REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the Review of the Marrakesh Directive 2017/1564 and Marrakesh Regulation 2017/1563
Date: 2025-12-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, book trade, copyright, digitisation, facilities for people with disabilities, international convention, literary and artistic property, physically disabled person, press, reprography

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 11.12.2025  COM(2025) 749 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the Review of the Marrakesh Directive 2017/1564 and Marrakesh Regulation 2017/1563 {SWD(2025) 406 final}  
 
 
I. 

INTRODUCTION 

Recognising the significant negative impact of the limited access to written material in 
accessible form, or ‘book famine’, on the participation in society of people with disabilities 
and their access to education, in 2013, the Member States of the World Intellectual Property 
Organisation adopted the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for 
Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled (‘Marrakesh 
Treaty’) (1). 

The Treaty introduced mandatory limitations and exceptions to copyright for the benefit of 
the blind, visually impaired and otherwise print-disabled people in order to allow the 
reproduction, distribution and making available of works (such as text, notation and related 
illustration, in any media, including audiobooks) in accessible format copies. The Treaty also 
permits the exchange of these copies across borders (2). 

The European Union signed the Marrakesh Treaty in 2014 (3) and concluded it in February 
2018 (4). The Directive (EU) 2017/1564 on certain permitted uses of certain works and other 
subject matter protected by copyright and related rights for the benefit of persons who are 
blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled (5) (hereafter the Marrakesh Directive) 
and the Regulation (EU) 2017/1563 on the cross-border exchange between the Union and 
third countries of accessible format copies of certain works and other subject matter protected 
by copyright and related rights for the benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or 
otherwise print-disabled (6) (hereafter the Marrakesh Regulation) brought the necessary 
adaptations to EU law following the accession of the European Union to the WIPO 
Marrakesh Treaty. The Marrakesh Directive and Regulation aim to increase the availability of 
copies of books and other printed material in accessible formats for the benefit of persons 
with print-related disabilities, as well as to improve the circulation of such accessible format 
copies across borders. The Marrakesh Directive had to be transposed by 11 October 2018. 
The Marrakesh Regulation is applicable since 12 October 2018. 

(1)  The ‘Marrakesh’ Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually 

Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled, entered into force in September 2016. 

(2)  https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/marrakesh/summary_marrakesh.html . 
(3)  Council Decision of 14 April 2014 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Marrakesh 

Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or otherwise 
Print Disabled). 

(4)  Council Decision (EU) 2018/254 of 15 February 2018 on the conclusion on behalf of the European Union 
of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually 
Impaired, or otherwise Print Disabled). The ratification took place in October 2018. 

(5)  Directive (EU) 2017/1564 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 September 2017 on certain 
permitted uses of certain works and other subject matter protected by copyright and related rights for the 
benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled and amending Directive 
2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information 
society –  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32017L1564. 

(6)  Regulation (EU) 2017/1563 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 September 2017 on the 
cross-border exchange between the Union and third countries of accessible format copies of certain works 
and other subject matter protected by copyright and related rights for the benefit of persons who are blind, 
visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled – https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32017R1563. 

1 

 
 
 
Article 10(1) of the Marrakesh Directive and Article 7 of the Marrakesh Regulation require 
the Commission to carry out an evaluation of these instruments by 11 October 2023 (7)and to 
propose amendments where appropriate. The aim of this evaluation is to assess the extent to 
which the Marrakesh Directive and the Marrakesh Regulation have been effective in meeting 
their objectives, efficient, relevant to the needs of the beneficiaries, coherent with European 
Union (EU) policy and international commitments and have demonstrated EU added value. 
In particular, this evaluation assesses how these two legal instruments have impacted the 
availability of accessible format copies of works within its scope and have helped to facilitate 
the cross-border exchange of such copies. 

As required by Article 10(1) of the Marrakesh Directive, the evaluation specifically includes 
an assessment of the impact of the compensation schemes existing in certain Member States 
for the availability of accessible format copies and their cross-border exchanges. 
Furthermore, the evaluation considers the possible impact of the rules provided for in the 
Marrakesh Directive and the Marrakesh Regulation on the commercial availability of certain 
works or other subject matter in accessible formats for beneficiary persons, as well as their 
relevance in the context of other policy areas related to the accessibility of published works, 
in particular the European Accessibility Act (‘EAA’) (8). 

Prior to the adoption of the Marrakesh Treaty, Directive 2001/29 on the harmonisation of 
certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (9) granted Member 
States the option to provide in their national laws an exception or limitation from copyright 
and related rights for the benefits of people with disabilities, for uses of a non-commercial 
nature which are directly related to the disability, to the extent required by the specific 
disability. All Member States made use of this possibility to some extent (10). However, as 
Directive 2001/29 sets out only minimum requirements, leaving it to the Member States to 
define the detailed conditions for the application of the exception (11), there were divergences 

(7)  Delays in the publication of this report have been encountered due to the time needed for the drafting of the 
evaluation report and staff working document in parallel with other activities in the area of copyright. 

(8)  Directive (EU) 2019/882 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the 

accessibility requirements for products and services – https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32019L0882; the EAA, among others aims to harmonise accessibility 
requirements for e-books placed on the EU market after28 June 2025. 

(9)  Article 5(3)b of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 

May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society 
OJ L 167, 22.6.2001, pp. 10-19. 

(10)  Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on certain 

permitted uses of works and other subject-matter protected by copyright and related rights for the benefit of 
persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled and amending Directive 2001/29/EC 
on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, 2016/0278 
(COD); COM(2016) 596 final, 14.9.2016, p. 6. 

(11)  Explanatory Memorandum - Proposal for a EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 

on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the Information Society Brussels,, 
97/0359 (COD), COM(97) 628 final, 10.12.1997, p.32. 

2 

 
 
 
in the scope of application of the exception (12), which in turn affected the cross-border 
exchange of accessible format copies (13). 

The implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty into EU law led to the establishment of EU 
wide harmonised rules allowing people who are blind, or have a visual impairment which 
cannot be improved so as to give them visual function substantially equivalent to that of a 
person who has no such impairment, or have a reading or perceptual disability, or are 
otherwise print-disabled, to make copies of certain works and other subject matter without the 
authorisation of the rightholder, for the benefit persons with print-related disabilities. Works 
in the form of books, newspapers, magazines or other kinds of writing, notation, including 
sheet music, and related illustrations, in any media, can therefore be made into accessible 
format copies, such as braille, audio or large format, by beneficiaries and persons acting on 
their behalf. Furthermore, the Marrakesh Directive provides that certain bodies can carry out 
acts on behalf of beneficiaries. These bodies are authorised entities, which are public or 
private organisations, in particular libraries, educational establishments and other non-profit 
organisations that serve people with a print disability as one of their primary activities, 
institutional obligations or as part of their public interest missions. Authorised entities can 
make an accessible format copy of a work or other subject matter to which they have lawful 
access, and communicate, make available, distribute or lend an accessible format copy to a 
beneficiary or to another authorised entity on a non-profit basis, for the purpose of exclusive 
use by a beneficiary. The authorised entities have the obligation to establish practices to 
prevent the unauthorised dissemination of works. The Marrakesh Directive includes a 
provision allowing the cross-border exchange of accessible format copies in the internal 
market. This is complemented by the Marrakesh Regulation, which enables cross-border 
exchanges with third countries which are party to the Marrakesh Treaty. 

