DSM Directive is now Directive 2019/790 and Member States will need to transpose it by 7 June 2021

At last the Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market [see IPKat DSM Directive Series here, here, here, and here so far] has been published on the Official Journal of the European Union: it is now Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC [see here for all the language versions].

Trivia: this new piece of EU legislation is not the longest piece of legislation within the EU copyright acquis.

The Enforcement Directive (or IPRED) is in fact longer (42 pages) than the DSM Directive (34 pages). However, it seems fair to say that the DSM Directive is the longest piece of EU legislation ever adopted relating exclusively to copyright.

Here's a table I have made which lists the various lengths of the directives and regulations that compose the EU copyright acquis, ordered from the shortest to the longest one:


EU legislation
No of pages in the OJ
Directive on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art ("Resale Right Directive"), 27 September 2001
5
Directive on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights amending the previous 2006 Directive (“Term Directive”), 27 September 2011
5
Regulation on the cross-border exchange between the Union and third countries of accessible format copies of certain works and other subject matter protected by copyright and related rights for the benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled (Regulation implementing the Marrakech Treaty in the EU), 13 September 2017
5
Directive on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission ("Satellite and Cable Directive"), 27 September 1993
7
Directive on the legal protection of computer programs (“Software Directive”), 23 April 2009
7
Directive on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property ("Rental and Lending Directive"), 12 December 2006
8
Directive on certain permitted uses of orphan works (“Orphan Works Directive”), 25 October 2012
8
Directive on certain permitted uses of certain works and other subject matter protected by copyright and related rights for the benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled (Directive implementing the Marrakech Treaty in the EU), 13 September 2017
8
Directive on the legal protection of databases (“Database Directive”), 11 March 1996
9
Directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society ("InfoSoc Directive"), 22 May 2001
10
Directive 2019/789 laying down rules on the exercise of copyright and related rights applicable   to certain online transmissions of broadcasting organisations and retransmissions of television and radio programmes, and amending Council Directive 93/83/EEC (“New SatCab Directive”), 17 April 2019
10
Regulation on cross-border portability of online content services in the internal market ("Portability Regulation"), 14 June 2017
11
Directive on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market (“CRM Directive”), 26 February 2014
27
Directive 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC (“DSM Directive”), 17 April 2019

34
Directive on the enforcement of intellectual property right (“IPRED”), 29 April 2004
42

What happens now? The DSM Directive will enter into force 20 days after its publication on the Official Journal, that is on Friday, 7 June 2019 (see Article 31).

After this, Member States will have 24 months, ie until 7 June 2021, to transpose this new piece of EU legislation into their own laws (see Article 29). While some Member States, eg France, appear committed to a swift transposition of the directive, for others things might end up being a bit less smooth ...

[Originally published on The IPKat on 19 May 2019]

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