Source: https://www.jipitec.eu/issues/jipitec-9-3-2018/4803/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:29:24+00:00

Document:
Actually, the European Union has increasingly taken up Kroes’ call for action. Of course, the EU Directive on certain permitted uses of orphan works represented a first fundamental initiative by adopting a diligent search standard for public digitisation projects across Europe.  Recently, however, the EU is furthering this action by considering how to also unlock broader availability of out-of-commerce works. In particular, on 12 September 2018 the European Parliament approved with some amendments (Parliament’s Amendments) the European Commission’s Proposal for a Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSM Draft Directive)  that aims to ensure EU-wide access to works held in collections of European cultural heritage institutions when such works are no longer available to the public through customary channels of commerce (e.g., bookshops). To this end, the Commission would like to introduce a collective licensing mechanism facilitating uses of out-of-commerce works, building upon Member States’ experiences with similar schemes.  The proposed provisions should enable—through a legal presumption—representative collective management organisations to authorise non-commercial use of works of their members as well as of other unrepresented rightholders. In the following, this Opinion will discuss underlying critical issues with the proposal and room for improvement.
Enabling the digitisation and making available to the public of materials establishing facts of historical and other significance will also contribute to addressing the problem of so-called “fake news”.  For example, convenient one-click online access to verified photographs documenting important events and accompanied by appropriate comments can help to more easily check the correctness of (mis)represented information.
According to the DSM Draft Directive, all types of copyrighted works in CHIs’ collections can possibly enjoy an out-of-commerce status.
In particular, the possibility to determine the out-of-commerce status of a collection of works as a whole might overcome those limitations for mass digitisation projects that the Orphan Works Directive’s work-by-work diligent search requirement brought about.  In any event, according to Article 9 of the DSM Draft Directive, a stakeholder dialogue shall also be set up to fine-tune licencing requirements, particularly those mentioned above.
Acknowledging—often insurmountable—difficulties for obtaining prior consent to the use of out-of-commerce works, Title III of the DSM Draft Directive would like to promote their use through a collective management mechanism.
Extended collective licenses (ECL) have become a policy option in several jurisdictions to tackle, inter alia, the orphan works problem within digitisation projects.  They are traditionally applied in various sectors in Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Iceland.  More recently the ECL legislation was adopted in other EU Member States: Hungary;  Slovakia;  and the UK  . Proposals to introduce the ECL in important jurisdictions outside of Europe were notably made in China,  Japan  and the USA.  The system combines the voluntary transfer of rights from rightholders to a collective management organisation (CMO) with the legal extension of the collective agreement to third parties who are not members of the substantially representative CMO. Use of this mechanism for the digitisation and making available of out-of-commerce works in the EU was approved by the consensus of stakeholders, representing libraries and archives on the one hand, and authors and publishers on the other hand, and witnessed by the European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services.  A user may obtain a licence to use all the works included in a certain category. With the exception of the rightholders claiming individual remuneration or opting out from the system, the ECL automatically applies to all domestic, foreign, traceable or untraceable rightholders.
Finally, the Impact Assessment reinforces this point by noting that “[w]ithout EU intervention, such actions would be limited by national borders (and would happen only in some MS [Member States]).”  Accordingly, Article 8(1) in the DSM Draft Directive does pre-empt territorial limitations as CHIs are granted the right to use licenced works in all Member States. The reference to a use “in accordance to the term of the licence” clearly refers to terms other than territorial limitations. Otherwise, the provision would be meaningless.
Apparently, representativeness must only be of national character, since licences have to be sought from CMOs only representative in the Member State where works first originate, unless the country of origin cannot be determined. However, some clarifications regarding the territorial scope of the notion of representativeness would be welcome. Again, CMOs have to be broadly representative (a) in the category of works (or other subject matter) and (b) in the category of rights, which are the subject of the licence.  Therefore, representativeness needs to also be assessed according to a specific category of works and licenced rights.
