law. In line with the 
case  law  of  the  CJEU33,  it  is  for  the  Member  States  to  safeguard  the  effectiveness  of  the 
exceptions and to permit observance of their purpose, in order to safeguard a fair balance of 
rights  and  interests  between  the  different  categories  of  rightholders  and  users  of  protected 
subject matter. It follows that the interpretation of Article 17 must allow the effectiveness of 
the exceptions to be safeguarded and their purpose to be observed, since such a requirement 
is of particular importance where those exceptions aim to ensure observance of fundamental 
freedoms.  

There may also be more complex cases where additional criteria or a combination of criteria 
may  need  to  be  taken  into  account  (besides  the  length  of  an  extract  used  and  whether  it  is 
used  in  a  transformative  manner),  depending  on  the  content  and  situation.  Cooperation 
between  service  providers  and  rightholders  and  feedback  from  users  will  be  key  to 
progressively fine-tune the application of this mechanism. 

In particular, service providers should exercise particular care and diligence in application of 
their  best  efforts  obligations  before  uploading  content,  which  could  cause  significant 
economic  harm  to  rightholders  (see  section  V.2  above).  This  may  include,  when 
proportionate  and  where  possible,  practicable,  a  rapid  ex  ante  human  review  by  online 
content-sharing service providers of the uploads containing such earmarked content identified 
by an automated content recognition tool. This would apply for content, which is particularly 
time  sensitive  (e.g.  pre-released  music  or  films  or  highlights  of  recent  broadcasts  of  sports 
events)34.  

In order to ensure the right balance between the different fundamental rights at stake, namely 
the  users’  freedom  of  expression,  the  rightholders’  intellectual  property  right  and  the 
providers’ right to conduct a business, this heightened care for earmarked content should be 
limited  to  cases  of  high  risks  of  significant  economic  harm,  which  ought  to  be  properly 
justified  by  rightholders.  This  mechanism  should  not  lead  to  a  disproportionate  burden  on 
service  providers  nor  to  a  general  monitoring  obligation.  Whilst  the  concept  of  general 
monitoring  is  not  defined  in  Article  17  (8),  it  is  expressed  therein  in  the  same  terms  as  in 
Article  15  of  Directive  2000/31.  However  when  applying  Article  17(8)  first  paragraph  the 
context,  scheme  and  objective  of  Article  17  and  the  special  role  of  online  content-sharing 
service providers under this provision should be taken into account.  

There  should  be  no  need  for  ex  ante  human  review  for  content,  which  is  no  longer  time 
sensitive35.  Service  providers  who  decide  to  include  rapid  ex  ante  human  review  as  part  of 
their compliance mechanism should include mechanisms to mitigate the risks of misuse.  

As a result of the ex ante human review, the service provider may block the upload or make it 
available.  Rightholders  and  users  should  be  informed  of  the  outcome  of  the  review.  If  the 
content is blocked, users should be able to contest the blocking under the redress mechanism.  

32 Like a “10 best movie moments of the year” user-generated video. 
33 C-516/17 - Spiegel Online 
34 Other types of content may also be time-sensitive 
35 For example, in case of a football match the sensitivity may be a matter of days. 

22 

 
 
                                                           
*** 

When manifestly infringing uploads are identified and are blocked i.e. are not uploaded, users 
should be notified of this without undue delay and should still be able to contest the blocking, 
by giving reasons for their request, under the redress mechanism provided for in Article 17(9) 
(see below).  

Content which is not manifestly infringing should go online at the upload, with exception of 
content  earmarked  by  rightholders  (when  subject  to  a  fast  ex  ante  human  review).  Service 
providers  should  inform  rightholders  without  undue  delay  that  the  content  has  been  put 
online.  If  rightholders  object,  the  service  providers  should  carry  out  a  swift  ex  post  human 
review  for  a  rapid  decision  as  to  whether  the  content  should  remain  online  or  be  removed. 
Rightholders  should  object  by  filing  a  notice.  The  information  provided  by  rightholders  ex 
ante  should  be  taken  into  account  when  assessing  whether  the  notice  is  sufficiently  
substantiated.  

The ex post human review should allow the online content-sharing service provider to take a 
decision  based  on  the  arguments  provided  both  rightholders  and  users.  The  content  should 
stay online during the human review. 

If, as a result of the ex post human review, based on the arguments provided by rightholders 
and users, the online content-sharing service provider eventually decides to disable or remove 
the  uploaded  content,  it  should  inform  the  user  and  the  relevant  rightholders  as  soon  as 
possible of the outcome of the review. The user should be able to have recourse to the out-of-
court dispute resolution mechanism, provided for in Article 17(9).  