The Marrakesh Directive allows Member States to maintain or introduce compensation 
schemes for uses permitted under the Directive and which are undertaken by authorised 
entities established in their territory. To date, compensation schemes are in place in six 
Member States (14). Two more Member States introduced the possibility to have a 
compensation scheme if there is a prejudice to the interests of rightholders but have not made 
use of this option so far (15). 

The EU legislator decided not to implement the option set out in the Marrakesh Treaty to 
confine the limitation or exception to works which, in the particular accessible format, cannot 
be obtained commercially under reasonable terms for beneficiary persons in that market. It 
was considered that imposing such an obligation on authorised entities would be detrimental 
to legal certainty and thus ultimately affect the availability of works for beneficiaries (16). The 

(12)  Study on the application of Directive 2001/29/EC on copyright and related rights in the information society 

(the ‘InfoSoc Directive’), 2013, p. 428, available at https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/9ebb5084-ea89-4b3e-bda2-33816f11425b. 

(13)  Idem, p. 437. 
(14)  Overview on the Member States that have compensation schemes is available in the Staff working 

document and the study, p. 43. 

(15)  The study, p. 43. 
(16)  See recital 14, first sentence. 

3 

 
 
 
Member States are not allowed to introduce additional requirements on authorised entities 
such as the prior verification of the commercial availability of works in accessible formats. 
Two Member States seem to have provisions in place which could lead to authorised entities 
checking the commercial availability or could create a lack of clarity in this regard (17). The 
Commission will be analysing these matters further. 

The authorised entities are not subject to an authorisation procedure for the uses covered by 
the framework. However, as mentioned above, they are confined to specific categories, 
enumerated in Article 2(4). The Marrakesh Directive clarifies that authorisation and 
recognition requirements which Member States may apply to authorised entities, such as 
those relating to the provision of services of a general nature to beneficiary persons, should 
not have the effect of preventing them from undertaking activities permitted by the Directive. 
The implementation of the Directive led in one Member State (18) to removing the obligation 
of authorised entities to register with the national authorities, while in some Member 
States (19) the authorised entities have to notify to the national authorities of their status as an 
authorised entity and their contact details (20). 

In addition, the authorised entities are encouraged to voluntarily transmit their contact details 
to their Member States of establishment if they engage in exchanges in the internal market or 
if they import or export accessible format copies under the Marrakesh Regulation. Member 
States transmit this information to the Commission, which makes it publicly available (21) 

The Directive does not include any specific monitoring requirements. Consultation of 
Member States does not provide a comprehensive picture but revealed that in some Member 
States authorised entities transmit periodical reporting to the relevant authority or are subject 
to ad hoc controls. At the same time, in one Member State no information was available on 
the implementation of the Marrakesh rules due to a lack of information on which were the 
authorised entities functioning in that country (22). 

II. 

METHODOLOGY 

The evaluation draws on a supporting study, which was launched in April 2023 and was 
completed in spring 2024. The data was gathered through desk research, consultation 
activities with Member States (which are required to provide information in line with 
Article 10(2) of the Marrakesh Directive) and stakeholders, through a targeted consultation 

(17)  Staff Working Document p. 14. 
(18)  Staff Working Document, p. 15. 
(19)  Staff Working Document, p. 15. 
(20)  Information on this aspect from the consultation activities was not available for all Member States. 
(21)  The list is available at https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/authorised-entities-context-directive-eu-

20171564. 

(22)  Staff Wording Document, p.16. 

4 

 
 
 
and in-depth interviews conducted in the framework of the supporting study (23). The views 
of the public were also received via a call for evidence (24). 

As required by the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation, the views of relevant civil society 
actors and of non-governmental organisations, including organisations representing people 
with disabilities and those representing older people have been taken into account in the 
process of the evaluation. In particular, the consultation activities (targeted consultation, in 
depths interviews) covered, in addition to authorised entities, several organisations 
representing persons with disabilities. The invitation to participate in the targeted consultation 
was also disseminated to organisations representing older people, but only one such 
organisation responded. Furthermore, several organisations representing people with 
disabilities transmitted their views in the context of the call for evidence (25). The targeted 
consultation and the call for evidence have been made accessible to people with disabilities. 

III. 

EFFECTIVENESS 

To assess if the intervention was effective, the evaluation considered whether the Marrakesh 
Directive and Regulation improved the availability of accessible format copies within the EU 
and their cross-border exchanges within the EU and with third countries which are parties to 
the Marrakesh Treaty. It also analysed whether there are factors which affected progress 
towards the objectives and if there were any unexpected and unintended consequences. 
Finally, it assessed the impact of compensation schemes on the availability of accessible 
format copies and their cross-border exchange. 

Quantitative data sourced for the evaluation from a sample of authorised entities showed that 
the number of titles in accessible format copies available in the collections of these 
institutions increased by more than 50% since 2018. The data is not sufficient to determine in 
quantitative terms the extent to which the rules harmonised by the Marrakesh Directive 
improved the production of accessible format copies by authorised entities, compared to what 
would have been possible under the national laws adopted on the basis of the 2001/29 Info 
Soc Directive. It needs also to be considered that, regardless of the copyright framework, 
budgetary constraints and technological capabilities are more likely to drive the production 
capacities of authorised entities. However, qualitative data gathered through the targeted 
consultation shows that, in the opinion of stakeholders, the Marrakesh framework has had a 
positive impact on the availability of accessible formats. Academic research conducted in 
2022 also highlighted a perceived increase of the availability of accessible works. It 

(23)  The targeted consultation took place between 22 June and 11 August 2023 https://digital-

strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/consultations/targeted-stakeholder-consultation-application-marrakesh-directive-
and-regulation. 

(24)  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13615-EU-copyright-law-for-blind-

and-visually-impaired-people-evaluation-of-the-Marrakesh-Directive-and-Regulation_en 

(25)  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13615-EU-copyright-law-for-blind-

and-visually-impaired-people-evaluation-of-the-Marrakesh-Directive-and-Regulation_en. 

5 

 
 
 
suggested that the Marrakesh framework facilitated in particular the conversion of printed 
material into braille format, but had little impact on access to digital books (26). 

Furthermore, certain quantitative impacts can be discerned as an effect of the harmonisation 
of the exception in the Marrakesh Directive. In the reference period there has been an 
increase of approximately 39% in the number of users (beneficiaries) registered with the 
authorised entities which provided data. This can be linked to the harmonisation under the 
Marrakesh Directive of the categories of beneficiaries, leading in some Member States to  
widening the scope of the beneficiaries compared to what was previously in place at national 
level. As shown for instance by the responses to the 2014 EU public consultation (27), not all 
exceptions existing at national level prior to the adoption of the Marrakesh Directive and 
Regulation covered reading disabilities, whereas now they are within the scope. 

