EU Commission launches public consultation on neighbouring rights and freedom of panorama

As a further follow-up to its Digital Single Market Strategy released last May [here] and - more specifically - the Communication issued last December in tandem with a proposal for a regulation on cross-border content portability [here], yesterday the EU launched yet another public consultation.

After the one on the review of the Satellite and Cable Directive [here], after the one on online intermediaries and platforms, after the one on the Enforcement Directive [open until 15 April 2016], now it is the turn of neighbouring (ancillary) rights and freedom panorama.

Readers will remember that in its December Communication, the Commission indeed announced that it would consider initiatives both in the area of neighbouring rights and exceptions and limitations, including freedom of panorama.

Neighbouring rights = press publishers' right

As regards new neighbouring rights, in its Communication the Commission stated that it would consider "whether any action specific to news aggregators is needed, including intervening on rights".

As explained on the relevant Q&A section made available by the Commission, 

"The Commission has no plan to tax hyperlinks. We have no intention to ask people to pay for copyright when they simply share a hyperlink to content protected by copyright. Europeans share and post hyperlinks every day and they should remain free to do so [if by “taxing” the Commission intends “paying a licence fee”, then this statement frankly sounds a bit too bold without any legislative intervention, considering Svensson and its progeny (one of this Kat's favourite topics of all time)]. 
The Commission will look at the activities of different types of intermediaries in relation to copyright-protected content. This is a different issue. 
News aggregators, for example, are not only using hyperlinks but also extracts of articles and may gain revenue doing so. 
Different solutions related to news aggregators, both legislative and market-led, are being tested at national level. We are closely looking into them and are analysing whether they deliver on their objectives."

It would thus appear that - following (in)famous experiences at the national level (read: Germany and Spain) - an EU-wide ancillary right over news content appeared be in sight, even just for consideration [here for a more recent take].

When taking a selfie in Italy,
Bruno is always super-stressed careful
not to include any copyright work
Freedom of panorama

Article 5(3)(h) of the InfoSoc Directive allows Member States to introduce national exceptions/limitations to the rights harmonised by that directive to permit the "use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places". 

This is the so called freedom of panorama, that over the course of the past year has passed from being a perfectly fairly unknown/neglected area of copyright to being a VERY big deal [here; here for a possibly unduly skeptical Kat-take on the issue], up to the point that the European Parliament EVEN voted against any related restriction [here]. 

In its Communication, the Commission wrote that it would "clarify the current EU exception permitting the use of works that were made to be permanently located in the public space (the ‘panorama exception’), to take into account new dissemination channels."

Yesterday's public consultation

Now everyone can have his/her say on the correct approach to neighbouring rights and freedom of panorama. This is so until 15 June 2016. 

Looking at the relevant questions, it would appear that all main stakeholders - including authors, rightholders, publishers, intermediaries, researchers, users and the general public alike - are part of the consultation horizon. This means that there is something for everybody. 

This Kat suspects that - due to its appealing (also to the general public) focus - this particular public consultation will see the involvement of many interest groups and attract several responses, possibly more [but that does not seem too difficult] than the (mere) 1036 responses received by the public consultation on online intermediaries and platforms.
[Originally published on The IPKat on 24 March 2016]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Filmspeler, the right of communication to the public, and unlawful streams: a landmark decision

Image
Yesterday this blog  reported  that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued yet another long-awaited judgment, this being the  decision in  Filmspeler , C-527/15 . At the time of writing, the text of the ruling was not yet available. Now that it is and having had a chance to read it, it seems to me that – despite its highly specific factual background (sale of multimedia players enabling free access to audiovisual works protected by copyright without the consent of the rightholders) - Filmspeler is a MAJOR copyright decision. The reason is essentially two-fold: ·         First, because the Court relaxed the notion of what amounts to an ‘indispensable intervention  [the judgment does not even contain a reference to the intervention being ‘indispensable’]  for the sake of the right of communication to the public within Article 3(1) of the  InfoSoc Directive . This means – as I also s...
Read more

Italian court finds Google and YouTube liable for failing to remove unlicensed content (but confirms eligibility for safe harbour protection)

Image
Topazio, one of the soap operas produced by Delta TV Is YouTube an active host and, if so, ineligible for the safe harbour protection within Article 14 of the  E-commerce Directive ? As readers with an interest in intermediary liability know, this is not a novel question: indeed, it has been already raised a number of times before national courts. A few weeks ago, in a  decision available on Marchi & Brevetti  (sentenza 7 April 2017 No 1928, RG 38113/2013,  Delta TV v Google and YouTube  – judge rapporteur: Guglielmo Rende), the Tribunale di Torino (Turin Court of First Instance) revisited this issue, and provided an interesting response. Readers might recall that this decision follows other interim rulings commented on this blog  here  and  here . Background Back in 2013 Delta TV, which produces and owns the copyright to a number of South-American soap operas (including audiovisual works for the Italian, Monaco, Swis...
Read more

Brands and online ecommerce platforms: a tainted relationship?

Image
What has happened to online ecommerce platforms? Over the past few months news reports have multiplied – or, perhaps, their underlying issues have acquired greater visibility – that brand owners have been increasingly voicing criticisms against, sued, or discontinued sales on ecommerce sites. In particular, after the  criticisms  made against Alibaba, it seems that Amazon is now making the headlines. Let’s have a quick look at what has happened over the past few months. Court actions First, there have been legal proceedings being brought by trade mark owners, claiming a direct responsibility of Amazon in the sale of counterfeits or invoking a right to prevent sales on such platform. An example of the former is the  lawsuit  filed by Daimler against Amazon in late 2017 in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle. The well-known  German car manufacturer argues that Amazon is directly responsible for the “ offer fo...
Read more