Source: https://www.create.ac.uk/policy-responses/eu-copyright-reform/?source=techstories.org
Timestamp: 2018-08-19 09:52:15
Document Index: 50981575

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 13', 'Art.11', 'Art.3', 'Art.13', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 11', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 11', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 13', 'Art 13', 'art-13', 'Art. 11', 'ART 2016']

EU Copyright Reform | CREATe
CREATe » Policy Responses » EU Copyright Reform
Introduction, Context, Media coverage
Speeches by Axel Voss & Catherine Stihler (5 July)
Academic Statement (29 June)
Open Letters from European Research Institutes
CREATe Policy Resources
Copyright Reform. It’s a few votes away. The European Union may require those who share news to obtain licences first (permissions against payment). The European Union may require platforms to filter content uploaded by users (aimed at music files but also applying to new digital expressions such as memes and parodies). What is the evidence for such radical measures? This resource tracks the progress of the European Commission’s Reform Package through the complex EU process of law making.
Following the adoption of a position of the Council of the European Union on 25 May 2018, the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) narrowly voted in favour of the key provisions of the proposed Copyright Directive on 20 June. It also gave a mandate to Rapporteur MEP Axel Voss to start trialogue negotiations with the Council and Commission. A full plenary vote by the European Parliament on 5 July 2018 challenged the JURI vote, and rejected the negotiation mandate with 318 to 278 votes (and 31 abstentions). Groups of MEPs will now have an opportunity to table further amendments, to be voted in the next parliamentary session in September. A graph by LIBER indicates the timeline before the July vote.
It is rare for a plenary vote to overturn the lead committee’s position but it has happened before, for example in the rejection of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) in 2012. This is an important junction in copyright policy, as the Copyright Directive could be the most far reaching European copyright intervention since the 2001 Information Society Directive.
Copyright law is subject to intense lobbying.
We hear: Fake news will take over unless we create new exclusive rights for press publishers. Or alternatively: The democratic function of the internet is in peril if we require permissions to be obtained for disseminating news.
We hear: More creative content is being consumed than ever before, but the value is appropriated by online platforms not creators. Forcing platforms to obtain licences will lead to increased remuneration for creators. Or alternatively: Imposing filtering obligations on platforms will limit user engagement, and reduce opportunities for start-ups and emerging creators.
CREATe believes that we can actually know who is right, and who is wrong. The evidence is available. This resource page signposts significant independent scientific research. It also offers a timeline of the policy making process for the Copyright in the Digital Single Market directive, and access to draft documents where they have become available (sometimes as leaks).
The recent wave of copyright reform began in 2014 in an optimistic mood.
At the beginning of the current term of the European Commission, President Juncker wrote (September 2014) in the mission letter to Andrus Ansip, Vice-President for the Digital Single Market:
“You should focus on – Bringing together the different regulatory powers of the Commission to complete the Digital Single Market. … [notably by] modernising copyright rules in the light of the ongoing digital revolution”
To Günther Oettinger, then Commissioner for Digital Economy and Society (who was holding the drafting pen for the coming Copyright interventions), Juncker wrote:
“You should set clear long-term strategic goals to offer legal certainty to the sector and create the right regulatory environment to foster investment and innovative businesses. You should also ensure that users are at the centre of your action (…). They should be offered access to services, music, movies and sports events on their electronic devices wherever they are in Europe and regardless of borders”.
“Copyright rules should be modernised, during the first part of this mandate, in the light of the digital revolution, new consumer behaviour and Europe’s cultural diversity”.
On 14 September 2016, the European Commission published a package of reform proposals. It is a complicated package, supported by over 400 pages of Impact Assessments.
Progress of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (COM(2016) 593 final – the most important intervention) can be followed on the timeline below. Martin Kretschmer’s blog post summarises the position as of 11 May 2017 (available here)..
PROPOSAL AIMS & OPINIONS FROM EU COMMITTEES
The full text of the Commission proposal is available here, with opinions by Internal Market, Industry, Culture and Civil Liberties Committees also available. The Legal Affairs Committee Draft Report is available here, with details of over 1000 proposed amendments.
The aims of the Copyright Reform agenda, as articulated by the Commission, are:
More cross-border access to content online;
Wider opportunities to use copyrighted materials in education, research and cultural heritage;
A better functioning copyright marketplace.
Apart from the Copyright in the Digital Single Market directive, the copyright package also includes legislation on the cross border portability of online subscriptions for content: Regulation (EU) 2017/1128 on cross-border portability of online content services in the internal market(14 June 2017), a “SatCab” Regulation on the exercise of copyright and related rights applicable to certain online transmissions of broadcasting organisations and retransmissions of television and radio programmes (COM/2016/0594 final – 2016/0284 (COD)), and provisions implementing the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled. And there is a proposal to amend the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) published by the European Commission on 25 May 2016. Legislative progress can be followed here.
Public positions of the European Parliament’s rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs
Voss (EPP)
Reda (Greens/EFA)
Cavada (ALDE)
Stihler (S&D)
Links to media coverage of the Directive from across the EU and internationally, from 24 May 2018 to 18 July 2018.
24/05/2018 EconoTimes Data mining: why the EU's proposed copyright measures get it wrong
06/06/2018 Ilta-Sanomat EU:ssa muhii todellinen pommi – saattaa johtaa verkkosivujen sulkemiseen
07/06/2018 The Liberal (Ireland) The end of Memes – New EU directive aims to end free speech
08/06/2018 BBC Copyright law could put end to net memes
09/06/2018 Iltalehti Kampanja huolestui EU:n tekijänoikeuslaista - tietäisi meemien loppua: ”Tietämämme internetin tuho”
09/06/2018 Sky News Memes 'will be banned' under new EU copyright law, warn campaigners
13/06/2018 Der Spiegel Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger:
So ein Quatschgesetz
15/06/2018 BBC Website Protests greet Brussels copyright reform plan
17/06/2018 The Sunday Telegraph The plan to ban memes is typical of the ham-fisted EU
20/06/2018 Dagens Nyheter EU:s regleringsiver av nätet vilar på för skakig grund [comment]
20/06/2018 Deutschlandfunk Der Urheber schiesst sich selbst in den Fuss
20/06/2018 Helsingin Sanomat Internetin meemeihin ja tekijänoikeuksiin vaikuttava uudistus eteni EU:ssa – Tämä sinun tulee tietää artiklasta, jota ”internetin keksijä” vastustaa
20/06/2018 The Daily Mail Will this be the end of memes? EU approves copyright rules that could kill off user-generated content and 'destroy the internet as we know it'
20/06/2018 The Independent Today's vote will change the face of the internet forever, from an open platform to a place where anything can be removed without warning
21/06/2018 The Yorkshire Post The end of memes and remixes? What the new EU copyright law means for you
22/06/2018 New Scientist Why memes are the latest casualty in EU’s war on Silicon Valley
24/06/2018 NBC News The end of memes? Campaigners dismayed at European internet ruling
25/06/2018 Global News (Canada) An EU Copyright Law threatens to kill memes for eveyone
26/06/2018 Financial Times EU sends controversial internet copyright reforms back to the drawing board
26/06/2018 High Snobiety Could a New European Law Mean the End of Memes?