As concerns cross-border exchanges, the ratification by the EU of the Marrakesh Treaty has 
made possible the cooperation with authorised entities in all Member States and contracting 
parties in third countries, including by facilitating the access to the ABC Global Book 
Service, which supports the implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty (28). 

The cross-border exchange within the EU and with third countries party to the Marrakesh 
Treaty amounted on average to 16.3% of overall titles held in 2023 by the authorised entities 
that provided data, up from 12.7% of titles sourced from EU and third countries in 2018. 
Countries that share a common language tend to have a higher rate of imported titles, as users 
usually prefer works in their own language. Foreign language books, while making up a 
smaller part of the collection of authorised entities, are in the vast majority of cases sourced 
through cross-border exchanges. The imported titles are mostly sourced from other Member 
States, but authorised entities also import titles from third countries party to the Marrakesh 
Treaty. Such imports reached a share of 2.7% of the catalogue in 2023 (up from 2% in 2018). 
Authorised entities interviewed in the context of the study indicate that they usually import 
works from the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Canada (29). The 
exchanges can be quite significant in the case of specific authorised entities: for example, the 
catalogue of a French authorised entity contains 15% of titles imported from Switzerland and 
Canada (30); the same authorised entity reported that it also exported to third countries, in 

(26)  Ferri, D. The Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, 

Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled in the European Union: Reflecting on Its Implementation 
and Gauging Its Impact from a Disability Perspective, IIC 55, 89-109 (2024), available at 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-023-01410-y 

(27)  Report on the responses to the Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules, available at 
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/modernisation-eu-copyright-rules-useful-documents. 

(28)  Online catalogue allowing authorised entities from ratifying states to exchange books in accessible formats 

without seeking the authorisation of rightholders; see https://www.accessiblebooksconsortium.org/. 

(29)  The study, p. 76. 
(30)  The study, p. 208. 

6 

 
 
 
particular Canada (31). Interviews with authorised entities indicate furthermore that exchanges 
with countries from Latin America and Africa largely consist of exports from the EU (32). 

Qualitative data gathered by the study team through the targeted consultation supports the 
view that the EU harmonised rules are impactful on cross-border exchanges, with authorised 
entities and national authorities considering that the impact on the EU and international cross-
border exchanges of the rules was more important than on production. This can be linked to 
the reporting from authorised entities that, while certain Member States had cooperation 
agreements in place before the adoption of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation to 
exchange across borders accessible format copies (especially in the same language areas), the 
implementation of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation allowed some of them for the first 
time to make such exchanges, or permitted them to expand the exchanges to a wider number 
of countries (33). 

Factors affecting the production and exchange of accessible format copies 

Based on the responses to the targeted consultation by authorised entities, the main factors 
limiting the production of accessible format copies are linked to insufficient funding for the 
institutions producing the formats, or insufficient other resources (human resources, know 
how, technology). For funding sources, the authorised entities rely mostly on public funding 
or a combination of public funding and donations. In one Member State, the authorised entity 
is funded mainly through the gross income obtained from the marketing of lotteries. 

Authorised entities in smaller markets are also confronted with constraints due to limited 
capacity of production, though it can be noted that in these Member States, the richness of the 
catalogues of authorised entities varies significantly, with authorised entities in Finland and 
Denmark possessing many more titles than authorised entities in Croatia or Lithuania. 

The awareness of beneficiaries (people with disabilities) as to where and how to find 
accessible format copies was also identified as a challenge, both during the targeted 
consultation and the call for evidence. Research published in 2023 also found that 
beneficiaries and representatives of organisations of people with disabilities were not always 
aware of how the Marrakesh framework can benefit them (34). The article suggests that 
people who are blind might have a better awareness of the Marrakesh Treaty than people with 
a visual impairment, which could be linked to the different methods employed to access 

(31)  The authorised entity exported through the ABC platform 13 981 titles since 2014, with 63% of them going 

to third countries (predominantly Canada). 

(32)  ONCE in Spain exported 421 copies to Argentina and Peru in 2023, and 568 copies to Guatemala, Mexico 
and Argentine (the study, p. 212). A French authorised entity mentioned that they exported copies to 
African countries directly to beneficiaries in African countries, due to a lack of digital and physical 
infrastructure of the authorised entities in importing countries – see the study p. 67. 

(33)  The study, p. 31. 
(34)  Ferri, Delia and Rossello, Giulia (2023) The Role of the Marrakesh Treaty in Supporting Access to Printed 
Material for People Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired: A Critical Discussion of the Results of an 
Empirical study Conducted in Six European Countries, Disabilities, 3 (2), p. 162. 

7 

 
 
 
works (e.g. using copyright exceptions to produce braille copies for people who are blind 
versus using visual magnifiers for people with visual impairments) (35) 

Certain authorised entities also flagged the importance for beneficiaries to have access to 
technology allowing them to use digital accessible formats, which is still lagging. Authorised 
entities also highlighted the importance of catering for various needs of beneficiaries, for 
instance by collaborating with library networks to provide physical copies to beneficiaries via 
the local library. 

Therefore, while in the reference period, the number of beneficiaries and of works in 
accessible format copies have increased, certain factors not directly linked to the Marrakesh 
rules – in particular the availability of resources of the authorised entities – are perceived by 
these institutions as being an obstacle to providing more accessible copies. 

Impact of compensation schemes 

The compensation schemes differ among the six Member States that have introduced them: in 
four Member States the compensation schemes are limited either to certain sectors 
(education), to certain formats (e.g. audiobooks) or to certain delivery modes (e.g. download), 
while in two Member States the compensation scheme does not contain such differentiations, 
and therefore applies to the uses by authorised entities covered by the Marrakesh Directive. 

The study compared the increase in the volume of catalogues, in the reference period, of 5 
authorised entities present in 4 Member States with compensation schemes, and 19 authorised 
entities in 12 Member States without compensation schemes. While the data shows that the 
overall volume of titles in the 19 authorised entities increased to a greater extent than in the 5 
authorised entities from the Member States with compensation schemes, the data has to be 
treated with caution. As the study itself explains, the data is very limited and might not be 
representative, and does not allow for a correlation between the lack of compensation 
schemes and the increased volume of copies in accessible formats. This is because other 
factors may account for the difference in the rate of increase of catalogues of copies in 
accessible format, such as the fact that authorised entities in Member States that have 
introduced compensation schemes might have had already an extensive collection of titles, 
while other authorised entities might have started to build up their collection in the reference 
period. For instance, as mentioned before, Finland and Denmark (where a compensation 
scheme is in place) possess significantly more titles than authorised entities in Croatia or 
Lithuania, where no compensation scheme applies (36).Overall, the lack of contextual data 
does not allow a conclusion to be drawn about the impact of this comparison. 