As the Impact Assessment noted, establishing CMOs’ “broad representativeness” for works and rights might be a critical challenge to the effectiveness of the reform as in some Member States there are no CMOs in the audio-visual and visual arts sector—especially photography—to begin with.  How this lack of representativeness can be overcome—or representative CMOs set up if never created given the relevant transaction costs involved —unfortunately, the reform proposal does not say.  A possible solution might be reliance on existing CMOs for the exercise of rights to remuneration (e.g. private copying and/or reprography)  . While these CMOs usually do not manage the rights to making available audiovisual and photographic works, they do however, manage non-exclusive rights over the same works and of the same rightholders. Therefore, possibly, also as a solution to minimise transaction costs, where no CMO representative of “rights” is established, CMOs representative of “works” might be considered to be representative.
According to the DSM Draft Directive, the possibility for rightholders to opt out should be provided prior to and during the licencing term. This provision differentiates the model endorsed by the proposal from the traditional ECL model, where opting out is usually possible only once licences are concluded.  This arrangement should further enhance safeguards to rightholders’ interests when contrasted with Nordic countries’ ECL.
The proposed change to the EU acquis would also help to overcome some of the consequences of the CJEU’s Soulier decision.  The CJEU ruled against the French law enabling an approved CMO to authorise the digital reproduction and communication to the public of out-of-commerce books.  Although the law provided authors with an opt-out mechanism and some other safeguards, the CJEU declared the French law uncompliant with European law,  which provides authors—not CMOs—with the right to authorise the reproduction and communication to the public of their works.  In particular, the CJEU pointed at the fact that the French legislation did not include a mechanism ensuring authors are actually and individually informed.  This requirement might actually render practical implementation of ECL very difficult—due to associated substantial transaction costs—if not impractical.  In addition, upholding this requirement would threaten the compatibility with EU law of existing ECL schemes.  In the aftermath of Soulier, the definition of sufficient information measures for informing rightholders about uses of their works become a bit of a quagmire.
In order to ensure that the licensing mechanisms established for out-of-commerce works are relevant and function properly, that rightholders are adequately protected under those mechanisms, that licences are properly publicised and that legal clarity is ensured with regard to the representativeness of collective management organisations and the categorisation of works, Member States should foster sector-specific stakeholder dialogue.
Finally, the stakeholder dialogue set up according to Article 9 of the DSM Draft Directive would be intended, inter alia, to ensure the effectiveness of publicity measures to safeguard rightholders referred. Apparently, the stakeholder dialogue might further define publicity measures’ substantive and procedural requirements.
5. Do Third-Country Works Need to Be Excluded?
The rationale for the exclusion of works of third-country nationals from the ECL mechanism is unclear. The ECL, as it is envisaged in the DSM Draft Directive, is not designed to be an exception or limitation to exclusive rights, as also recognized by dominant doctrine.  While Recital 26 refers to “reasons of international comity”, this reference remains obscure.  If the mechanism is not an exception or limitation, the three-step test would not apply and there is no issue with regard to the compliance with respective international obligations.
Obviously, the European Union has a strong understanding of the social and economic value that could be produced by taking European cultural heritage to the digital network environment. EU policy makers and institutions have set a multiple year agenda to that end,  now further promoted by the DSM Strategy. The DSM Draft Directive does envision, inter alia, a number of synergic actions to facilitate preservation and access to European cultural heritage. Overall, on the issue of out-of-commerce works, the DSM Draft Directive should positively contribute to improving cross-border online access to the cultural heritage in Europe as this paper has highlighted already. However, in conclusion, some further suggestions can be made to strengthen the proposal and bring Europe closer to Pico della Mirandola’s dream of global instantaneous access to knowledge and culture.
The extension of the notion of “out-of-commerce works” to works never intended for commercial use and to works that have never been in commerce, as well as the possibility to determine the out-of-commerce status of a collection of works as a whole should be pursued.
Sufficiency of general publicity measures should be plainly spelled out. The Directive Proposal does not require Member States to create mechanisms ensuring that rightholders are actually and individually informed of uses of out-of-commerce works. Instead, according to the proposal, general publicity measures would be sufficient for using out-of-commerce works. Hence, the proposal overcomes some of the outcomes of the CJEU’s Soulier decision to the advantage of cultural heritage institutions.
The scope of the search to establish the out-of-commerce status of works should be more clearly defined, as this is one of the crucial elements for the fruitful use of the mechanism by cultural heritage institutions.
Representativeness of collective management organisations should be improved by considering alternative solutions where there are no CMOs—and no CMO is likely to be established in the foreseeable future—broadly representative of rightholders in the category of works and of the rights in some domains (e.g., audiovisual and photographic).