26/06/2018 National Review The EU's horrendous copyright proposal
27/06/2018 Business Cloud FEARS OVER THE END OF MEMES 'EXAGGERATED' SAYS LEGAL EXPERT
28/06/2018 Business News Creative Industries hit back at internet critics of EU copyright revamp
29/06/2018 Heise Online EU copyright scandal: Dorothee Bär and network politician against upload filter
02/07/2018 Der Spiegel Vote on EU copyrightreform
02/07/2018 Kauppalehti T&T: Teknologiateollisuus arvostelee kovin sanoin EU:n tekijänoikeusuudistusta – "Ei mitään myönteistä"
02/07/2018 The Guardian How the EU can make the internet play fair with musicians
03/07/2018 Billboard Music Chiefs Slam Google Lobbying Spend Ahead Of EU Copyright Vote
03/07/2018 The Conversation Why the incoming EU copyright law will undermine the free internet
03/07/2018 The Independent Stephen Fry claims new YouTube copyright law would ban meme sharing
03/07/2018 The Times Publishers need protection from internet thieves [comment]
04/07/2018 El Pais Propuesta de Directiva de copyright: ¿el fin de la “brecha de valor”?
04/07/2018 Financial Times Don't let me down: Paul McCartney weighs in on EU copyright reform debate
04/07/2018 IlSole24ore La Riforma UE del Copyright: la direttiva europea sul diritto d'autore nel mercato unico digitale
04/07/2018 NME Paul McCartney calls on MEPs to back music copyright law change
04/07/2018 Sky News Sir Paul McCartney calls on MEPs to back music copyright change
04/07/2018 Tech Crunch Wikipedia goes dark in Spanish, Italian ahead of key EU vite on copyright
04/07/2018 The Telegraph Sir Paul McCartney accuses tech giants of exploiting music industry on eve of EU copyright vote
05/07/2018 ABC Espana Así afectará la legislación europea a los Derechos de Autor
05/07/2018 AftonBladet EU-nej till omstritt internetforslag
05/07/2018 ALPHR Article 13 rejected by MEPs: What you need to know about the law that could have killed internet culture
05/07/2018 BBC Controversial copyright law rejected by EU parliament
05/07/2018 CNBC European lawmakers delay controversial copyright law over concerns it could censor memes, articles
05/07/2018 Daily Mail EU rejects new internet copyright laws backed by Paul McCartney that threatened to BAN memes
05/07/2018 Der Spiegel EU Parliament slows down copyright reform
05/07/2018 El Pais El Europarlamento rechaza la reforma de los derechos de autor
05/07/2018 Financial Times https://www.ft.com/content/bc235d20-803d-11e8-bc55-50daf11b720d
05/07/2018 Financial Times EU copyright reforms descend into propoganda wars
05/07/2018 France Culture Copyright reform: Copyright directive rejected by MEPs for the first time
05/07/2018 Heise Online Copyright reform: EU parliament rejects upload filter and ancillary copyright
05/07/2018 Lastampa.it L'Europarlamento rinvia la riforma del copyright - Di Maio: bocciata la direttiva sul bavaglio alla rete
05/07/2018 LaVanguardia La Eurocámara rechaza reformar la controvertida ley de derechos de autor
05/07/2018 Le Monde European Parliament rules out controversial copyright directive
05/07/2018 Les Echos Droit d'auteur : les pistes pour sauver la réforme
05/07/2018 New York Times Tech Giants Win a Battle Over Copyright Rules in Europe
05/07/2018 Politico European Parliament votes to block copyright reform
05/07/2018 Politico Ticket to copyright: Paul McCartney joins crowded fight over online rules
05/07/2018 Repubblica.it Riforma Copyright Ue, Strasburgo contro l'avvio dei negoziati. Voto rinviato a settembre
05/07/2018 Repubblica.it Copyright, l'Ue boccia filtri automatici e compenso per i link: la riforma punto per punto
05/07/2018 Tagesschau Abstimmung im EU-ParlamentPläne zum Urheberrecht vorerst gestoppt
05/07/2018 The Express Sorry, Macca! Beatles icon IGNORED as EU back down on copyright row
05/07/2018 The Guardian YouTube and Facebook escape billions in copyright payouts after EU vote
05/07/2018 The Inquirer EU rejects Article 13 copyright law that could have killed the meme
05/07/2018 The Telegraph MEPs vote against 'meme ban' internet copyright law
05/07/2018 The Verge EU sends controversial internet copyright reforms back to the drawing board
05/07/2018 Über Medien Stefan Niggemeier: Der Endkampf der Verleger für ihr Leistungsschutzrecht
05/07/2018 Wired The EU's dodgy Article 13 copyright directive has been rejected
05/07/2018 Zeit Online EU parliament rejects copyright reform
06/07/2018 BBC Tech Tent – did Silicon Valley win the copyright war?
06/07/2018 El Pais El foro Edita acaba con tirón de orejas a los políticos: Las jornadas han reunido a 28 ponentes y 300 inscritos
06/07/2018 El Pais El Europarlamento rechaza la reforma de los derechos de autor. Con un margen de 40 votos en contra, el texto volverá al pleno en septiembre para un debate que se prevé largo y repleto de enmiendas
06/07/2018 Le Figaro Droit d'auteur: un livre enterré symboliquement au pied du ministère de la Culture
09/07/2018 Le Temps Directive recalée sur le droit d’auteur: YouTube et les poids lourds de la Toile au cœur du débat (Charles Cuvelliez, de l’Université Libre de Bruxelles)
10/07/2018 La Liberation Directive droit d'auteur: la régulation au prix de la répression ?
10/07/2018 La Liberation Directive sur le droit d’auteur : protectrice ou liberticide ?
12/07/2018 Evening Standard (London) Copyright, Memes and even more muddied waters
06/07/2018 infojustice.org Andres Guadamuz: What can the copyright directive vote tell us about the state of digital rights?
PLENARY SPEECHES BY AXEL VOSS & CATHERINE STIHLER (5 JULY 2018)
Prior to the plenary vote on 5 July, short speeches were given by JURI rapporteur Axel Voss and IMCO rapporteur Catherine Stihler (IMCO, the internal market committee, shares responsibility for Art. 13).
“Thank you very much Chair. We’ve all had very intensive discussions but what is it that we’re talking about with this reform? It’s an end of the exploitation of European artists on the internet, we’re talking about the major US platforms like Google and Facebook that have been making huge profits at the cost of European creatives. We need to prevent that and I think it is inexplicable how some people want to support this internet capitalism.
While others are calling for America first and abusing data and exploiting creatives, we should be standing at the side of our European creatives otherwise there is a risk of creative insolvency. With these reforms we’re also talking about existing legislation, copyright and ownership ensuring that we have the right balance. Why would we be against wanting to prevent copyright violations? Why would we be against fair remuneration of creatives and getting these large platforms to take more responsibility?