(35)  Ferri, Delia and Rossello, Giulia (2023) The Role of the Marrakesh Treaty in Supporting Access to Printed 
Material for People Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired: A Critical Discussion of the Results of an 
Empirical study Conducted in Six European Countries, Disabilities, 3 (2), p.. 162. 

(36)  69 021 titles in Finland and 84 000 in Denmark; 7 727 in Croatia and 15 433 in Lithuania (see the study, p. 

215). 

8 

 
 
 
In their responses to the call for evidence, opinions of stakeholders differ among the 
consulted groups. Rightholders emphasise that compensation schemes are needed to 
safeguard  rightholders' interests and should accurately reflect the extent and manner of use 
of the accessible format (37), while representatives of beneficiaries argue that the 
compensation schemes should be eliminated (38), in particular mentioning that compensation 
schemes create barriers and that authorised entities, working on a non-profit basis, should not 
be paying for work that publishers should do themselves. Two respondents representing 
beneficiaries consider that compensation schemes are against the spirit of the Marrakesh 
Treaty, despite the fact that these schemes are expressly allowed by the Treaty. While the 
Marrakesh Treaty permits contracting parties to decide whether to provide remuneration to 
rightholders for uses under the copyright exception introduced by the Marrakesh Treaty, EU 
law provides that the possibility for its Member States to provide for such compensation 
schemes is limited. 

In particular, the schemes can only apply to authorised entities and they should not require 
payments by beneficiary persons (see recital 14). As such, the option in Article 3(6) of the 
Marrakesh Directive given by the EU legislator to Member States is consistent with the 
Treaty. 

Furthermore, the perception of the impact of compensation schemes also appears to vary 
depending on the design and financing of the scheme in the specific Member State. 
Authorised entities from Member States where the level of funding from the state also covers 
the compensation due, and where the compensation scheme is limited to certain types of uses 
or works, seem more likely to consider that the compensation scheme is not affecting, or 
affecting to a more limited extent, the production of accessible format copies. In other 
Member States with compensation schemes, even if the overall compensation paid annually 
is low, the impact may be perceived as important by stakeholders if the budget is not 
considered sufficiently high (especially if authorised entities rely on donations for their 
funding). 

The correlation between compensation schemes and cross-border exchange is also difficult to 
quantify or establish, especially since exchanges between Member States and with third 
countries are affected by various factors, linked in particular to sharing a common language, 
as well as to the use of technology in certain cases (interoperability of formats and 
metadata) (39). While quantitative data is not available to determine possible effects, certain 
stakeholders argue that authorised entities engage less in cross-border exchanges, in 
particular due to uncertainties regarding the application to cross-border dissemination and the 
difficulty of calculating compensation for exports, which could dissuade them to engage in 

(37)  See responses to the call for evidence from e.g. European Writers Council, FEP, ALIS, available at 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13615-EU-copyright-law-for-blind-
and-visually-impaired-people-evaluation-of-the-Marrakesh-Directive-and-Regulation_en. 

(38)  See responses to the call for evidence, available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-
your-say/initiatives/13615-EU-copyright-law-for-blind-and-visually-impaired-people-evaluation-of-the-
Marrakesh-Directive-and-Regulation_en. 

(39)  The study, p. 76. 

9 

 
 
 
such exchanges. However, such concerns about the impact of compensation schemes on 
cross-border exchange between Member States seem to be focused on particular countries, 
and might be caused by the design and practical application of compensation schemes and the 
possible uncertainty this might cause. In this context, it is important to bear in mind that 
compensation schemes should only apply to uses by authorised entities established in the 
territory of the Member State providing for such a scheme, and they should not require 
payments by authorised entities established in other Member States or third countries that are 
parties to the Marrakesh Treaty. 

Possible unintended consequences- potential impact on the commercial market 

The question as to whether the Marrakesh framework can have consequences on the 
commercial market has led to the specific provision in Article 10(3) of the Marrakesh 
Directive. According to this provision, a Member State may alert the Commission if they 
have valid reasons to consider that the implementation of the Directive has had a significant 
negative impact on the commercial availability of works or other subject matter in accessible 
formats for beneficiary people, providing all relevant evidence. The Commission is required 
to take such evidence into account when drawing up the evaluation report. 

At the time of drafting this report, no Member State has submitted evidence to the 
Commission in accordance with Article 10(3) of the Marrakesh Directive. 

The data collected in the process of preparing this evaluation did not provide such evidence 
either. The study noted that there is a lack of comprehensive data on the accessible publishing 
market (40). 

During the targeted consultation, most stakeholders consulted did not identify a negative 
impact of the Marrakesh rules on the incentives for commercial production. One stakeholder 
flagged a positive indirect impact of the Marrakesh framework on the publishing market, as 
they consider that it has led to increased coordination and exchange between publishers and 
authorised entities (41). 

Based on the available information, it cannot be concluded that the Marrakesh framework has 
a significant negative impact on the commercial availability of works in accessible format, 
Therefore, the current data does not warrant a revision of the current approach concerning the 
check of the commercial availability of works in accessible format. 

Potential impact on broader social goals 

(40)  The study, p. 67. 
(41)  Response to the Call for Evidence from the European Writers’ Council available at EU copyright law for 
blind and visually impaired people – evaluation of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation (europa.eu). 

10 

 
 
 
Several stakeholders indicated positive impacts of the Marrakesh framework on areas such as 
social inclusion and equality in general (42), developing opportunities to learn for children and 
adults (43), and work, culture and community participation (44).However, it is difficult to 
determine on the basis of the data available for this evaluation the extent to which the 
Marrakesh framework might have impacted these broader social goals. Stakeholders also 
mentioned persisting difficulties, going beyond the Marrakesh framework, that might affect 
these goals, such as the insufficient availability of textbooks in accessible formats, 
insufficient accessibility of digital learning platforms, the need of adequate training of the 
teachers and librarians (45). 

The cross-border exchange facilitated by the Marrakesh framework makes it possible to send 
works in accessible formats to emigrants in other Member States or to serve the needs of 
minority populations or refugees by importing works from countries that share the language 
of these categories. The framework could be seen also as having contributed to awareness, in 
particular among publishers, of the challenges faced by people with disabilities (46). 

IV. 

EFFICIENCY 

The analysis of the efficiency in the context of this evaluation presented important 
limitations, as there was insufficient available data to quantify the impact from the 
application of the Marrakesh rules. Much of the quantitative data collected contained limited 
details on the authorised entities’ budget and their allocations or pertained only to a specific 
authorised entity. The assessment therefore mostly relies on consideration of qualitative data. 

Even before the adoption of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation, EU law, in particular 
Article 5(3)(b) of the Info Soc Directive, provided Member States with the option to 
introduce an exception or limitation from copyright to benefit people with disabilities. 
Member States have used this option to implement the exception or limitation in their 
national legislation, however the variations in terms of the scope of application at national 
level created burdens for the cross-border exchange of accessible format copies (47). The 
Marrakesh framework alleviated these differences and increased legal certainty by clarifying 
the scope of beneficiaries covered, as well as the scope of copyright relevant acts which could 

(42)  Responses to the Call for Evidence from an EU citizen and Nota, 2023, available at EU copyright law for 

blind and visually impaired people – evaluation of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation (europa.eu). 
(43)  Response to the Call for Evidence from Nota, 2023; available at EU copyright law for blind and visually 
impaired people – evaluation of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation (europa.eu); interviews by the 
study team with the European Blind Union and Eureka Leuven, 2023. 

