©-LAW

The IPKat's favourite type of link The IPKat is back with the 6th instalment of the DSM Directive ( Directive 2019/790 ) series  [previous episodes  here ,  here ,  here ,  here , and  here ] . Today's topic is once again Article 15 and the new press publishers' right.  Among other things, the protection granted under Article 15(1), that is the right of EU-based press publishers to control the reproduction and making available for online use of their press publications by information society service provider s, " shall not apply to acts of hyperlinking " (Article 15(1), subparagraph 3). Recital 57 substantially states the same thing, by providing that " [t]he rights granted to publishers of press publications should not extend to acts of hyperlinking ." Hyperlinks and the press publishers' right: from the original proposal to the final version The final version of the directive is not dissimilar from  the o...

Bruno made his 'best efforts' to stick to his diet ... A couple of days ago, The IPKat  posted  about a (gross) Italian mistranslation of Article 17 of the  DSM Directive 2019/790  (formerly known as Article 13), which seems to require online content sharing service providers (OCSSPs) to prevent the availability of all unlicensed subject matter, irrespective of whether it is infringing or not. I have been informed that this error will be corrected soon, as it is clearly an incorrect translation of the adopted text. As a follow-up to this, I took a  closer look  at the Italian translation of Article 17, and was a bit surprised when I saw that the phrase 'best efforts' in Article 17(4)(a) had not been translated as 'migliori sforzi' but rather as 'massimi sforzi'. I shall try and clarify what I mean. If we look at the English version of the DSM Directive, we see that a softer regime is in place for those OCSSPs who, t...

Post-mistake Katguilt As  reported  by this blog, the DSM Directive ( 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 ) has now been published on the Official Journal of the EU. The various language versions of this new piece of EU legislation are available   here . The IPKat has learned from friends  Valentina Borgese ,  Carmine Di Benedetto ,  Daniele Cerulla  and  Daniele Fabris  (all PhD students at the University of Pavia)  that not all language versions of the directive say the same thing.  In particular, they have spotted a notable omission in the Italian version of Article 17 of the Directive. The English version of Article 17(7) states: The cooperation between online content-sharing service providers and rightholders shall  not  result in the...

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 len...

As  reported by The IPKat , earlier this week, like the European Parliament, also the Council adopted  the latest version  of the the Directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market (DSM Directive). One of the seemingly most complex -if nothing else, due to its length - provisions is what is now Article 17 (formerly, Article 13) of the DSM Directive, on "Use of protected content by online content-sharing service providers". The final text reads as follows: 1.  Member States shall provide that an online content-sharing service provider  [as defined in Article 2(6)]  performs an act of communication to the public or an act of making available to the public for the purposes of this Directive when it gives the public access to copyright-protected works or other protected subject matter uploaded by its users. An online content-sharing service provider shall therefore obtain an authorisation from the rightholders referred to in Art...

DSM-fatigue also for  @CultureDoug 's Pushka As IPKat readers  know , a few days ago the European Parliament adopted  the latest   version  of the draft Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market ('DSM Directive'). In a few days' time, the Council will cast the last vote on it and, after that, it will be published on the EU Official Journal. Individual Member States will then have 24 months to transpose this new piece of EU legislation into their own laws. The IPKat is now running a DSM Directive Series  [previous episodes,  here  and  here ] , to address a number of points raised by the provisions contained in the directive.  Today I would like to address a provision, Article 14, that was not present in the original proposal, and was inserted quite late in the legislative process. It relates to "Works of visual art in the public domain": Member States shall provide that, when the term of protection ...