The campaign that we’re subject to from Google, Facebook that are meeting with children of MEPs and all of this is based on lies. There are no limits being put for individual users. Every person can continue to set up links and carry out their uploads with legal certainty and the individuals are no longer responsible for copyright violations.”
“Thank you Mr President and colleagues. I want to thank everyone for the work they’ve done on this important file. We’re all united in our shared mission to protect artists and cultural diversity in Europe, and I speak as Rapporteur in the IMCO committee, which is the only committee to share joint competency on one of the most controversial articles, Article 13.
In our committee we’re able to reach a broad compromise that makes meaningful progress on the value gap while at the same time safeguarding the rights of European internet users, SMEs and start-ups. I deeply regret that the IMCO position has not been taken into account and the JURI text does not achieve the needed balance. There are real concerns about the effect of Article 13 and freedom of expression raised by experts ranging from the UN Special Rapporteur David Kaye to the inventor of the worldwide web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee and the real concerns voiced by our citizens.
Just yesterday I received a petition signed by almost a million people against the JURI committee mandate and although there’s consensus and I believe there is consensus about the goals behind this law, huge controversy still exists about the methods proposed. Something’s not right here. We owe it to the experts, stakeholders and citizens to give this directive the full debate necessary to achieve broad support.
Dear colleagues I ask you to refuse to fast track this law to allow for a broad fact-based debate in September. Please reject the mandate and vote against the JURI proposal.
Thank you colleagues.”
MOST RECENT ACADEMIC STATEMENT
The Copyright Directive: Misinformation and Independent Enquiry (29 June 2018)
A new academic statement has been released in anticipation of the plenary vote in the European Parliament on the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive, scheduled for 5 July, 12:00.
This latest statement attempts to address directly some of the misinformation that is circulating in a heavily lobbied environment. The statement rejects the following four claims as false:
False: The proposals will increase legal certainty
False: The Internet will not be filtered
False: There is no problem relating to freedom of expression
False: Memes will not be affected
The statement also assesses the following claims as misleading:
Misleading: Complaint and redress mechanisms will protect the interests of users
Misleading: Authors will receive an increased share of copyright remuneration
Click here to read statement & download pdf.
The evidence on the most contested proposals is as follows:
Press Publishers Right (Art.11)
Text & Data Mining (Art.3)
Filtering (Art.13)
Article 11: The proposal to introduce a new exclusive right for press publishers
There is no independent research that supports this proposal. None at all. There is scientific consensus (expressed here by over 200 European academics) that Article 11 will create very broad rights of ownership in news and other information. This will impede the free flow of information that is of vital importance to democracy. In economic terms, Article 11 is likely to favour incumbent publishing interests rather than innovative quality journalism.
A less invasive solution, improving publishers’ ability to sue, is readily available. This amendment is supported by a cross-party group of MEPs. It should be noted that journalists themselves are not in favour of the new right, and there is no evidence from countries that have introduced a similar right that revenues have reached journalists. See Bently and Kretschmer’s study for the European Parliament.
It is also evident (supported by an analysis of the policy time line) that there has been a lack of accountability in lobbying. While the European Parliament’s initial rapporteur MEP Therese Comodini Cachia (EPP) (who resigned in June 2017 to take up a seat in the Maltese parliament) reported her meetings with interested parties, the current rapporteur MEP Axel Voss (EPP) seems to keep a hidden line to German media interests. The mainstream legacy media have been reluctant to report critical voices. They have in effect muzzled their own journalists. Not a good sign for a proposal that is to serve a pluralist press.
Research relating to Article 11 can be found here.
Article 3: An exception for text-and-data mining limited to research organisations
The goal of the proposed exception for text-and-data mining is laudable. Data analytics, including applying machine learning (AI) techniques, is a fast moving technology. Legal certainty to stimulate research and innovation should be welcome.
There is academic consensus that the proposed exception falls short. Extracting the information contained in copyright works should not be a copyright infringement in the first place. Text-and-data mining does not use the work as a work. See also Opinion of the European Copyright Society. Therefore the proposed exception should simply clarify that ALL who have lawful access to a work can perform text-and-data mining without asking for further permission.
Instead, Article 3 offers complicated wording, limiting both the beneficiary and the purpose, and offering no safeguards against technical obstacles. The evidence suggests that this intervention will do nothing to increase European engagement with data analytics. Countries with open, flexible exceptions capable of responding to new technologies will be better off. See Geiger, Frosio, Bulayenko (2018): The Exception for Text and Data Mining (TDM) in the Proposed Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market.
Research relating to Article 3 can be found here.
Article 13: New obligation to obtain licences for content uploaded by users, or prevent the availability of such content by filtering
The proposed filtering obligation for online services to which users upload content is designed to increase the bargaining power of rightholders versus intermediaries, such as YouTube (owned by Google) or Facebook. In a discourse dominated by the music industry, this has been termed as a provision closing the “value gap”.
There is a case for regulating the power of online platforms but we first need a correct diagnosis why bargaining for some rightholders has become more difficult. The music industry has been perfectly able to negotiate licences with services such as Spotify and Apple. The fact that less money has found its way to musicians while the overall music market is increasing points to a different “gap”. This is where interventions may need to be examined. Academics agree that Article 14 requiring greater transparency of information about the exploitation of works and performances is a promising start. There is evidence that points in different directions regarding equitable remuneration rights for authors and mechanisms for the regulation of contracts: IViR (2016); Bently & Kretschmer (2017); Xalabarder (2018).
In the case of user-generated content (Art. 13), it is a mistake to rely on the specific needs of parts of the music industry (an effective lobby) to change laws without understanding past interventions. In the EU, we have had a liability regime for Internet intermediaries for nearly 20 years that is open to empirical examination. Under the Directive on Electronic Commerce (2000/31/EC) hosts of content uploaded by users will be liable only upon obtaining knowledge of the content and its illegality. This has led to the introduction of so-called “notice and takedown” practices that have increased dramatically in complexity with the arrival of algorithmic takedown requests and Google’s ContentID technology. Despite the enormous potential economic and cultural impacts of this regulatory approach, we know surprisingly little about the effects of the current regime (“This video is unavailable“, Erickson & Kretschmer 2018).
When the content to be removed is an unambiguous piratical copy, automated systems make sense (as long as the takedown request is accurate and valid, a separate problem discussed by Karaganis, Urban, Schofield). If human judgment is needed to assess the validity of a takedown request, for example in the case of content that might benefit from a statutory copyright exception, filtering obligations will make an existing problem worse.
Article 13 does not reflect the principles that led the Court of Justice of the European Union to develop its case law against general monitoring. See Senftleben, Angelopoulos, Frosio, Moscon, Peguera and Rognstad (2017): The Recommendation on Measures to Safeguard Fundamental Rights and the Open Internet in the Framework of the EU Copyright Reform. In economic terms, the proposal threatens the benefits of user-led innovation for cultural practices that are rapidly changing.
Under these circumstances, the right regulatory response is caution. The obligation to act upon constructive knowledge (established under the e-Commerce Directive) should not be replaced by a filtering obligation.
Research relating to Article 13 can be found here.