European Parliament’s Amendments offers Member States to provide a cut-off date for determining out-of-commerce status of works. While cut-off dates provide for a simple practical criterion, establishment of different cut-off dates for different categories of works in different Member States might lead to undesired consequences.
Non-mandatory (back-up) exception for the use of out-of-commerce works when collective licensing mechanisms are not available could offer an alternative to cultural heritage institutions in some Member States. However, the voluntary nature of this exception might further fragment the puzzle of copyright legislation in the EU. Therefore, if a new exception is to be introduced, it would be strongly advisable to make this exception mandatory, rather than voluntary.
Since the non-application of the mechanism for the use of out-of-commerce works to third-country works creates transaction costs for European cultural heritage institutions—and since it is not required by the relevant international norms—it is recommended to extend the scope of the mechanism to cover third-country works.
The full implementations of the proposed actions—possibly with amendments suggested in this paper—would be essential to European innovation and cultural cohesion. It is vital that the relevant institutions do not depart from this agenda in the path leading to final implementation, but rather strengthen it as far as possible.
The positions in this paper do not necessarily reflect the opinions of all scholars working at CEIPI. This is the fourth in a series of opinions issued by the CEIPI on the Digital Single Market Copyright reform. See Christophe Geiger, Oleksandr Bulayenko and Giancarlo Frosio (2017), ‘The Introduction of a Neighbouring Right for Press Publisher at EU Level: the Unneeded (and Unwanted) Reform’, EIPR, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 202-210 (CEIPI Research Paper No. 2016-01, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2921334 ); Christophe Geiger, Giancarlo Frosio and Oleksandr Bulayenko (2017), ‘The EU Commission’s Proposal to Reform Copyright Limitations: A Good but Far Too Timid Step in the Right Direction’, EIPR, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 4-15 (CEIPI Research Paper No. 2017-09, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3053983 ); and Christophe Geiger, Giancarlo Frosio and Oleksandr Bulayenko (2018), The Exception for Text and Data Mining (TDM) in the Proposed Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market - Legal Aspects, In-depth analysis requested by the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ ; (2018), ‘Text and Data Mining in the Proposed Copyright Reform: Making the EU Ready for an Age of Big Data?’, IIC, Vol. 49, No. 7, p. 814.
* By Christophe Geiger, Professor of Law, Director General and Director of the Research Department of the Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies (CEIPI), University of Strasbourg, France; Giancarlo Frosio, Senior Researcher and Lecturer at CEIPI; Oleksandr Bulayenko, Researcher and PhD Candidate at CEIPI.
 On the right to culture, see Christophe Geiger (ed.), Intellectual Property and Access to Science and Culture: Convergence or Conflict?, CEIPI/ ICTSD publication series on “Global Perspectives and Challenges for the Intellectual Property System”, Issue No. 3, Geneva/Strasbourg, December 2016.
 Neelie Kroes (2010), A Digital World of Opportunities, SPEECH/10/619, Forum d’Avignon - Les Rencontres Internationales de la Culture, de l’Économie et des Medias, Avignon, France, 5 November 2010.
 See Giancarlo Frosio (2018), Reconciling Copyright with Cumulative Creativity: the Third Paradigm, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 220-225; Laura King, James Stark and Paul Cooke (2016), ‘Experiencing the Digital World: The Cultural Value of Digital Engagement with Heritage’, Heritage & Society, Vol. 9(1), pp. 76-101; Henning Kagermann (2015), ‘Change Through Digitization—Value Creation in the Age of Industry 4.0’, in: Horst Albach, Heribert Meffert, Andreas Pinkwart and Ralf Reichwald (eds.), Management of Permanent Change—New Challenges and Opportunities for Change Management, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Gabler, pp. 23-45; Giancarlo Frosio (2011), COMMUNIA Final Report on the Digital Public Domain, report prepared for the European Commission on behalf of the COMMUNIA Network and the NEXA Center, pp. 76-83; Olga Hadžić (2004), ‘Tourism and Digitization of Cultural Heritage’, Преглед НЦД, Vol. 5, pp. 74–79.
 See Gilles Fontaine and Patrizia Simone (2017), The Access to Film Works in the Collections of Film Heritage Institutions in the Context of Education and Research, Strasbourg, France: European Audiovisual Observatory, p. 16.