(44)  Response to the Call for Evidence from Nota, 2023, available at EU copyright law for blind and visually 

impaired people – evaluation of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation (europa.eu). 

(45)  Interview by the study team with the European Disability Forum, European Writers’ Council, German 

Federation of the Blind and Partially Sighted, Accessibility Library Celia and Eureka Leuven 

(46)  Interviews conducted by the study team with the German Centre for Accessible Reading, the European 

Blind Union, the European Writers’ Council, and Luisterpuntbibliotheek, 2023. 

(47)  European Commission, Directorate-General for the Internal Market and Services, Francquen, A., Dusollier, 
S., Triaille, J. et al., study on the application of Directive 2001/29/EC on copyright and related rights in the 
information society (the ‘Infosoc Directive’), European Commission, 2013, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2780/90141, pp. 420-437. 

11 

 
 
 
be carried out. As explained in the section above, this led to an increase in the number of 
beneficiaries covered and facilitated cross-border exchanges. People with disabilities benefit 
therefore from improved access to accessible format copies, and authorised entities are likely 
to provide services to a larger user base and to participate in more cross-border exchanges. 

While authorised entities deploy resources to produce accessible format copies, these costs 
are not imposed on them by the Marrakesh framework, which aims to facilitate their activity 
of producing and exchanging accessible format copies through increased legal certainty. Most 
authorised entities interviewed by the study reported that there have not been major changes 
to production costs following the implementation of the Marrakesh framework. 

At the same time, the harmonisation introduced by the Marrakesh framework created savings 
for authorised entities, as accessible format copies could be sourced more easily through 
cross-border exchange, helping to prevent duplication of activity. One authorised entity 
indicated for instance that the cross-border exchanges, within and outside the EU, led to 
savings of approximately EUR 133 000 over a span of three and a half years. The 
harmonisation of EU rules also reduced the need to check the national copyright rules that 
apply in the countries of destination. 

Authorised entities which distribute, communicate to the public or make available to the 
public accessible format copies are subject to certain rules under the framework. These are 
limited to preventing the unauthorised distribution of accessible format copies, and to 
allowing beneficiaries, rightsholders and other authorised entities to receive relevant 
information. The practices of authorised entities in this respect are varied (48), however there 
is no precise data to quantify the resources used to this end. At the same time, the framework 
does not impose obligations on the authorised entities that could inhibit the production of 
accessible format copies and which could be perceived as a burden. For instance, the 
framework prevents obliging authorised entities to ensure prior verification of the 
commercial availability of works in accessible formats. In addition, the framework does not 
provide a specific authorisation procedure, clarifying in this regard that authorisation or 
recognition requirements for instance relating to the provision of services of a general nature 
to beneficiaries should not prevent authorised entities from undertaking the activities allowed 
under the Marrakesh instruments. 

The framework does not engage with issues concerning the financing of authorised entities. 
To varying extents, the budgets of authorised entities in most Member States are financed 
from public funds. In certain cases, beneficiaries might also contribute to the funds of 
authorised entities through donations. National authorities bear the costs linked generally to 
the enforcement of the rules, though no specific monitoring obligations are set out in the 
framework. 

While the available information does not allow firm conclusions grounded in quantitative 
data to be drawn, the evaluation did not uncover unnecessary burdens introduced by the 

(48)  Annex IV of the study. 

12 

 
 
 
framework and there does not seem to be a need for simplification and streamlining. The 
Marrakesh Directive and Regulation do not impose a specific authorisation procedure on 
authorised entities, prevent prior checks of commercial availability, and do not include 
mandatory reporting obligations for authorised entities to national authorities. Member States 
only need to report to the Commission information transmitted voluntarily to them on contact 
details of authorised entities engaged in cross-border exchange. The administrative 
requirements are limited to what is necessary to ensure the availability of accessible format 
copies, prevent unauthorised uses and facilitate transparency. The intervention, which 
improves the availability of accessible format copies for beneficiaries while creating savings 
through increased legal certainty, achieves its goals in an efficient manner. 

Impact on efficiency of compensation schemes 

As concerns rightholders, the rules were expected to have a limited impact on their copyright 
as property right (recognised by Article 17 of the Charter), since the Marrakesh Directive is 
limited to fully harmonising the divergent copyright exceptions or limitations already existing 
at national level prior to the adoption of the Marrakesh Directive, and to facilitating the cross-
border exchange of accessible formats (49). Some variations in impacts compared to the pre-
Marrakesh period might have resulted from the improvement of availability of accessible 
format copies, including the increase in the number of beneficiaries (as detailed in the section 
on effectiveness). The Marrakesh Directive recognises the possibility of maintaining or 
introducing compensation schemes while also clarifying that when determining the level of 
compensation, due account should be taken of the non-profit nature of the activities of 
authorised entities, of the public interest objectives pursued by this Directive, of the interests 
of beneficiaries of the exception, of the possible harm to rightholders and of the need to 
ensure cross-border dissemination of accessible format copies. The particular circumstances 
of each case resulting from the making of a particular accessible format copy must also be 
considered. Where the harm to a rightholder is minimal, no obligation for payment of 
compensation should arise. In the Member States that have in place compensation schemes, 
costs are incurred by authorised entities linked to the payment of the compensation, including 
the calculation and distribution of the fees by the authorised entities. Since some of the 
national compensation schemes were also in place before adoption of the Marrakesh 
framework, or replaced other obligations, the related costs are generally not new. 

According to the information collected by the study, the overall compensation paid may differ 
significantly among Member States, the cost ranging from EUR 27 000 in Germany, EUR 

(49)  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain permitted uses of works 
and other subject-matter protected by copyright and related rights for the benefit of persons who are blind, 
visually impaired or otherwise print disabled and amending Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of 
certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, COM(2016) 596 final, 2016/0278 
(COD), p. 6; 
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the cross-border exchange 
between the Union and third countries of accessible format copies of certain works and other subject-matter 
protected by copyright and related rights for the benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or 
otherwise print disabled, COM(2016) 595 final, 2016/0279 (COD), p. 5. 

13 

 
 
 
159 000 in Finland, EUR 1 million in Sweden to EUR 1.7 million in Denmark. The impact 
associated by stakeholders with compensation schemes seems to vary depending on the 
design and financing model of national compensation schemes. As explained in the section on 
effectiveness, even if the overall compensation paid annually could be low, the impact may 
be perceived as important by stakeholders if the budget of authorised entities is not 
considered sufficiently high (especially if authorised entities rely on donations for their 
funding). 