Two open letters from European Research Centres were sent to MEPs and members of the IP working party of the Council of the European Union, dated 26 April 2018 and 24 February 2017.
A Statement signed by over 200 European academics against the press publishers’ right was published on 25 April (and endorsed by the European Copyright Society).
Published 24 February 2017, citing 19 independent studies Published 26 April 2018, citing 14 independent studies
The first Open Letter (see here) offers a comprehensive review of independent evidence relating to Article 11 (creating a new exclusive right for press publishers) and Article 13 (changing the liability regime for online intermediaries relating to user generated content). The second Open Letter (see here) identifies a scientific consensus around the benefit of a broader exception for TDM; the problematic aspects of the press publishers’ right, and the threat posed by the filtering obligations for online intermediaries.
EMPIRICAL STUDIES FOR COPYRIGHT POLICY
CREATe’s Copyright Evidence portal catalogues more than 600 empirical studies related to copyright policy: Copyright Evidence Wiki
Second Open Letter to MEPs & the EU Council(26 April 2018)Second Open Letter to MEPs & the EU Council (26 April 2018)
The Copyright Directive is failing
Amsterdam, Barcelona, Berlin, Brno, Cambridge, Florence, Glasgow, München, Paris, Strasbourg, Tilburg, Torino, Travna
We are independent legal, economic and social scientists from leading research centres across Europe.
Many of us participated in the public debate surrounding the Proposed Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (COM(2016) 593 final), contributing studies, scholarly articles, comments and open letters [1]. We did this work in the belief that it is the responsibility of academics to offer independent expertise in a complex and contested area of policy making.
We acknowledged from the beginning that this was a heavily lobbied field, where there was a danger that the interests of small innovating firms, of non-organised creators and of consumers would not be heard. We therefore repeatedly recommended that the legislative process should be conducted transparently and that the public should be offered proper evidence for review.
We note with dismay that the latest revisions to the Proposed Directive are being negotiated behind closed doors. Independent evidence is ignored in response to heavy lobbying. “Compromise” texts are now being drafted both in the Council of the European Union [2] and in the European Parliament [3]. They are destined for the agenda of the EU Council (Competitiveness Council, 28-29 May 2018) and are scheduled to be voted in the JURI Committee on 21-22 June 2018.
There is scientific consensus that the proposed exception for text-and-data-mining in Art. 3 will not achieve its goal to stimulate innovation and research if restricted to certain organisations, that the proposals for a new publishers’ right under Art. 11 will favour incumbent press publishing interests rather than innovative quality journalism, and that the proposals for Art. 13 threaten the user participation benefits of the e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) which shared the responsibility for enforcement between rightholders and service providers.
When the Commission’s Proposed Directive was published on 14 September 2016, there were grounds for optimism. The Committees of the European Parliament did their job in scrutinising the proposals. In particular the draft report of MEP Catherine Stihler (S&D) for the Internal Market committee IMCO recognised the dangers of Art. 13 (where it may undermine the innovation benefits of the e-Commerce Directive); the report by MEP Michał Boni (EPP) for the Civil Liberties committee LIBE emphasised the Charter of Fundamental Rights and that Art. 13 should not impose a general monitoring obligation; the report by MEP Zdzisław Krasnodębski (ECR) for the Industry committee ITRE drew attention to the narrow scope of the proposed Art. 3 exception for text-and-data-mining.
In the lead Legal Affairs committee JURI, rapporteur Therese Comodini Cachia (EPP) produced a balanced draft report, published on 10 March 2017 [4] that replaced the deeply problematic new publishers’ right in Art. 11 with a presumption that gives press publishers standing to sue. Comodini’s report also opened the text-and-data-mining exception under Art. 3 to all, and clarified the obligations on service providers under Art. 13.
Comodini resigned as a MEP in June 2017 to take up a seat in the Maltese Parliament and Axel Voss, a German MEP from the EPP Group, was appointed rapporteur. The legislative drafts that have since emerged from his office as well as from the Bulgarian Council presidency (since January 2018) pay lip service to authors’ interest but respond in effect to the agenda of powerful corporate interests.
There is a tremendous amount of noise and misinformation. “Fake news” is dressed as a copyright issue (which can only be characterised as cynical), and the misleading rhetoric of a “value gap” clouds the true nature of the issues for online platforms.
Comodini’s draft report for the JURI Committee in our view still offers the most workable basis for progress because it was based on wide and transparent consultation, taking into account scientific evidence.
If the legislation progresses in the form proposed by the recent drafts of the Bulgarian Presidency and JURI rapporteur Voss, we call on you to reject the Proposed Directive altogether. It will not serve the public interest.
The Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive is now failing its stated goals to improve choice, access and fairness in the digital environment.
Second Open Letter: References (26 April 2018) Second Open Letter: References (26 April 2018)
[1] Academic contributions since 2017
(studies published prior to February 2017 are referenced in Open Letter #1)
Lionel Bently, Martin Kretschmer & Technopolis Consultants (2017) The position of press publishers and authors & performers in the copyright directive, Study commissioned by European Parliament, Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs (100pp):
Better Regulation for Copyright: Academics meet Policy Makers (2017), with contributions by Rosati, Gompel, Höppner, Stalla-Bourdillon, Mazziotti, Rendas, Ramalho, Hugenholtz. Proceedings published by Greens|EFA & Southampton University: https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2017-09-06_Better-Regulation-for-Copyright-Academics-meet-Policy-Makers_Proceedings.pdf
Kristofer Erickson and Martin Kretschmer (2018) ‘This Video is Unavailable’: Analyzing Copyright Takedown of User-Generated Content on YouTube, Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E- Commerce Law (JIPITEC), 9(1). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3144329
Reto M. Hilty and Valentina Moscon (eds.) (2017) Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules – Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (Research Paper, No. 17-12, 208pp): https://www.ip.mpg.de/en/projects/details/modernisation-of-european-copyright-rules.html
Christophe Geiger, Giancarlo Frosio and Oleksandr Bulayenko (2017) Opinion of the CEIPI on the European Commission’s Proposal to Reform Copyright Limitations and Exceptions in the European Union. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3053983 (published version: “The EU Commission’s Proposal to Reform Copyright Limitations: A Good but Far Too Timid Step in the Right Direction”, European Intellectual Property Review 2018, 4)
Christophe Geiger, Giancarlo Frosio, Oleksandr Bulayenko (2018) The Exception for Text and Data Mining (TDM) in the Proposed Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, Legal Aspects, Study commissioned by European Parliament, Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs for JURI Committee (29pp): http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2018/604941/IPOL_IDA(2018)604941_EN.pdf
Martin Husovec (2017) Compromising (on) the Digital Single Market? A Quick Look at the Estonian Presidency Proposal(s) on Art 13, Kluwer blog (08/09/2017) available at http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2017/09/08/compromising-digital-single-market-quick-look-estonian-presidency-proposals-art-13/