 See Deutscher Bundestag, BT 17/13423, Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Nutzung verwaister und vergriffener Werke und einer weiteren Änderung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes § 13, available at: http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/134/1713423.pdf .
 Nellie Kroes (2010), Ending Fragmentation of the Digital Single Market, SPEECH/11/70, Business for New Europe event, London, 7 February 2010.
 See Directive 2012/28/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 October 2012 on certain permitted uses of orphan works, 2012 OJ (L 299)5.
 European Parliament, Copyright in the Digital Single Market ***I, Amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 12 September 2018 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market (COM(2016)0593 – C8-0383/2016 – 2016/0280(COD)), P8_TA-PROV(2018)0337 (Parliament’s Amendments); and European Commission (14 September 2016), Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market, 14 September 2016, COM(2016) 593 final, 2016/0280 (DSM Draft Directive).
 E.g., in France, Germany and Poland, described further below.
 The circle of beneficiaries of the out-of-commerce mechanism are more limited than in the Orphan Works Directive, Art. 1(1) enabling uses of orphan works also by educational establishments and public-service broadcasters, Directive 2012/28/EU, supra 7.
 Memorandum of Understanding, Key Principles on the Digitisation and Making Available of Out-of-Commerce Works, 20 September 2011; European Commission (2011), Recommendation 2011/711/EU of 27 October 2011 on the digitisation and online accessibility of cultural material and digital preservation, 2011 OJ (L 283)39; European Commission (2006), Recommendation 2006/585/EC of 24 August 2006 on the digitisation and online accessibility of cultural material and digital preservation, (2006) OJ (L 236)28; and European Parliament and Council (2005), Recommendation 2005/865/CE of 16 November 2005 on film heritage and the competitiveness of related industrial activities, (2005) OJ (L 323)57.
 Art. 5 of the DSM Draft Directive. On this new exceptions, see Christophe Geiger, Giancarlo Frosio and Oleksandr Bulayenko (2017), ‘The EU Commission’s Proposal to Reform Copyright Limitations: A Good but Far Too Timid Step in the Right Direction’, EIPR, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 12-15.
 Libraries and CHIs have pointed at the insufficiency of this solution due to a serious limitation to the number of works covered and suggested instead the introduction of an exception to make out-of-commerce works as well as works that have never been in-commerce, which are kept in their collections, available online for non-commercial purposes. EBLIDA, Public Libraries 2000, IFLA, Europeana and Liber (2017), Commission Proposal on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, Library and Cultural Heritage Institution Responses, p. 2, available at: https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/clm . In response to these concerns, the new Article 7(1a) and (1b) and Recital 22a of the Parliament’s Amendments provide Member States with a “back-up” option to introduce an exception for use of out-of-commerce works if collective licenses are not available (Amendments 23 and 69).
 Commission (2016), supra 8, Recital 22.
 European Commission, Digital Single Market, Policies, Fake news: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/fake-news .
 Commission (2016), supra 8, Art. 7(2). Parliament’s Amendments propose to completely delete the quoted definition from the Directive (Amendment 69).
 The Memorandum of Understanding, supra 11, was signed 20 September 2011 by representatives of some major stakeholders, rightholders as well as European cultural heritage institutions.
 Directive 2012/28/EU, supra 7, Art. 10. According to Article 12 “Review clause” of the Orphan Works Directive, the European Commission is under an obligation to provide annual reports “concerning the possible inclusion in the scope of application of this Directive of […] stand-alone photographs”.
 Commission (2016), supra 8, Recital 22. The Parliament’s Amendment 22 further extends the scope of the notion to works that “have never been in commerce” (even if intended for commercial use) by amending Recital 22. This position reflects the suggestions of three Committees of the European Parliament: Amendment 22 of the Report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) of the European Parliament of 29 June 2018 (PE601.094v02-00 - A8-0245/2018), adopting the Draft European Parliament Legislative Resolution on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market (COM(2016)0593 – C8-0383/2016 – 2016/0280(COD)) (JURI Report); Amendment 58 of the Opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) of 14 June 2017; and Amendments 18 and 61 of the Opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education (CULT) of 4 September 2017.
 Commission (2016), Commission Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment on the modernisation of EU copyright rules, 14 September 2016, SWD(2016) 301 final, Part 1/3, pp. 70-71.