If  the  content  remains  online,  the  rightholders  can  still  send  another  notice  later  if  new 
elements or circumstances arise, which justify a new assessment. 

Online  content-sharing  service  providers  should  be  deemed  to  have  complied,  until  proven 
otherwise, with their best efforts obligations under Article 17(4)(b) and (c) in light of Article 
17  (7)  if  they  have  acted  diligently  as  regards  content  which  is  not  manifestly  infringing 
following the approach outlined in this guidance, taking into account the relevant information 
from  rightholders.  By  contrast,  they  should  be  deemed  not  to  have  complied,  until  proven 
otherwise,  with  their  best  effort  obligations  in  light  of  Article  17  (7)  and  be  held  liable  for 
copyright  infringement  if  they  have  made  available  uploaded  content  disregarding  the 
information  provided  by  rightholders,  including  –  as  regards  content  that  is  not  manifestly 
infringing  content  -    the  information  on  earmarked  content  as  mentioned  in  section  V.2 
above.   

Regular  reports  on  the  content  blocked  as  a  result  of  the  application  of  automated  tools  in 
fulfilment of requests by rightholders36 would allow the Member States to  monitor whether 
Article  17  has  been  properly  applied,  in  particular  Article  17(8)  and  (9).  This  would  also 
notably  allow  users’  representatives  to  monitor  and  contest  the  application  of  parameters 
defined  by  service  providers  in  cooperation  with  rightholders  to  detect  systematic  abuses. 

36  Following  the  approach  proposed  by  the  Commission  in  its  proposal  for  the  Regulation  on  the  Digital 
Services Act 

23 

 
 
                                                           
This could be based, for example, on the number and type of content blocked and complaints 
submitted by users.  

The mechanism described in this guidance should not prevent the possible use of technology 
for reporting and remunerating the use of authorised content under contractual terms agreed 
by rightholders and service providers.  

(iii)  Complaint and redress mechanism under Article 17(9) 

Article 17(9) requires the Member States to provide a complaint and redress mechanism that 
service providers have to make available to users in the event of dispute over the blocking or 
removal of their content. Under this mechanism, the decisions to disable access or to remove 
uploaded  content  have  to  be  subject  to  human  review  to  determine  whether  the  use  is 
legitimate or not and should be restored or not. It also requires the Member States to ensure 
that out-of-court redress mechanisms are available for the settlement of these disputes.  

Member States should lay down rules on the complaint and redress mechanism. Users must 
be given the possibility to challenge the service providers’ decisions to block or remove their 
uploads.  This  may  apply  to  manifestly  infringing  content  blocked  as  a  result  of  the 
application of Article 17(4)(b) in compliance with Article 17(7) as well as to content removed 
ex post following a sufficiently substantiated notice submitted by rightholders under Article 
17(4)(c). The content should stay down during the human review performed under the redress 
mechanism,  except  in  the  specific  case  mentioned  above  for  content  that  is  not  manifestly 
infringing on Article 17(7).  

In  line  with  the  requirement  of  Article  17(9)  that  the  complaints  by  users  be  processed 
without undue delay, the Member States should provide that, as a rule, online content-sharing 
service  providers  and  rightholders  must  react  to  complaints  from  users  within  a  reasonably 
short timeframe to ensure that the mechanism is expeditious. Whilst no specific deadlines are 
given in Article 17(9) for processing the complaints by users, nevertheless, complaints should 
be  dealt  with  expeditiously  in  order  not  to  affect  the  fundamental  right  of  freedom  of 
expression. In practice, different deadlines may be necessary, depending on the specificities 
and  complexities  of  each  case.  If  rightholders  do  not  react  within  a  reasonable  timeframe, 
online  content-sharing  service  providers  should  make  a  decision  without  the  input  of 
rightholders on whether the content which has been blocked or taken down should be made 
available or be restored online.  

The Directive requires the Member States to provide that within the context of the complaint 
and redress procedure (as opposed to 17(4)(b) or (c)), rightholders have to duly justify their 
requests to  have  works  disabled or removed. This  means that it would not  be sufficient  for 
rightholders  to  resubmit  the  same  information  as  submitted  under  Article  17(4)(b)  or  (c). 
They would need to justify the infringing nature of the specific upload, otherwise, if further 
substantiation would not be necessary, the complaint and redress mechanism would be void 
of any effet utile.  

