BREAKING: Commission unveils new copyright package

Image result for breaking newsFurther to the proposal for a regulation on cross-border portability of online content services in late 2015, the European Commission has just unveiled its new set of proposals to ameliorate EU copyright and achieve a fully functioning digital single market.

These - among other things - include proposals for a new directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market and a regulation on certain online transmissions of broadcasting organisations and retransmissions. Both instruments, if adopted in their current form, will have a deep impact on the EU copyright framework, particularly with regard to online uses of copyright works, responsibilities of hosting providers, users’ freedoms, and authors’ contracts.
A more detailed analysis of relevant documents will be provided soon: stay tuned!

But here's an immediate question: Is the new package different from the leaked versions [here and here]? Well, yes, to some extent.

Taking the proposed directive, for instance, it appears that:

(1) in relation to the so called 'value gap' [Recitals 38 and 39, and Article 13], the overall tone appears more stringent than the one used in the version that this very blog leaked a few days ago. 

In particular, Recital 38 of the actual proposal requires any hosting providers that give access to large amounts [what's the threshold?] of copyright works to "take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure protection of works or other subject-matter, such as implementing effective technologies [read: filtering technologies]. This obligation should also apply when the information society service providers are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC." 

Commissioners Ansip and Oettinger 
How can this be achieved without also reforming Article 15 of said directive is unclear in my opinion. Yet, regrettably the proposed directive fails to address what relationship it has with Directive 2000/31 ...

(2) in relation to the new press publishers' right [Article 11], while the version leaked a few days ago spoke of 'news publications', the actual proposal prefers the [apparently broader] term 'press publications'. 

In addition, Recital 34 in the proposal states that the right granted to press publishers "should have the same scope as the rights of reproduction and making available to the public provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC, insofar as digital uses are concerned. They should also be subject to the same provisions on exceptions and limitations as those applicable to the rights provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC including the exception on quotation for purposes such as criticism or review laid down in Article 5(3)(d) of that Directive" 

All in all, while this Recital appears possibly aimed at being GS Media-proof, it appears odd that reference is made to the making available right, instead of the broader communication to the public right, of which the making available right is part. In addition, GS Media was about the right of communication to the public right, not the making available right.

Follow the official presentation

You can follow the presentation of the content of this new copyright package by Commissioners Ansip and Oettinger this afternoon at 15:15 CET by using this GS Media-approved link.

Wish to discuss all this?

I am organising two new events to review and discuss all these recent developments, including the feasibility (and desirability as such) of proposed Commission action.

  • The first event will take place on 5 October 2016 at the beautiful Tower Bridge offices of RPC. Places are limited (with some tickets available for full time students), to provide everybody with the opportunity to discuss fully the present and future of EU copyright. You can find further details and register here.
  • The second event will be streamed on YouTube on 6 October 2016: participants can decide to follow it live or watch it at any later time of their choice. This second option is for those who are unable to attend the event on 5 October 2016, eg because based outside London. You can find further details and register here.
[Originally published on The IPKat on 14 September 2016]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

AG Szpunar advises CJEU not to extend direct liability for trade mark infringement to operators of online marketplaces

Image
Is the operator of an online marketplace (more specifically: a hybrid marketplace, which also provides logistics assistance to third-party sellers through a fulfilment programme) using third-party trade marks itself, in accordance with Article 9(2)   EUTMR , when it displays, on its marketplace, advertisements of independent sellers’ goods that infringe such trade mark rights, which it also delivers to end customers? Is the perception of a reasonably well informed and reasonably observant internet user relevant when undertaking such an assessment? Gigi was also awaiting her delivery ... These are the key issues on which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been requested to provide guidance.  Joined cases  Louboutin/Amazon , C-148/21 and C-184/21  are referrals for a preliminary ruling made in the context of highly similar proceedings pending before, respectively, Luxembourg’s Tribunal d’arrondissement (C-148/21) and Belgium’s Tribunal de l’entreprise francophone de Br
Read more

The Louboutin/Amazon cases (C-148/21 and C-184/21) and primary liability under EU trade mark law

Image
Merpel will be also spending the weekend shopping for (stiletto heel) shoes   Last year The IPKat   reported   on a new referral to the Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU) from Luxembourg’s Tribunal d’arrondissement, asking whether the operator of a hybrid marketplace could be considered directly liable for trade mark infringement due to the presence of third-party listings of infringing goods on its platform. That referral ( C-148/21 ) has now been joined to another one ( C-184/21 ) made in separate but highly similar proceedings pending between the same parties (Louboutin and Amazon) before the Tribunal de l’entreprise francophone de Bruxelles. In a nutshell, these joined cases are asking the CJEU to determine whether and, if so, at what conditions the operator of an online marketplace may be found liable under Article 9(2) of the  EU Trade Mark Regulation 2017/1001  (EUTMR) for the display of advertisements and the delivery of infringing goods that are offered for sale and pla
Read more

Image rights and the unauthorized use of one's own portrait on cigarette packs

Image
Plescia's image and the warning that "Smoking causes strokes and disability" Can someone's own image be used without permission? This question may have different answers, depending on both the context in which the relevant image is used and the legal system considered. With particular regard to the latter, in countries that envisage 'image rights' (or publicity rights), the availability of protection may be even irrespective of the context in which one's own image is being used. Italian law This is for instance the case of Italy which, similarly to other continental European jurisdictions, has a long-standing history of protecting image rights.  The relevant provision in the Italian Civil Code, ie  Article 10 , states that if one's own image is displayed or published outside the cases in which the display or publication is allowed by law, or in situations which are prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the person, a court may
Read more