 Ibid., Part 3/3, Annex 9E, p. 131; and Axel Paul Ringelhann and Marc Mimler (2017), ‘Digital exploitation of out-of-print books and copyright law: French licensing mechanism for out-of-print books under CJEU scrutiny’, EIPR, Vol. 39, No. 3, p. 193.
 Commission (2016), supra 20, Part 3/3, Annex 9E, p. 131.
 Parliament’s Amendment 69 provides that “Member States may provide a cut-off date in relation to determining whether a work previously commercialised is deemed to be out of commerce.”, reflecting Amendment 69 of the JURI Report.
 Memorandum of Understanding, supra 11, referred to “second hand bookshops or antiquarian bookshops” in its definition of out-of-commerce books. This definition is supported by Reto M. Hilty, Tao Li and Valentina Moscon (2017), ‘Out-of-Commerce Works’, in: Reto M. Hilty and Valentina Moscon (ed.), Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules, Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper No. 17-12, p. 63.
 Commission (2016), supra 8, Art. 7(4)(a).
 Commission (2016), supra 8, Art. 7(4)(c).
 Conference of European National Librarians (CENL), CENL Statement on Proposal for a Directive in the Digital Single Market, 22 February 2017, p. 2, available at: http://www.cenl.org/wp-content/uploads/CENL-DSM-FINAL.pdf (considering this obligation impractical).
 Probably to remedy this situation, Amendment 69 of Parliament’s Amendments and of the JURI Report, proposes to delete the reference to all “translations, versions and manifestations” of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter in Article 7(2) of the DSM Draft Directive.
 Commission (2016), supra 8, Art. 7(2).
 Commission (2016), supra 20, Part 2/3, Annex 2B, p. 16 (discussing CHIs’ responses to the Public consultation on the review of EU copyright rules highlighting this issue); and EUIPO (2017), Orphan Works Survey 2017: Summary Report, pp. 7 (Executive Summary: “Technical and legal challenges exist mainly in the area of diligent search requirements which are perceived as too complex and as rendering the system unsuitable for mass digitisation.”), 14, 19, 20-22, 27, 29, 32 and 37.
 Commission (2016), supra 8, Art. 9.
 Commission (2016), supra 8, Art. 7(1).
 Johan Axhamn and Lucie Guibault (2011), Cross-border Extended Collective Licencing: a Solution to Online Dissemination of Europe’s Cultural Heritage?, August 2011 (final report prepared for EuropeanaConnect); Marco Ciurcina, Juan Carlos De Martin, Thomas Margoni, Federico Morando and Marco Ricolfi (2009), Creatività Remunerata, Cono-scenza Liberata: File Sharing e Licenze Collettive Estese, 15 March 2009 ( position paper prepared for the NEXA Center for Internet and Society) ; Alain Strowel (2011) ‘The European "Extended Collective Licensing" Model’, Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, Vol. 34, No. 4, p. 665.
 Tarja Koskinen-Olsson and Vigdís Sigurdardóttir (2016), ‘Collective management in the Nordic Countries’, in: Daniel Gervais (ed.), Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights, 3rd edn., Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, pp. 243-262; and Thomas Riis and Jens Schovsbo (2010), ‘Extended Collective Licenses and the Nordic Experience – It’s a Hybrid but is It a Volvo or a Lemon?’, Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts, Vol. 33, No. IV, pp. 471-498.
 Article 87(1) of the Hungarian Copyright Law. Dora Hajdu (2016), La gestion collective des droits des auteurs : ses formes imposées par la loi hongroise et française, doctoral thesis, Université Paris-Saclay, France, pp. 17 and 34; and Peter Mezei (2014), ‘The New Orphan Works Regulation of Hungary’, IIC, Vol. 45, No. 8, p. 943.
 Matej Gera (2016), ‘Extended collective licensing under the new Slovak Copyright Act’, JIPLP, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 170-171.
 The mechanism of extended collective licensing was introduced in the UK law in 2014 through adoption of two statutory instruments, the Copyright (Regulation of Relevant Licensing Bodies) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/8988) and the Copyright and Rights in Performances (Extended Collective Licensing) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/2588). Dinusha Mendis and Victoria Stobo (2016), ‘Extended collective licensing in the UK - one year on: a review of the law and a look ahead to the future’, EIPR, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 208-220.