In order to keep the redress mechanism effective and expeditious, it should be simple to use 
and  free  of  charge  for  the  users.  Member  States  could  recommend  online  content-sharing 
service providers to provide easy online forms to users to fill in and submit within the redress 

24 

 
 
 
system.  Online  content-sharing  service  providers,  at  least  the  major  ones,  could  also  allow 
exchanges between users  and rightholders to  take place within their redress  system and not 
require the use of external resources (such as e-mails). This would keep the mechanism more 
expeditious.  Any processing of personal  data that  may happen in  the context  of the redress 
mechanism needs to take place in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679. 

If the final decision by service providers in relation to content that is blocked is to keep the 
content unavailable, users must be able to contest this decision through the impartial out-of-
court dispute settlement mechanism, which the Member States have to  make available. The 
out-of-court dispute settlement mechanism can be an existing one but with relevant expertise 
to handle copyright disputes. It should also be easy to use and with no cost for users.  

The Member States need to implement in their law the obligation of online content-sharing 
service providers to inform their users in their terms and conditions that users can use works 
and  other  subject  matter  under  exceptions  or  limitations  to  copyright  and  related  rights 
provided for in Union law.  

Member  States  could  give  recommendations  on  how  service  providers  can  increase  users’ 
awareness of what may constitute legitimate uses, as required by Article 17(9). For example, 
service  providers  could  provide  accessible  and  concise  information  on  the  exceptions  for 
users,  containing  as  a  minimum  information  on  the  mandatory  exceptions  provided  for  in 
Article  17.  Besides  providing  this  information  in  the  general  terms  and  conditions  of  the 
service  providers,  this  information  could  be  given  in  context  of  the  redress  mechanism,  to 
raise the awareness of users of possible exceptions or limitations that can be applicable. 

VII.  TRANSPARENCY  OF  ONLINE  CONTENT-SHARING 

SERVICE 

PROVIDERS -INFORMATION TO RIGHTHOLDERS (ARTICLE 17(8))  

Article  17(8)  requires  online  content-sharing  service  providers  to  provide  rightholders,  at 
their request, with adequate information on the steps taken in the context of the cooperation 
with rightholders. This includes:  

(a)  adequate  information  on  the  functioning  of  tools  that  they  apply  to  ensure  the 
unavailability of unauthorised content under Article 17(4) and; 

(b)  information,  where  licensing  agreements  are  concluded  between  service  providers  and 
rightholders, on the use of their content covered by the agreements. 

When implementing this provision, the Member States are encouraged to give indications to 
the service providers on the type of information to be provided by them, keeping in mind the 
need to respect Article 17(7) (8) first paragraph and (9).  

The  information  provided  should  be  sufficiently  specific  to  provide  transparency  to 
rightholders  on  the  functioning  of  the  tools  aimed  at  avoiding  unauthorised  content  under 
paragraph  4  whilst  respecting  the  need  to  ensure  that  there  is  no  general  monitoring 
obligation.  Such  information  could  for  example  include  a  description  of  the  type  of 
technologies (if any) or other means used by the service providers, information on third party 

25 

 
 
 
technology  providers whose services  they may use, the  average level  of  efficiency of these 
tools, any changes to the tools/services used (such as possible updates or changes in the use 
of third party services). Service providers should not be obliged to give specific information 
which would go against their business secrets, such as detailed characteristics of the software 
used, which may be proprietary.  

When  authorisations  are  granted,  online  content-sharing  service  providers  are  required  to 
provide, at the request of rightholders, adequate information on the use of content covered by 
the agreements concluded. In implementing this obligation, the Member States should require 
service  providers  to  provide  sufficiently  specific  information  to  achieve  the  objective  of 
transparency towards rightholders as indicated by recital 68. Such information should include 
data on the exploitation of the rightholders’ works and the revenues generated by the service 
providers.  At  the  same  time,  the  Member  States  should  bear  in  mind  that,  in  line  with  the 
same  recital,  service  providers  are  not  required  to  provide  detailed  and  individualised 
information on each work. However, service providers and rightholders are free to agree on 
more  specific  and  detailed  reporting  terms  in  their  contractual  negotiations.  Regular  and 
accurate reporting on the use of works and subject matter covered by a licensing agreement is 
important to ensure the rightholders’ fair remuneration.  

In view of increasing the efficiency of reporting and facilitating the processing of information 
reported, the Member States may encourage service providers to follow some best practices 
and industry standards on reporting formats, even if not imposed by the directive.  

Finally,  it  should  be  noted  that  some  more  specific  requirements  on  reporting  exist  under 
Article 17 of Directive 2014/26/EU. These requirements apply to the online content-sharing 
service providers in relation to collective management organisations.  

26