In addition to the funding available for the authorised entities, the administrative costs linked 
for example to the calculation and payment of compensation schemes seem to vary 
depending on the digitisation and automation of data processing, but no precise data is 
available to determine such costs. 

Factors contributing to the efficient implementation of the Marrakesh Directive 

Depending on the particular institutional and market context in the Member States, certain 
factors can contribute to the efficient implementation of the Marrakesh Directive. 

In particular, centralisation or increased cooperation between authorised entities can facilitate 
economies of scale as well as facilitate access for beneficiaries. In addition to the ABC WIPO 
initiative, further cooperation initiatives have been developed at national level connecting the 
authorised entities functioning in that territory, or authorised entities present in the same 
language area (e.g between authorised entities in Austria, Germany and Switzerland) or 
connecting authorised entities for specific projects (e.g cooperation between authorised 
entities in Nordic countries to coordinate production and share costs to provide copies in the 
language of an ethnic minority). 

Furthermore, forms of cooperation between authorised entities and publishers such as in the 
production of accessible format copies or the sharing of information and titles can be cost-
efficient and prevent duplication. 

The access of beneficiaries to available titles is being facilitated by certain authorised entities 
through online catalogues. At the same time, not all beneficiaries have the know how or the 
access to the technology to allow them access via an online catalogue. Various practices to 
cater for the diverse needs of beneficiaries and offer them necessary support (e.g. 
collaboration with libraries networks, providing alternative means of contact, training) also 
seem relevant to improving access. 

The level of digitalisation of authorised entities and the interoperability of formats they use 
can help minimise administrative and operational costs and further facilitate cross-border 
exchanges and minimise administrative burdens linked to conversion work (especially in 
exchange with third countries). 

The obligation imposed on authorised entities in Article 5(1)(b) of the Directive to take 
appropriate steps to discourage the unauthorised reproduction, distribution, communication to 

14 

 
 
the public or making available to the public of accessible format copies should be fully 
respected, while ensuring it does not create barriers to access for beneficiaries. While no 
precise information is available to assess the impact of the methods used by authorised 
entities to prevent unauthorised dissemination of accessible format copies, interviews with 
stakeholders suggest that password protection and two factor authentication reduce 
accessibility for beneficiaries and are avoided by authorised entities. On the other hand, 
watermarking appears to provide a good cost-benefit ratio in preventing the unauthorised 
dissemination of downloadable copies in non-specialised formats. More generally, the 
measures put in place to prevent unauthorised uses carry even more weight where the copies 
provided by the authorised entities are of high quality and in formats (e-books, audiobooks) 
which can in theory be enjoyed by the wider public. 

V. 

COHERENCE 

The Marrakesh Directive and Regulation contribute to improving access to cultural works, 
educational material and information for people with disabilities, in line with the objective of 
Article 30 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 
(CRPD) The implementation of the Marrakesh Treaty into EU law was recommended in the 
observations of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 
observations on the initial report of the European Union, in relation to Article 30 of the 
Convention (50). 

The Marrakesh Directive and Regulation are also coherent with the objectives and the 
personal and material scope of the Marrakesh Treaty. 

At EU level, the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation are coherent with the other instruments 
of EU copyright legislation, in particular with Directive 2001/29 permitting Member States to 
have exceptions in their national legislation for other disabilities or types of works than those 
within the scope of the Marrakesh Directive (51). 

The Marrakesh instruments are also coherent with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, 
which prohibits all forms of discrimination, including on grounds of disability, and provides 
that the right of people with disabilities to benefit from measures designed to ensure their 
independence, social and occupational integration and participation in the life of the 
community is recognised and respected by the EU. 

The Marrakesh instruments are coherent with other EU legislation addressing disability in the 
digital environment, such as the Web Accessibility Directive (52), the Audiovisual Media 

(50)  https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/812354?ln=en&v=pdf. 
(51)  Article 8 of the Marrakesh Directive amends Article 5(3)(b) of the InfoSoc Directive to provide that the 
latter is ‘without prejudice to the obligations of Member States under Directive (EU) 2017/1564 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council’. 

(52)  Directive (EU) 2016/2102 on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector 

bodies OJ L 327, 2.12.2016, p. 1. 

15 

 
 
 
Services Directive (53) and the European Accessibility Act (54) (EAA), The first two concern 
different sectors than the written works covered by the Marrakesh framework (namely public 
sector websites and audiovisual media services respectively) and address the accessibility of 
these services with other legal tools than copyright legislation. 

The EAA aims to improve the functioning of the internal market for accessible products and 
services, by introducing common rules on accessibility and thus removing barriers created by 
divergent rules in Member States. Member States need to ensure that economic operators 
only place on the market products and only provide services that comply with the 
accessibility requirements set out by this act. This covers, among others, e-books and 
dedicated software as well as e-readers. The measures, which apply from 28 June 2025, do 
not change the copyright rules of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation. Both measures 
apply in parallel, with the EAA ensuring the increased availability of accessible e-books, 
while the Marrakesh instruments would continue to allow beneficiaries and authorised 
entities to adapt published written works into accessible formats copies for people with visual 
and reading impairments or print-related disabilities. Both rightholders’ representatives and 
authorised entities have stressed the importance of synergies and cooperation in the smooth 
implementation of the EAA and in ensuring the complementarity between these pieces of 
legislation. 

According to rightholders’ representatives, the implementation of the EAA would make more 
relevant the need to ensure that the Marrakesh rules do not interfere with the normal 
exploitation of the work. 

However, as explained in recital 14, an explicit obligation to verify commercial availability 
could impact legal certainty for authorised entities. Furthermore, accessible e-books produced 
by the market under the EAA are not necessarily responding to various specific needs of 
beneficiaries covered by the Marrakesh Directive. It is likely (55) that the authorised entities 
will adapt to the practicalities of the new context and steer their resources to cater to needs 
unmet by the market (56). 

The Marrakesh instruments seem also coherent internally, with provisions aligned with its 
key goal of increasing availability of works in accessible formats copies, while also 
safeguarding the balance of rights and interests between rightholders and users. 

In order to protect the interests of rightholders, as discussed also in the previous sections, 
certain obligations are put in place on the authorised entities to prevent unauthorised use. 
Rightsholders would favour closer scrutiny by national authorities on how the obligations are 

(53)  Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or 
administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services 
(Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (Codified version) OJ L 95, 15.4.2010, p. 1. 

(54)  Directive (EU) 2019/882 on the accessibility requirements for products and services OJ L 151, 7.6.2019, 

p. 70. 

(55)  For example, one AE reported that their focus will probably shift to people with print disabilities who have 

cognitive issues (see the study, p. 96). 

(56)  For further discussion of the EAA impact, see also Section VII (relevance). 

16 

 
 
 
discharged by authorised entities, in particular to prevent unauthorised dissemination. Certain 
rightholders argue also that comprehensive information regarding the authorised entities 
functioning in a Member State could further facilitate cooperation (for instance the sharing of 
files by rightholders). At the same time, beneficiaries warned that requirements in certain 
Member States for authorised entities to be included on an approved list are contrary to the 
Marrakesh Treaty (57). 