 Fuxiao Jiang and Daniel Gervais (2016), ‘Collective Management in China’, in: Daniel Gervais (ed.), Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights, 3rd edn., Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, p. 444 and Wenqi Liu (2012), ‘Models for Collective Management of Copyright from an International Perspective: Potential Changes for Enhancing Performance’, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol. 17, p. 54 (footnote 12).
 In Japan, the Intellectual Property Promotion Plan (“知的財産推進計画”) 2016, p. 11, available at: www.kantei.go.jp/jp/singi/titeki2 , considered facilitation of copyright licensing though introduction of extended collective licensing.
 The study of the US Copyright Office recommended establishment of a “pilot” extended collective licensing for mass digitisation projects “serving nonprofit educational and research purposes”, US Copyright Office (2015), Orphan Works and Mass Digitization, Report of the Register of Copyrights, p. 106.
 Principle No. 2 “Practical Implementation of Collective Agreements” of the Memorandum of Understanding, supra 11.
 Commission (2016), supra 20, Part 3/3, p. 120.
 Commission (2016), supra 8, Recital 23 (“Such mechanisms can include extended collective licensing and presumptions of representation”).
 Commission (2016), supra 20, Part 3/3, Annex 9E, pp. 131-132. New Recital 22a of Parliament’s Amendments states: “Several Member States have already adopted extended collective licencing regimes, legal mandates or legal presumptions facilitating the licencing of out-of-commerce works.” (Amendment 23).
 Commission (2016), supra 8, Art. 7(1)(a-c). Lucie Guibault and Simone Schroff (2018), ‘Extended Collective Licensing for the Use of Out-of-Commerce Works in Europe: A Matter of Legitimacy Vis-à-Vis Rights Holders’, IIC, Vol. 49, pp. 918 and 937.
 Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee, Copyright package, INT/804, adopted 25 January 2017, para. 5.8.
 Commission (2016), supra 8, Art. 8(1) (emphasis added).
 Commission (2016), supra 8, p. 5 (emphasis added).
 Commission (2016), supra 20, Part 1/3, p. 13.
 Commission (2016), supra 8, Art. 7(4).
 Commission (2016), supra 8, Art. 7(1)(a).
 Commission (2016), supra 20, Part 3/3, Annex 9E, p. 132.
 Eugene Mopsik (2011), ‘Photographers and Collective Licencing: A Short History with No Ending’, Columbia J. of L. & the Arts, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 619-622 (discussing practical problems related to the establishment of collective management of rights in photographic works).
 Considering the representativeness as a “contextual” criterion (the test should not be the same for a just-created CMO as for a well-established CMO) can be helpful in some situations. In favour of this interpretation, Daniel Gervais (2016), ‘Collective Management of Copyright: Theory and Practice in the Digital Age’, in: Daniel Gervais (ed.), Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights, 3rd edn., Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, p. 24 (footnote 64).
 For a comparative approach on the various existing “limitation-based remuneration rights”, see Christophe Geiger and Oleksandr Bulayenko (2017), ‘General report: Scope and enforcement tools to ensure remuneration’, in: Silke von Lewinski (ed.), Remuneration for the use of works – Exclusivity vs Other Approaches, Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter, pp. 112-182 (report for the ALAI Congress 2015).
 New Article 7(1a) and (1b) and Recital 22a of the Parliament Amendments 23 and 69. This proposal was supported by: Amendments 23 and 69 of the JURI Report, Amendment 57 of the Opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) of 14 June 2017, and Amendment 41 of the Opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) of 1 August 2017. According to the Parliament’s text, rightholders retain the right to opt out from the use of their works under this exception and limitation, like they otherwise would under an ECL.
 Oleksandr Bulayenko (2016), ‘Permissibility of Non-Voluntary Collective Management of Copyright under EU Law: The Case of the French Law on Out-of-Commerce Books’, JIPITEC, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 57-58 and 64-65 (discussing the difference between a priori and a posteriori opt out).
 As also seen in the Google Books case in the USA, courts have expressed hesitations in endorsing mechanisms similar to the ECL without explicit statutory provisions, Giancarlo Frosio (2011) , ‘Google Books Rejected: Taking the Orphans to the Digital Public Library of Alexandria’, Santa Clara Comp. and High Tech. L. J., Vol. 28, pp. 81-141.