Matthias Leistner and Axel Metzger (2017) The EU Copyright Package: A Way Out of the Dilemma in Two Stages, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC) 48(4), pp 381–384
Thomas Margoni (2018) The Text and Data Mining exception in the Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market: Why it is not what EU copyright law needs. CREATe blog (25/04/18) available at: https://www.create.ac.uk/blog/2018/04/25/why-tdm-exception-copyright-directive-digital-single-market-not-what-eu-copyright-needs/
Jan Nordemann (2017) Liability of Online Service Providers for Copyrighted Content – Regulatory Action Needed?, Study commissioned by European Parliament, Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy (30pp): http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2017/614207/IPOL_IDA(2017)614207_EN.pdf
Marco Ricolfi, Raquel Xalabarder, Mireille van Eechoud (2018) Academics against Press Publishers’ Right, Statement from 169 EU academics: https://www.ivir.nl/academics-against-press-publishers-right/
Giovanni Sartor (2017) Providers Liability: From the eCommerce Directive to the future, Study commissioned by European Parliament, Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy (36pp): http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2017/614179/IPOL_IDA(2017)614179_EN.pdf
Martin Senftleben, Christina Angelopoulos, Giancarlo Frosio, Valentina Moscon, Miquel Peguera and Ole Andreas Rognstad (2017) The Recommendation on Measures to Safeguard Fundamental Rights and the Open Internet in the Framework of the EU Copyright Reform (24pp). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3054967
Raquel Xalabarder (2017) ‘CREATe Public Lectures on the Proposed EU Right for Press Publishers’, European Intellectual Property Review 39(10): 607-622. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3050575
[2] Bulgarian Presidency draft compromise proposal (13 April 2018): http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-7927-2018-INIT/en/pdf
[3] Rapporteur Voss draft compromise proposal (28 March 2018):
https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/voss11.pdf
[4] Rapporteur Comodini draft report for JURI (10 March 2017): http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-601.094+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN
Second Open Letter: Full List of Signatories (26 April 2018)Second Open Letter: Full List of Signatories (26 April 2018)
CPIL, University of Cambridge, UK
Professor Lionel Bently, Director, Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL), University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
Dr Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan, Co-Director CIPIL; Dr Christina Angelopoulos; Professor Bill Cornish; Dr. Jennifer Davis
CEIPI, University of Strasbourg, France
Professor Christophe Geiger, Director, Centre d’Etudes Internationales de la Propriété Intellectuelle (CEIPI)
Dr Giancarlo Frosio; Oleksandr Bulayenko
CIPPM Bournemouth University, United Kingdom
Professor Maurizio Borghi, Director, Centre for IP Policy & Management (CIPPM)
Professor Dinusha Mendia; Co-Director CIPPM; Professor Ruth Towse, Professor of the Economics of Creative Industries & CREATe Fellow in Cultural Economics
University of Copenhagen, Denamark
Professor Thomas Riis; Professor Jens Schovsbo; Dr Sebastian Felix Schwemer Centre for information and Innovation Law (CIIR)
CREATe, University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Professor Martin Kretschmer, Director, RCUK Copyright Centre (CREATe), University of Glasgow, and Braudel Fellow, European Institute, Florence, Itlay
Professor Lillian Edwards, Deputy Director CREATe, Professor of E-Governance, Strathclyde University
Professor Sayantan Ghosal, Professor of Economics, Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow
Dr. Elena Cooper; Dr Kris Erickson; Dr Thomas Margoni; Dr Andreas Rahmatian; Dr Sukhpreet Singh
Professor Peter Drahos, Professor of Law and Governance
Professor Giovanni Sartor, University of Bologna and EUI; Kasper Drazewski
Professor Katharina de la Durantaye, Chair of Private Law and Media Law
Professor Alexander Peukert, Chair in Civil and Intellectual Property Law
Professor Niklas Bruun, Director, IPR University Center
Professor Nari Lee, Professor of Intellectual Property Law
Hamboldt-Universität Berlin, Germany
Professor Axel Metzger, Chair in Civil and Intellectual Property Law
IViR, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Professor Nico van Eijk, Director, Professor of Media and Telecommunications Law and Director of the Institute for Information Law (IViR)
Professor P. Bernt Hugenholtz, Professor of IP Law and former Director, Institute for Information Law
Professor Mireille van Eechoud; Dr Stef van Gompel; João Pedro Quintais; Assoc. Professor (economics) Joost Poort
Max Plank Institute for Innovation and Competition, München, Germany
Professor Reto Hilty, Director, Max Plank Institute for Innovation and Competition
Professor Josef Drexl, Director Intellectual Property and Competition Law
Professor Dietmar Harhoff, Director Innovation and Entrepeneurship Research
Dr. Valentina Moscon, Senior Research Fellow
Dr. Radim Polčák, Head of the Institute of Law and Technology, Faculty of Law
Dr. Matěj Myška, Deputy Head ILT
Nexa, Politechnio di Torino, Italy
Professor Juan Carlos De Martin, Co-Director, Center for Internet & Society (NEXA), Professor Marco Ricolfi, Co-Director NEXA
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC), Barcelona, Spain
Professor Raquel Xalabarder, Chair of Intellectual Property
Assoc. Professor David Megías, Director of the Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3)
Assoc. Professor Miquel Peguera
OIPRC, University of Oxford, UK
Assoc. Professor Dev Ganjee, Director, Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre (OIPRC)
Queen Mary IP Research Institute, London, UK
Professor Guido Westkamp, Professor of Intellectual Property and Comparative Law
Dr. Rafal Sikorski, Professor of Law, Faculty of Law and Administration
Tito Rendas, Lecturer in Copyright Law
SciencesPo Paris, France SciencesPo, Paris, France
Professor Séverine Dusollier, School of Law, SciencesPo Paris, France
Assoc. Professor Eoin O’Dell
Professor Ronald Leenes, Professor in Regulation of Technology, Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology and Society (TILT)
Dr Martin Husovec, TILT & Tilburg Law and Economics Center (TILEC)
Professor Eleni Kosta (TILT); Dr. Maurice Schellekens (TILT)
Dr. Lapo Filistrucchi (TILEC); Dr. Jens Prüfer (TILEC) ; Dr. Florian Schuett (TILEC)
University of Travna, Slovakia
Dr. Zuzana Adamova, Head of Intellectual Property and Information Technologies Law Institute
Assoc. Professor Roberto Caso, Assoc. Professor of Comparative Private Law, Co-director of LawTech Group
Professor Arno Lodder, Professor of Internet Law, Centre for Law and Internet (CLI);
Professor Martin Senftleben, Professor of Intellectual Property, Centre for Law and Internet (CLI)
First Open Letter to MEPs & the EU Council (24 February 2017)First Open Letter to MEPs & the EU Council (24 February 2017)
Amsterdam, Berlin, Cambridge, Glasgow, München, Paris, Strasbourg, Tilburg, Torino
First signatories include academics of the following Research Centres:
Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL), University of Cambridge, United Kingdom;
Centre d’Etudes Internationales de la Propriété Intellectuelle (CEIPI), University of Strasbourg, France;
RCUK Copyright Centre (CREATe), University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK;
Chair for Civil and Intellectual Property Law, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany;
Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands;
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany;
Center for Internet & Society (NEXA), Politecnico di Torino, Italy;
SciencesPo Paris, France;
Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology and Society & Tilburg Law and Economics Center, University of Tilburg, Netherland
The full list of signatories can be found at the end of this page.