As detailed in the introductory section, the Directive prevents the introduction of conditions 
for taking up activities under the framework, while providing nevertheless that such activities 
may be undertaken not only by beneficiaries, but also by authorised entities which are 
confined to specific categories (as defined in Article 2(4)). The Directive clarifies that 
national authorisation or recognition procedures applicable for instance to the provision of 
services of a general nature to beneficiary persons should not prevent the authorised entities 
from undertaking activities under the framework. The evaluation found that the systems in 
place at national level vary, with certain Member States requiring some form of notification, 
usually notifying the competent authority of the name, legal status, contact details, and 
information of the relevant activities of the authorised entity. However, data was not available 
for all Member States. Furthermore, the framework encourages the voluntary notification to 
national authorities of contact details of authorised entities engaged in cross-border exchange, 
which can help improve transparency. 

Overall, the Marrakesh instruments give effect to the EU’s international obligations under the 
Marrakesh Treaty and are coherent with the EU acquis (in particular with the EU copyright 
framework and EU disability policies) – and internally, in terms of its key goals and 
provisions. In the context of the EU legislation detailed above, the Marrakesh instruments 
constitute one of the tools to enhance accessibility of printed material. Ultimately, access to 
information, education and culture for people with disabilities are influenced by the 
combined effect of all EU legislative instruments on accessibility. 

VI. 

EU ADDED VALUE 

The CJEU concluded that the EU had exclusive competence to conclude the Marrakesh 
Treaty, therefore the introduction of rules at EU level was needed to fulfil the EU’s 
international obligations stemming from the adoption of the Treaty. 

Before the conclusion of the Marrakesh Treaty, while all Member States had implemented 
copyright exceptions or limitations for the benefit of visually impaired people, there were 
divergences in the scope of application of the exception (58), which in turn affected the cross-

(57)  See input to the call for evidence from EDF and EBU, available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-
regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13615-EU-copyright-law-for-blind-and-visually-impaired-people-
evaluation-of-the-Marrakesh-Directive-and-Regulation/F3414879_en. 

(58)  Study on the application of Directive 2001/29/EC on copyright and related rights in the information society 

(the ‘InfoSoc Directive’), 2013, p 428, available at https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/9ebb5084-ea89-4b3e-bda2-33816f11425b. 

17 

 
 
 
border exchange of accessible format copies (59). The lack of EU intervention to adopt the 
Marrakesh Directive and Regulation would have meant maintaining that status quo. 

The adoption of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation, in addition to being needed to fulfil 
the EU’s international obligations, harmonised the scope of the copyright exception and 
facilitated cross-border exchanges both within the EU and with third countries party to the 
Marrakesh Treaty. In turn, the facilitation of cross-border exchange led to economies of 
scale (60). 

The cross-border effect could not have been achieved as efficiently through measures at 
national level. The EU intervention especially aided the beneficiaries and authorised entities 
by ensuring increased legal certainty, which led to limiting duplication of efforts, increased 
overall efficiency and improved the availability of copies in accessible formats. 

VII.  RELEVANCE 

The relevance of the Marrakesh instruments has been assessed by taking account of market, 
policy and technology developments. 

In the reference period, the commercial offer of born accessible works remained 
underdeveloped. At the same time, there was an increase in digital formats such as e-books 
and audiobooks addressed to the general public, which indirectly can also serve certain needs 
of beneficiaries. However, beneficiaries indicate that such formats are not always sufficiently 
accessible, for instance because of a lack of accessible navigation through their content, or a 
lack of accessibility by commercial platforms to the work itself, or they are more likely to be 
accessible for some categories of beneficiaries (e.g. partially sighted people) rather than 
others (e.g blind users). 

The EAA is expected to have an important impact in making e-books in accessible format 
available. E-books provided on the market from June 2025 will be accessible in accordance 
with the accessibility requirements of the EAA to facilitate access for people with disabilities. 
It is important to note that microenterprises providing services are exempted from complying 
with the accessibility requirements of the Directive. Nevertheless, Member States are 
required to provide guidelines and tools to microenterprises to facilitate the application of the 
national measures transposing the EAA. In addition, the EAA contains some safeguards, 
which allow economic operators to apply the accessibility requirements to the extent that they 
do not impose a disproportionate burden or require a significant change in a product or 
service that results in the fundamental alteration of its basic nature. 

As indicated also in the study (61), the EAA does not put into question the relevance of the 
copyright exception provided in the Marrakesh Directive. Formats other than e-books – 
which are covered by the EAA - might be better suited for different disabilities (for instance, 

(59)  Idem, p. 437. 
(60)  See analysis in Section IV on Efficiency. 
(61)  The study, p. 56. 

18 

 
 
 
certain people might not have the skills or hardware to use e-books and they may be more 
comfortable using braille or large print formats). Even for people using e-books, the 
particular format of accessible e-books available on the market might not be appropriate for 
all print-related disabilities. Furthermore, the obligations in the EAA may not lead to full 
availability of all titles in born accessible format, and in particular when publishers qualify as 
micro enterprises, making the offer of born accessible books not fully comprehensive. 
Rightholders interviewed for the study argued that comic books might require fundamental 
alteration to be accessible. More generally, they argued that high costs for making a work 
accessible (if it contains a large number of graphics or charts for instance), combined with 
low expected sales, could be a justification for claiming that it leads to disproportionate 
burdens (62). 

The fact that more accessible e-books will be provided directly by the market as a result of 
the EAA is a very positive development. However, it will not exhaust the needs of people 
with disabilities for works covered by the Marrakesh instruments in accessible formats. On 
the other hand, it might help free up resources for authorised entities to focus on more 
specialised production of accessible format copies (63). 

Finally, following the adoption of the Marrakesh instruments, technologies and software have 
become more widely available to facilitate accessibility of printed works and a wider 
availability of accessible formats, marking a shift from analogue to digital formats and from 
physical distribution to online access (64). Technology can facilitate and make more efficient 
the production of born accessible works, including e-books and accessible format copies and 
provide better tools for beneficiaries to access print-related works. 

Some challenges persist regarding the use of these technologies, from barriers concerning the 
access to the technology (e.g cost, interoperability, know how) to limits of the technology 
itself (complexity of adapting works containing images or mathematical formulas or graphics, 
insufficient quality of text to speech adaptation) (65). 

Overall, despite limitations, technological development facilitates and makes more efficient 
the production of accessible works by publishers and authorised entities. It also provides 
additional tools to beneficiaries to access printed works. However, the new technologies do 
not make the Marrakesh instruments redundant: as indicated by the study, these remain a 
prerequisite for taking advantage of the technological development (66). 

(62)  Should that be the case, they would need to apply the accessibility requirements to the extent that they do 

not provide a disproportionate burden or a fundamental alteration. 

(63)  See response to the call for evidence by Daisy Consortium available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-
regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13615-EU-copyright-law-for-blind-and-visually-impaired-people-
evaluation-of-the-Marrakesh-Directive-and-Regulation/feedback_en?p_id=31995115. 