 Loi No. 2012-287 du 1er mars 2012 relative à l’exploitation numérique des livres indisponibles du XXe siècle. For analysis of the French mechanism for making available out-of-commerce works, Bulayenko (2016), supra 57, pp. 51-68 ; Jane Ginsburg (2015), ‘Fair Use for Free, or Permitted-but-Paid?’, Berkeley Tech. L.J., Vol. 29, pp. 1425-1430; Franck Macrez (2012), ‘L’exploitation numérique des livres indisponibles : que reste-t-il du droit d’auteur ?’, Recueil Dalloz, Vol. 12, pp. 749-757.
 With the 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, 2000 OJ (L 167)10, Arts. 2(a) and 3(1).
 Judgment in C-301/15, Marc Soulier Sara Doke v Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication Premier ministere (16 November 2016), ECLI:EU:C:2016:878, § 52. See also Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet, C-301/15, Marc Soulier Sara Doke v Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication Premier minister (7 July 2016), ECLI:EU:C:2016:536 , §§ 38-39 (discussing prior consent and exclusivity).
 Valérie-Laure Benabou (2017), ‘Pourquoi l’arrêt Soulier et Doke dépasse le cas ReLire : le contrôle par la CJUE des modalités de l’autorisation préalable de l’auteur’, Dalloz IP/IT, Vol. 2, pp. 110-112; Caterina Sganga (2017), ‘The eloquent silence of Soulier and Doke and its critical implications for EU copyright law’, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Vol. 12, No. 4, p. 330 (“the requirement to inform individually each and every author […] undermines the basis of the balanced mechanism through which ECLs facilitate the market-efficient licensing of whole repertoires by decreasing transaction costs”); and Matej Gera (2017), ‘A tectonic shift in the European system of collective management of copyright? Possible effects of the Soulier & Doke decision’, EIPR, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 263-264 (“the costs of informing and ensuring that each author is informed and able to decide would be so high as to prevent any meaningful functioning of the schemes”).
 Commission (2016), supra 20, Part 3/3, Annex 9E, pp.131-132 (noting that the requirement of individualised information goes against the currently existing national models in a number of Member States such as Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Poland, Sweden and the UK). See also Franck Macrez (2017), ‘«Soulier» et la résurgence de l’auteur’, Recueil Dalloz, Vol. 2, p. 86; Lucie Guibault (2015), ‘Cultural Heritage Online? Settle It in the Country of Origin of the Work’, JIPITEC, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 174-178.
 Macrez (2017), ibid., p. 87 and Franck Macrez (2017), The French Case: From Orphan Books to Out-of-Print Works (and Vice-Versa), CEIPI Research Paper No. 2017-14, p. 7, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3116783 .
 Commission (2016), supra 8, Arts. 7(3) and 9. See also Principle 2(2) of the Memorandum of Understanding, supra 11 (requiring also that the digital library projects are “widely publicised”).
 Commission (2016), supra 20, Part 3/3, Annex 9E, p. 130.
 Commission (2016), supra 8, Art. 7(3). Parliament’s Amendment 69 replaced “reasonable period of time” by “at least six months”.
 EUIPO (2017), supra 30, p. 37 (Conclusions: “The replies to the survey indicate that there is broad satisfaction amongst users with the overall experience of using the Orphan Works Database”).
 Commission (2016), supra 8, Art. 8(3).
 Commission (2016), supra 8, Art. 7(5).
 Commission (2016), supra 8, Art. 7(4)(a-b) and Recital 26 (clarifying this interpretation of the provision).
 See Silke von Lewinski (2004), ‘Mandatory Collective Administration of Exclusive Rights – A Case Study on Its Compatibility with International and EC Copyright Law’, e-Copyright Bulletin, January-March 2004, available at: portal.unesco.org/culture/en/files/19552/11515904771svl_e.pdf/svl_e.pdf; and Christophe Geiger (2007), ‘The Role of the Three-Step Test in the Adaptation of Copyright Law to the Information Society’, e-Copyright Bulletin, January-March 2007, available at: portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=34481&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html; Christophe Geiger (2009), ‘The Future of Copyright in Europe: Striking a Fair Balance between Protection and Access to Information’, Report for the Committee on Culture, Science and Education – Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, October 2009; extended version published in Intellectual Property Quarterly, p. 1 (at 10); Bernt Hugenholtz and Ruth Okediji (2008), Conceiving an International Instrument on Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright, Final Report, March 2008, p. 19, available at https://www.ivir.nl/publicaties/download/l .