Download the letter as pdf.
First Open Letter: Full List of Signatories (24 February 2017)(First Open Letter: Full List of Signatories (24 February 2017)
Open Letter: Full List of Signatories
First signatories (24 February 2017)
CIPIL, University of Cambridge, UK
Dr. Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan, Co-Director CIPIL; Dr. Christina Angelopoulos;
Dr. Giancarlo Frosio; Oleksandr Bulayenko
Professor Martin Kretschmer, Director, RCUK Copyright Centre (CREATe), University of Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom [drafter]
Professor Lilian Edwards, Deputy Director CREATe, Professor of E-Governance, Strathclyde University
Professor Ruth Towse, Professor of the Economics of Creative Industries, Bournemouth University & CREATe Fellow in Cultural Economics;
Dr. Elena Cooper; Dr. Kris Erickson; Dr. Thomas Margoni; Dr. Andreas Rahmatian; Dr. Sukhpreet Singh
Jun. Professor Katharina del la Durantaye
Professor P. Bernt Hugenholtz, Director, Institute for Information Law
Dr. Stef van Gompel
Dr. Joost Poort, Associate Professor (economics)
Professor Reto Hilty, Director, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition
Professor Dietmar Harhoff, Director Innovation and Entrepreneurship Research
Professor Juan Carlos De Martin, Co-Director, Center for Internet & Society (NEXA)
Professor Marco Ricolfi, Co-Director NEXA
Séverine Dusollier, Professor, School of Law, SciencesPo Paris, France
Professor Panos Delimatsis, Director, Tilburg Law and Economics Center (TILEC)
Dr. Martin Husovec (TILT & TILEC) [drafter]
Professor Eleni Kosta, Professor Ronald Leenes, Dr. Maurice Schellekens (TILT)
Professor Panos Delimatsis, Professor Pierre Larouche, Dr. Lapo Filistrucchi, Dr. Jens Prüfer, Dr. Florian Schuett (TILEC)
Dr. Eoin O’Dell, Associate Professor of Law, Trinity College Dublin
Dr. Begoña Gonzalez Otero, Academic Dean of EU Business School Munich and affiliated researcher of the Instituto de Derecho Industrial, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela
Dr. Sabine Jacques, Lecturer, School of Law, University of East Anglia
Professor Fiona Macmillan, Corporation of London Professor of Law, Birkbeck University of London
Miquel Peguera, Associate Professor, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona
João Pedro Quintais, Postdoctoral Researcher, IViR, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
If you support the Open Letter and wish to add your name, please send an e-mail to the CREATe hub.
Appendix I (Independent Studies and Opinions & Sources of Data): What is wrong with Article 11? (24 February 2017)Appendix I (Independent Studies and Opinions & Sources of Data): What is wrong with Article 11? (24 February 2017)
Proposed Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market: Article 11
The Proposal aims to change the legal framework for the online use of news, by creating a new exclusive right for press publishers. Any statement that this intervention will not affect the communication of information in a democratic society (and thus the right to freedom of expression) is seriously misleading. While the motivation for the proposed new right is to help publishers in a time of technological change, the consequence will be a fundamental change in the copyright treatment of news. The onus must be on the proponents of the new right to present independently verifiable evidence on the effects and the proportionality of the intervention (including an assessment of the lack of alternatives). This is entirely missing from the Commission’s package, a scandalous omission.
There is consensus, as Recital 31 puts it, that “[a] free and pluralist press is essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens’ access to information”. But it is wrong to present copyright as the solution. Exclusive rights cut two ways. They incentivise and they prevent. Already the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886), the ‘mother’ of the international copyright system, explicitly permits free press summaries, recognising the sensitive status of information and news. No evidence is presented by the Commission that restricting the communication of news would address the decline in revenues from advertising and subscription of many traditional newspapers. Will citizens read more, and read more European sources?
The second main argument offered by the Commission is that there is nothing problematic or unusual under copyright law to recognise investment through a related right (Recital 32: “the organisational and financial contribution of publishers”). This too is misleading. The contribution of a producer of a phonogram or the producer of an audio-visual recording is very different from a publisher, even a news publisher. Through employment contracts or contracts with free-lance journalists, press publishers already acquire the authors’ copyright. So the proposal in effect establishes a double layering of rights for the same creation.
If the real issues relate to licensing and enforcement (e.g. proof of ownership), the answer needs to focus on licensing and enforcement rather than on creating new rights. Article 5 of the Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC) could be amended to create a presumption that a press publisher is entitled to bring proceedings to enforce the copyright in any article or other item appearing in a journal of which it is the identified publisher.
It is false to claim that the proposed new right for press publishers will have no effect on authors who are protected under the “no prejudice” clause in Art. 11(2) (and Recital 35). In the public consultation, journalists and photographers expressed their concern that by granting publishers a related right, the freedom to republish the work (under contract or as a matter of national law), would be even more difficult to exercise. From a user perspective, a service that wishes to republish works covered by the new right will have to approach whom? If the pie does not get bigger, the authors’ share will become smaller as additional rights are introduced into play.
The proposal adds another layer of rights that new services and innovators have to clear in all Member States. This will hinder European innovation compared to the rest of world. The empirical evidence from the introduction of ancillary rights for press publishers in Germany (2013) and Spain (2014) indicates that big firms can adjust their business model, pay licence fees or negotiate free licences. The innovation effects on independent news services and start-ups are not assessed by the Commission.
There are many technical issues around the drafting language of Article 11. The term of 20 years appears to apply retrospectively, and is never justified. The subject matter is defined very broadly, covering professional publications, blogs and websites. Despite Recital 33 stating that “this protection does not extend to acts of hyperlinking which do not constitute communication to the public” (reasserting case law of the European Court of Justice), the recitals and explanatory documents state the intention to make aggregators, search engines and social media pay. It is unclear for what activity. Non-linking digital uses, such as scanning, indexing, and text-and-data-mining may become a target. There are potential consequences for open data and open access policies. It is no surprise that academic publishers are taking a close interest in the Article.
Article 11 is fundamentally misconceived, and should be removed from the Proposed Directive.