(64)  The study, pp. 57 and 59. 
(65)  The study, p. 59. 
(66)  The study, p. 60. 

19 

 
 
 
VIII.  CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED 

The evaluation found that the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation have EU added value. 
Their adoption was essential to meet the EU’s international obligations as signatory of the 
Marrakesh Treaty and to harmonise the copyright exception for persons with print-related 
disabilities in order to address the existing divergences in the scope of the national exceptions 
and limitations and to facilitate the cross-border exchange of accessible format copies. The 
same effect could not have been achieved by Member States in the absence of EU 
intervention. The framework added value especially for the beneficiaries and authorised 
entities, by ensuring increased legal certainty, in particular for cross-border exchange of 
accessible format copies. 

The Marrakesh Directive and Regulation have overall been effective in improving the 
availability of accessible format copies, as indicated by the qualitative data gathered for the 
evaluation, as well as by the sample data showing that the number of such copies increased 
and that more beneficiaries had become users of the services of authorised entities in the 
reference period. The introduction of the Marrakesh rules had a positive role in opening up 
the possibility of exchange within the EU and with third countries that are parties to the 
Marrakesh Treaty. 

Due to the limitations in data, it was not possible to draw conclusions on possible quantitative 
impacts of the compensation schemes allowed under the Directive and put in place in certain 
Member States on the production or exchange of accessible format copies. Based on 
qualitative data, it appears that the perceived impact of compensation schemes on the 
availability of accessible format copies differs among the Member States where such schemes 
are in place, depending on the scope of the scheme and financing sources (e.g. to what extent 
donations contribute to the budget of the authorised entity). 

The evaluation did not uncover possible unintended effects of the implementation of the 
Marrakesh instruments, in particular as concerns the impact on the commercial availability of 
works in accessible format. 

While the available information does not allow firm conclusions grounded in quantitative 
data to be drawn, the evaluation did not uncover unnecessary burdens introduced by the 
framework and there does not seem to be a need for simplification and streamlining. Against 
the background of existing copyright exceptions, the increased legal certainty achieved 
through the EU harmonisation facilitated cross-border exchange, and helped prevent 
duplication of activity in the production of accessible format copies, leading to savings for 
authorised entities. The framework does not impose obligations on the authorised entities that 
could inhibit the production of accessible format copies and which could be perceived as a 
burden. Overall, the rules appear to have improved the access of beneficiaries to accessible 
format copies in an efficient manner. 

In Member States where compensation schemes are in place, their impact on efficiency 
appears to depend on the funding available to the authorised entities (and in particular if 

20 

 
 
beneficiaries contribute through donations to the overall funds of authorised entities), as well 
as on the level of digitalisation of the authorised entities. 

Certain factors going beyond the Marrakesh framework may contribute to its efficiency. 
These can include different initiatives allowing exchange of information and cooperation 
among authorised entities, as well as between authorised entities and publishers, the level of 
digitalisation among authorised entities, and providing tailored support to beneficiaries 
regarding access to information on the available works. 

The evaluation found that the Marrakesh provisions are coherent internally, being suited to 
address the key goal of increasing availability of works in accessible formats copies while 
also safeguarding a fair balance between the rights and interests of rightholders and users. 
The Marrakesh instruments are also coherent with international and EU acquis. In particular, 
they are complementary to the European Accessibility Act, which requires a wide range of 
everyday products and services, including e-books, to be accessible for people with 
disabilities. 

The approach taken by the Marrakesh rules to avoid excessive obligations on the authorised 
entities (such as to check commercial availability of accessible formats of works they intend 
to adapt) remains a valid objective also in the context of the implementation of the EAA, in 
order to prevent a negative impact on the availability of accessible format copies for 
beneficiaries. At the same time, increased voluntary cooperation between rightholders and 
authorised entities should facilitate the interplay with EAA, to ensure that authorised entities 
will steer their resources to catering better the unmet needs.  

The evaluation found that the Marrakesh instruments remain relevant in light of the policy, 
market and technological developments. In particular, the EAA is expected to increase the 
commercial market for accessible e-books, however it does not exhaust the needs of people 
with disabilities covered by the Marrakesh Directive for accessible print books and material. 
The EAA could hopefully lead to freeing up resources of authorised entities for the more 
specialised production of accessible format copies. 

In view of the evaluation results, no amendments are considered warranted at this stage. 

Lessons learned 

Overall, the performance of the Marrakesh Directive and Regulation matched the 
expectations: against a background of existing but varied national copyright exceptions for 
the benefit of people with disabilities, the EU instruments improved legal certainty by 
clarifying the uses and beneficiaries covered by the EU copyright rules. This helped improve 
access to accessible format copies, while safeguarding the balance of rights and interests. At 
the same time, the impact of the measures implemented in Member States may vary due to 
different factors, in particular funding or resources, as well as access to technology, 
awareness, and levels of cooperation. While no comprehensive data are available to assess the 

21 

 
 
impact of these factors, the main lessons learned arising from the evaluation are the 
following: 

–  The insufficient funding or other insufficient resources (human resources, know how, 
technology) for the authorised entities are perceived as main obstacles to providing 
more accessible format copies. Ensuring a stable and sufficient level of funding for 
the authorised entities at national level seems relevant for the effectiveness and 
efficiency of the measures, including in cases where compensation schemes are in 
place. 

–  The level of digitalisation and technological readiness among authorised entities can 
make creating, exchanging, and accessing accessible format copies more efficient. 

–  Practices to ensure increased awareness of the services offered by the authorised 

entities and tailored support for beneficiaries to locate and access the titles offered are 
likely to further benefit the effectiveness of the framework. 

–  The measures put in place by authorised entities to prevent unauthorised use are 

important to prevent harm to rightholders, even more so when the copies provided by 
the authorised entities are in formats (e-books, audiobooks) which can be enjoyed by 
the wider public. Various methods can be applied to prevent unauthorised use, among 
them watermarking. 

–  Monitoring systems vary among Member States, however not all national authorities 
seem to have such systems in place or (in one case) are aware of the authorised 
entities in that country. Authorised entities under the Directive are confined to specific 
categories mentioned in Article 2(4). Furthermore, the voluntary notification by 
authorised entities to their national authorities, encouraged by the Directive for those 
entities that engage in cross-border exchanges, can contribute to increased 
transparency for all relevant parties and should be more widely applied. 

– 

Initiatives to support cooperation between authorised entities appear important to 
mitigate the duplication of efforts between organisations and to improve transparency 
as well as access for beneficiaries. 

–  Finally, cooperation between authorised entities and publishers could be useful to 
increase synergies. Such forms of cooperation already in place (e.g availability of 
platforms or incentives for publishers to provide authorised entities a copy in a digital 
format, so as to minimise the risk of duplication of work, sharing costs of production 
of certain formats to improve efficiency and to provide access through various 
channels) are likely to become even more relevant in the context of the application of 
the EAA and should be further encouraged. 

22