 Commission (2016), supra 8, Recital 26 (referring specifically to “international comity”). Jørgen Blomqvist, ‘International Comity . . . or Triple Error?’, The 1709 Blog, 31 January 2017, available at: https://groups.google.com/forum/ (discussing—and criticizing—the way in which international comity has been safeguarded by noting that “if the intention is that the Directive should match the points of attachment of the international Conventions and Treaties, as is suggested by the reference to ‘international comity’”, it errs by being both too generous and too restrictive).
 E.g., Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Art. 9; Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Art. 13; Directive 2001/29/EC, supra 60, Art. 5(5). On the understanding of this test, see Christophe Geiger, Daniel J. Gervais, and Martin R.F. Senftleben (2014), ‘The Three-Step-Test Revisited: How to Use the Test’s Flexibility in National Copyright Law’, Vol. 29 No. 3, American University International Law Review, p. 581.
 Berne Convention, ibid., Art. 20 and Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations, Art. 58.
 Christophe Geiger, Jonathan Griffiths and Reto Hilty (2008), ‘Towards a Balanced Interpretation of the “Three-Step Test” in Copyright Law’, EIPR, Vol. 4, pp. 489-496 (noting that all three components of the test should be considered together in a “comprehensive overall assessment” considering the threats that excessive levels of copyright protection pose to, inter alia, public interests, notably in scientific progress and cultural, social, or economic development). See also Bernt Hugenholtz and Ruth Okediji (2012), Conceiving an International Instrument on Limitations and Exceptions to Copyright, Final Report, 6 March 2008, Executive summary, p. 3 (noting that “limitations and exceptions that (1) are not overly broad, (2) do not rob right holders of a real or potential source of income that is substantive, and (3) do not do disproportional harm to the right holders, will pass the test”.); Christophe Geiger, Daniel Gervais and Martin Senftleben, (2014), ‘The Three-Step Test Revisited: How to Use the Test’s Flexibility in National Copyright Law’, American University International Law Review, Vol. 29, No. 3, p. 581.
 For example, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were a part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and Croatia and Slovenia a part of Yugoslavia.
 This change was also supported by Amendment 63 of the Opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) of the European Parliament of 14 June 2017.
 See, e.g., European Commission (2006), Recommendation 2006/585/EC of 31 August 2006 on the Digitisation and Online Accessibility of Cultural Material and Digital Preservation  OJ L237/28; i2010 European Digital Libraries Initiative (2008), High level Expert Group, Copyright Subgroup, Report on Digital Preservation, Orphan works and Out-of-Print Works Selected Implementation Issues (18 April 2008); European Commission (2009), Communication, Copyright in the Knowledge Economy, COM (2009) 532; European Commission (2010), Communication, A Digital Agenda for Europe, COM (2010) 245 final; European Commission (2010), Communication, Europe 2020: A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, COM(2010) 2020; Directive 2012/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on Certain Permitted Uses of Orphan Works, 2012 OJ L299/5 (enabling the use of orphan works after diligent search for public libraries digitisation projects); Europeana: Think Culture http://wwweuropeanaeu/portal ; Accessible Registries of Rights Information and Orphan Works [ARROW] https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/document (creating registries of rights information and orphan works). The CJEU seem to support such an approach, see Judgment in C-117/13, Technische Universität Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2196 (11 September 2014) (stating that European libraries may digitise books in their collection without permission from the rightholders with caveats).

References: CJEU 
 CJEU 
 CJEU 
 § 13
 Art. 1
 Art. 5
 Art. 7
 Art. 10
 CJEU 
 Art. 7
 Art. 7
 Art. 7
 Art. 9
 Art. 7
 Art. 7
 Art. 8
 Art. 7
 Art. 7
 § 52
 Art. 7
 Art. 8
 Art. 7
 Art. 7
 Art. 9
 Art. 13
 Art. 5
 Art. 20
 Art. 58
 CJEU