Following
the conclusion of the 6-month Estonian presidency, the presidency of the
Council of the European Union is now Bulgarian, and
will be so for the first semester of 2018.
The Council is
one of the key EU institutions and brings the voice of Member States'
governments into the decision- and law-making process. In fact and among other things - together with
the European Parliament - the Council is in charge of adopting EU legislation.
Of course, one of the pending pieces of
legislation that might receive a decisive boost towards its formal adoption
over the next few months is the Directive - proposed by the EU Commission in
September 2016 - on copyright in the Digital Single Market [here;
Katposts here].
Since its release, the draft directive has
attracted extensive commentary. In particular, the draft provisions contained
in Article 11 ('Protection of press publications concerning digital uses', this
being a proposal to introduce a new neighbouring right in favour of press
publishers) [Katposts here] and Article 13 ('Use of protected content by
information society service providers storing and giving access to large
amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users', this being
a proposal to be read in combination with Recital 38 in the preamble to the
directive and aimed at remedying the so called 'value gap' or 'transfer of
value') [Katposts here] are those that have been subject to the most extensive
scrutiny, at several levels.
Consensus in the Council regarding the proposed copyright directive
The former Estonian presidency worked indeed on reaching consensus among Member States' governments regarding the position
that the Council of the European Union would adopt in relation to Articles 11 and 13 in particular.
Different versions of the Estonian 'compromise'
were made available and, of course, widely commented.
For the Council to be able to advance its position political consensus among the various Member States' governments is
key.
The latest, consolidated, version of the
presidency compromise proposal is available here.
Now that the presidency of the Council has
passed to Bulgaria, what will change (if anything)?
Yesterday, a document prepared
by the Bulgarian presidency and aimed at setting up an 'orientation debate' on
Articles 11 and 13 of the proposed directive within Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper) was released.
What's in it?
First, the Bulgarian presidency
highlighted the progress made under the Maltese and Estonian leadership, and
noted that any progress would have as a basis the latest
compromise proposal prepared by the Estonian presidency.
This said, the Bulgarian document sets up
some questions for consideration by Coreper,
with the hope that consensus could be reached among Member States.
Press publishers' right: to be kept ... possibly with some nuances
With regard to the proposed press
publishers' right, Bulgaria noted that no consensus could be reached on either
option advanced by Estonia, ie: (A) an actual right, that would be written in
such a way that its scope would be clearer than what the Commission had proposed;
or (B) a presumption of entitlement of press publishers to license and enforce
the rights in their press publications.
From the text of the document it would appear
that Bulgaria favours option (A). In fact, the document formulates a
number of questions around option (A), the answer to which could help Member States achieve
consensus in the Council in the form of an acceptable compromise.
Where do you think you're going?! |
In particular, the Bulgarian presidency is
asking Member States about:
- determination of the extracts of
press publications that would fall within the scope of the right: would that be
a matter of originality (and therefore eligibility for protection also under
copyright, as per Infopaq) of the part reproduced, or should size
be a criterion irrespective of originality?
- whether the type of use
made of the press publication (commercial or non-commercial) should be a relevant
criterion;
- term of protection: is the original
proposal of a 20-year term adequate?
Value gap proposal: also to be kept ...
subject to a few clarifications (or not)
Also here, the Bulgarian presidency seems
oriented towards maintaining Article 13 in the text of the directive, but is
asking Member States to comment on certain aspects of the provision, hoping
that addressing these issues would allow consensus to be reached.
In particular:
- Should the directive clarify or not what
is to be intended as communication to the public by platforms that host and
make available user-uploaded content [the original proposal does not clarify]?
- Should the directive exclude that
platforms that make acts of communication to the public are eligible for the
safe harbour under Article 14 of the E-commerce Directive [the original proposal refers to the safe harbour for
hosting providers]?
- If platforms are liable for unauthorized
acts of communication to the public, should there be some sort of
"targeted liability mitigation provided for to avoid potentially excessive
impact on platforms storing and giving access to user uploaded
content" [this could be
so, assuming the ineligibility of such platforms for the Article 14 E-commerce Directive safe
harbour]?
- If there is a clarification of the
communication to the public, should there also be an obligation to apply
measures [likely including pro-active
filtering - on this point it might be interesting to look at this and
bear in mind the recent EU Commission's Communication
on Tackling Illegal Content Online, which includes reference to the so
called 'good Samaritan clause' (p 3)] as an additional provision, and if so, should it apply to the same
service providers as those concerned by the clarification on communication to
the public or should the scope of this obligation be different and potentially
wider?
Where to write one's own thoughts and responses |
Finally, Bulgaria is asking whether a
better option could be NOT to include in Article 13 any language relating to
communication to the public and safe harbours and include, instead, a new
recital that would recall the existing principles of EU law which are relevant
to determine the conditions under which user-uploaded content platforms engage,
based on existing case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, into
a copyright-relevant act and are not covered by the limited liability in
Article 14 of the E-commerce Directive.
Conclusion
From this document released by the new
Bulgarian presidency it would appear that neither Article 11 nor Article 13 are
going anywhere, Council-wise.
With regard to Article 11, the idea of
replacing a right in favour of press publishers with a presumption of
representation seems to have been abandoned.
There is greater room for manoeuvre in relation to the value gap
proposal, and on crucial aspects indeed.
Let's see what happens over the next
few months, also at the Parliament level. The JURI Committee is now expected to
vote on the report by MEP Axel Voss (who has replaced MEP Comodini-Cachia)
on 26-27 March (the January date has been in fact postponed once again), and it will be crucial to see what the report proposes, and how the vote goes.
New presidency of the Council of the European Union ... new position on the EU copyright reform?
Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati
on
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
Rating:
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html