General Category > Blog

Article 11 of the EU Copyright Directive (link tax)

<< < (3/3)

kat:
1. changes here appears to reframe Article 11 more specifically to the activities of service providers, Google, Bing, Facebook and so on, in terms of their distributing copyright content (as opposed to content Users post to their feeds) else they are liable for revenue share similar to such schemes already in play for advertising (see previous post on this for greater context and much more detail) - this might be why Facebook recent removed the ‘suggested news feed’, a feature of FB origin, which would make them liable. This clarification should also exclude private citizens from effects of the clause.

1a. new paragraph emphasises the above point with an ‘exemption’ from liability of sorts, without using the word or language, for private citizens and individuals. This should make the memes and other User posted viral content safe, although likely liable where commercial exploitation is involved – this seems in line with current ‘fair use’ principles.

2. no change.

2a. new paragraph to address concerns with “hyperlinking”. In theory this should mean "any means used to ‘link’ or connect between content" rather than what hyperlinking normally means, text. This should mean linking in of itself is not cause for liability no matter where, how, why or what (this might also mean commercial exploitation is possible?).

3. no change.

4. duration for liability is reduced from twenty to five years (although again it’s not clear if this is exclusive of current 70+ years for copyright generally). Liability is also not retroactive – this should prevent a punitive approach by rights holders to claim 'lost' revenues from past misuse (which would also make lawful acts of the past, unlawful).

4a. new paragraph that clarifies paragraph 2 somewhat, making Governments liable for ensuring the Article 11 is enforced with regards to claims made and compensation had – this may mean rights holders lobbying Governments to act on claims of misappropriation(?) instead of infringing parties (a claim is presented to the Government not the party infringing). This appears counter/to conflict with current legislation in that misappropriations are supposed to be issued against infringing parties and then handled through the Courts, paragraph 4a seems to imply this can be bypassed and Governments can be lobbied directly.

ratty redemption:
i think i understand this better now. thanks for translating it kat. have you had time to study to the updates to article 13?

kat:
EU Parliament rejected the Copyright Reform bill in its current form, putting it up for review in September. This means the legislation will likely be amended to make it less contentious, especially in regards to Article 11 and 13.

--- Quote ---Parliament’s plenary voted by 318 votes to 278, with 31 abstentions to reject the negotiating mandate, proposed by the Legal Affairs Committee on 20 June. As a result, Parliament’s position will now be up for debate, amendment, and a vote during the next plenary session, in September.
--- End quote ---

kat:
Amendments up for vote Sept 2018 (ostensibly removes 'digital' distinction - treats offline/online the same)

--- Quote ---Article 11

Protection of press publications

1. Member States shall provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the use of their press publications.

1a. ibid.

2. ibid.

2 a. The rights to referred in paragraph 1 shall not extend to acts of hyperlinking as they do not constitute communication to the public.

3. ibid.

4. ibid.

4 a. Member States should ensure that a fair share of the revenue derived from the uses of the press publishers rights is attributed to journalists.
--- End quote ---

kat:
Copyright Directive has been passed. The exact version still to be clarified (some clauses/amendments rejected, others accepted).

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page