Independent studies and opinions
European Copyright Society (20 academics), Opinion on European Commission Proposals for Reform of Copyright in the EU (24 January 2017): https://europeancopyrightsociety.org/how-the-ecs-works/ecs-opinions/
Lionel Bently et al., Response to Article 11 of the Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, entitled ‘Protection of press publications concerning digital uses’on behalf of 37 professors and leading scholars of Intellectual Property, Information Law and Digital Economy (5 December 2016): https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/press/news/2016/12/cambridge-academics-respond-call-views-european-commissions-draft-legislation
Richard Danbury (2016), ‘Is an EU publishers’ right a good idea?’ Evaluating potential legal responses to threats to the production of news in a digital era, University of Cambridge Final report on AHRC project: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/projectscopyright-and-news-research-project-2014-16/working-papers
Mireille van Eechoud (2017), A publisher’s intellectual property right: Implications for freedom of expression, authors and open content policies, Research paper for OpenForum Europe: http://www.openforumeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/OFE-Academic-Paper-Implications-of-publishers-right_FINAL.pdf
Christophe Geiger, Oleksandr Bulayenko and Giancarlo Frosio (2017), Opinion of the CEIPI on the European Commission’s copyright reform proposal, with a focus on the introduction of neighbouring rights for press publishers in EU law (version published in European Intellectual Property Review [E.I.P.R.] 39(4) 202-210): http://www.ceipi.edu/fileadmin/upload/DUN/CEIPI/Documents/CEIPI_Opinion_on_the_introduction_of_neighbouring_rights_for_press_publishers_in_EU_final.pdf
Martin Kretschmer, Séverine Dusollier, P. Bernt Hugenholtz, Christophe Geiger (2016), The European Commission’s public consultation on the role of publishers in the copyright value chain: A response by the European Copyright Society, European Intellectual Property Review [E.I.P.R.] 36(10) 591-595: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2801595
Alexander Peukert (2016), An EU Related Right for Press Publishers Concerning Digital Uses, A Legal Analysis, Research Paper of the Faculty of Law, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main No. 22/2016: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2888040
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (2012), Stellungnahme zum Gesetzesentwurf für eine Ergänzung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes durch ein Leistungsschutzrecht für Verleger: http://www.ip.mpg.de/fileadmin/ipmpg/content/stellungnahmen/leistungsschutzrecht_fuer_verleger_01.pdf
Raquel Xalabarder (2016), Press Publisher Rights in the New Copyright in the Digital Single Market Draft Directive, CREATe Working Paper 2016/15: https://www.create.ac.uk/publications/press-publisher-rights-in-the-new-copyright-in-the-digital-single-market-draft-directive/
Susan Athey, Mark Mobius and Jeno Pal (2017), The Impact of News Aggregators on Internet News Consumption: The Case of Localization Stanford Business School Working Paper No. 3353 (Shutdown of Google News in Spain reduced overall news consumption by about 20% for treatment users, and it reduced page views on publishers other than Google News by 10%. This decrease is concentrated around small publishers while large publishers do not see significant changes in their overall traffic): https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers/impact-news-aggregators-internet-news-consumption-case-localization
Joan Calzada and Ricard Gil (2016), What Do News Aggregators Do? Evidence from Google News in Spain and Germany, Universitat de Barcelona and John Hopkins Carey Business School Working Paper (Shutdown of Google News in Spain decreased the number of daily visits to Spanish news outlets by 11%. In Germany, the opt-in policy adopted by the German edition of Google News in October 2014 did not significantly affect the daily visits of all outlets that opted out, but reduced by 7% the number of visits of the outlets controlled by the publisher Axel Springer): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2837553
Copyright, related rights and the news in the EU: Assessing potential new laws (conference proceedings, CIPIL University of Cambridge, IViR University of Amsterdam, 23 April 2016): https://www.ivir.nl/newsconference2016/
Nera Consulting (2015), Impacto del Nuevo Artículo 32.2 de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual, Informe para la Asociación Española de Editoriales de Publicaciones Periódicas (AEEPP) (study commissioned by Spanish Association of Publishers of Periodicals AEEPP): http://www.nera.com/publications/archive/2015/impact-of-the-new-article-322-of-the-spanish-intellectual-proper.html
Deloitte (2016), The impact of web traffic on revenues of traditional newspaper publishers: A study for France, Germany, Spain, and the UK (study commissioned by Google): https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/deloitte-uk-impact-of-web-traffic-on-newspaper-revenues-2016.pdf
European press publishers associations (EMMA, ENPA, EPC and NME): Putting the record straight on copyright, links and other questions (17 November 2016), Letter send to every MEP (presenting the new right as “straightforward” and “in line with the copyright acquis”) [link to pdf]
CopyrightEvidence.org: Wiki resource, cataloguing empirical evidence relating to copyright
Appendix II (Independent Studies and Opinions & Sources of Data): What is wrong with Article 13? (24 February 2017)Appendix II (Independent Studies and Opinions & Sources of Data): What is wrong with Article 13? (24 February 2017)
Proposed Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market: Article 13
The Proposal aims to change the legal framework for online use of copyright works. Without acknowledging it and contradicting the results of the public consultation, it reverses the allocation of responsibilities between rightsholders and service providers that was adopted by the European legislator in the E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC).
The E-Commerce Directive had two main goals. First, it was to support the economic growth of digital services relying on user-generated content by providing them with legal certainty. Second, it was to legislate for rapid, reliable and proportionate enforcement of copyright and other rights.
The resulting mechanism adopted for hosting services, known as “notice and takedown”, splits the responsibility and costs associated with preventing copyright infringements between rightsholders and intermediaries. It does so by making a host of content uploaded by users liable only upon obtaining knowledge of the content and its illegality. As a result, while rightsholders bear the burden of identifying and notifying infringements, intermediaries oversee verification and subsequent takedown of the notified content.
The proposed Article 13 attempts to change this by creating an obligation on intermediary services to take “appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure protection of works or other subject-matter, such as implementing effective technologies” (Recital 38). The aim is to force platforms into licensing agreements that close the so-called “value gap” between the benefits platforms derive from hosting user uploaded content and the money paid to rightsholders of that content.
The Proposal is poorly drafted. It is unclear if it imposes a novel filtering obligation only on platforms with existing licensing agreements, or on all platforms regardless of such agreements. In any case, Article 13 avoids answering the central question: when and on what legal grounds should platforms pay for their users’ content?
But most importantly, Article 13 is not based on any assessment of the consequences of the intervention that conforms to “better regulation principles” agreed by Commission, Parliament and Council: a duty to strive “for simple, evidence-based, predictable and proportionate rules that are fit for purpose and deliver maximum benefits to citizens and businesses” (Jean-Claude Juncker, State of the Union Address 2016).
In particular, the Commission’s proposals take the “value gap” as given as a rationale for intervention. The idea that the creation of value should lead automatically to transfer or compensation payments has no scientific basis. The concept was invented by the music industry in 2006, initially as a “value recognition right” in the copyright levy debate. This led quickly to reports commissioned from economic consultants that confirm the views of the commissioners. It is disturbing that the European legislator now appears to take the concept for granted. The value gap language also obfuscates the legitimate goal of improving the economic positions of creators.
Online service providers that rely on user generated content not only include large multinational companies, such as YouTube or Facebook. There are many European platforms run by SMEs falling into the same category. Innovative companies are the engine of European growth and an important source of cultural diversity. They will be affected by Article 13 in unpredictable ways. We need to know how.
During the scrutiny of this proposal in Parliament and in the Council, the following questions need to be asked: (1) why improving notice and takedown procedure is not sufficient; (2) how expensive and available is the crucial filtering technology; (3) how precise is it; (4) can Internet start-up companies afford it; (5) which services are likely to be affected (e.g. cloud hosts, social media, news aggregators, wikis); (6) will the new obligations raise barriers to entry; (7) if so, for which markets, and with what consequences for European consumers and innovators; (8) will new licensing agreements benefit creators, and why; (9) how effective are counter-notice measures in preventing over-blocking of legitimate content; (10) will there be any systematic impact on freedom of expression; and (11) how does the European Commission plan to assure public oversight of these measures.
The Proposal appears to require private companies to monitor their customers by using unspecified filtering technologies without any public oversight. It appears to encourage value transfer arrangements without considering innovation, consumer and cultural effects.
Article 13 needs radical reform that may not be achievable through amendments within its current structure. We would advise removing the Article from the Proposed Directive, and focussing attention on improving the procedure for “notice and takedown”.
Sophie Stalla-Bourdillon et al (40 academics), Open Letter to the European Commission – On the Importance of Preserving the Consistency and Integrity of the EU Acquis Relating to Content Monitoring within the Information Society: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2850483
Stellungnahme des Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverbandes zu den Regelungsvorschlägen der Europäischen Kommission (insbesondere COM(2016) 593 final und COM(2016) 594 final): https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Gesetzgebungsverfahren/Stellungnahmen/2016/Downloads/10262016_Stellungnahme_vzbv_EU-Urheberrechtsreform.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3
Christina Angelopoulos (2016), EU Copyright Reform: Outside the Safe Harbours, Intermediary Liability Capsizes into Incoherence: http://kluwercopyrightblog.com/2016/10/06/eu-copyright-reform-outside-safe-harbours-intermediary-liability-capsizes-incoherence/
Christina Angelopoulos (2017), On Online Platforms and the Commission’s New Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (study commissioned by Julia Reda MEP):
https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/angelopoulos_platforms_copyright_study.pdf
Giancarlo F. Frosio (2017), Reforming Intermediary Liability in the Platform Economy: A European Digital Single Market Strategy, 15(2) Northwestern University Law Review Online (forthcoming): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2912272
Martin Husovec (2016), EC Proposes Stay-down & Expanded Obligation to License UGC Services: http://www.husovec.eu/2016/09/ec-proposes-stay-down-expanded.html
Matthias Leistner and Axel Metzger (2017), Wie sich das Problem illegaler Musiknutzung lösen lässt: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/gema-youtube-wie-sich-urheberrechts-streit-schlichten-liesse-14601949.html?printPagedArticle=true#pageIndex_2
Eleonora Rosati (2016), Why a reform of hosting providers’ safe harbour is unnecessary under EU copyright law, European Intellectual Property Review [E.I.P.R.] 28(11), 669-677: https://www.create.ac.uk/publications/why-a-reform-of-hosting-providers-safe-harbour-is-unnecessary-under-eu-copyright-law/
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (2017), Position Statement on the Proposed Modernization of European Copyright Rules: http://www.ip.mpg.de/en/research/intellectual-property-and-competition-law/position-statement-modernization-of-european-copyright-rules.html
EconLaw Strategic Consulting (2007), Economic Analysis of Private Copy Remuneration, Report prepared by Albert Sanchez-Grealls and Juan Santaló for Groupement Européen des Sociétés d’Auteurs et Compositeurs (GESAC) (early example of “transfer of value” concept, commissioned by association of music collecting societies): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1885107
Mark Rogers, Joshua Tomalin and Ray Corrigan (2009), “The Economic Impact of Consumer Copyright Exceptions: A literature review”, Study commissioned by Consumer Focus (includes critique of the economic assumptions in EconLaw 2007): http://oro.open.ac.uk/25604/5/The_economics_of_consumer_copyright_exceptions_final.pdf
Daniel Seng (2015), ‘Who Watches the Watchmen?’ An Empirical Analysis of Errors in DMCA Takedown Notices: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2563202
Jennifer M. Urban, Joe Karaganis and Brianna L. Schofield (2016), Notice and Takedown in Everyday Practice, UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. 2755628 (empirical study identifying problematic takedowns): https://ssrn.com/abstract=2755628https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=2755628
European Commission, Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules (5 December 2013 – 5 March 2014: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-rules/index_en.htm
European Commission (2015), The Liability Regime and Notice-and-Action Procedures, call for a study (SMART 2016/0039) tendered under framework contract (the resulting study has NOT been published, we link to the pdf of the call here) [link]
European Commission (2016), Synopsis Report on The Public Consultation on The Regulatory Environment for Platforms, Online Intermediaries and The Collaborative Economy: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/full-report-results-public-consultation-regulatory-environment-platforms-online-intermediaries (underreporting concerns about changes to liability regime)
https://lumendatabase.org/: database of legal complaints and requests for removal of online materials
Earlier Contributions Earlier Contributions
CREATe’s earlier contributions to the EU Copyright reform debate include the following papers and policy submissions:
CREATe Working Paper 2014/9
https://www.create.ac.uk/publications/create-response-to-eu-copyright-rules-review/
Response to the Public Consultation by the European Commission on the Evaluation and Modernisation of the Legal Framework for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights on behalf of CREATe by Elena Cooper, Theodore Koutmeridis and Martin Kretschmer (April 2016)
https://www.create.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/CREATe-response-to-EC-enforcement-consultation.pdf
CREATe Working Paper 2016/09
Martin Kretschmer, Séverine Dusollier, Christophe Geiger, and P. Bernt Hugenholtz
https://www.create.ac.uk/publications/the-european-commissions-public-consultation-on-the-role-of-publishers-in-the-copyright-value-chain-a-response-by-the-european-copyright-society/
CREATe Working Paper 2016/11
Eleonora Rosati, University of Southampton and e-LAWnora
https://www.create.ac.uk/publications/why-a-reform-of-hosting-providers-safe-harbour-is-unnecessary-under-eu-copyright-law/
EU copyright reform: the case for and against a related right for press publishers
CREATe Working Paper 2017/08
CREATe Working Paper 2016/15
https://www.create.ac.uk/publications/eu-copyright-reform-the-case-for-a-related-right-for-press-publishers/
https://www.create.ac.uk/publications/press-publisher-rights-in-the-new-copyright-in-the-digital-single-market-draft-directive/
ESRC resource from public lectures: https://www.create.ac.uk/create-public-lecture-2017-the-case-for-a-related-right-for-press-publishers/
A full list of interventions is available here: https://www.create.ac.uk/policy-responses/
This resource has been supported by AHRC grant “Unlocking co-creative possibilities: CREATe follow-on engagement” (AH/P013341/1) and Kretschmer’s Fernand Braudel fellowship at the European University Institute.
Summaries of research: Martin Kretschmer
Timeline: Amy Thomas
Letter coordination: Martin Kretschmer, Martin Husovec, Lionel Bently
Design and dissemination: Kerry Patterson, Sukhpreet Singh, Pete Bennett, Thomas Margoni
Graphics: Davide Bonazzi/Copyright User
EU Copyright Reform: Evidence on the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive. CREATe Centre: University of Glasgow. https://www.create.ac.uk/policy-responses/eu-copyright-reform/
Please include the date when the resource was accessed.