Copyright reform is at another turning point at the European Parliament. The very first compromise amendments were examined on Thursday 16 November by the shadow rapporteurs. Although there appears to be agreement on the negotiating mechanism, the political groups appear to be more divided on exceptions in the education field.
It should be recalled that the draft directive introduces new exceptions to copyright rules, encourages licensing contracts and sets out new rules to ensure the effective functioning of the market when using protected content and other subject matter. The two most controversial provisions at both Parliament and the Council involve the creation of a neighbouring law for newspaper publishers (article 11) and value disparity (article 13).
Three articles affected
In Strasbourg, the rapporteur Axel Voss (EPP, Germany) submitted his first compromise amendments for the legal affairs committee vote on 25 January. These involve copyright exceptions in the education sector (article 4) and the management of cultural heritage (article 5), as well as the obligation on member states to put in place a negotiating mechanism for the use of online audiovisual content (article 10).
According to the information we have received, the shadow rapporteurs appeared to support the amendment to article 10 clarifying that participation in the negotiating mechanism and subsequent conclusion of the agreements remains “voluntary”.
On the other hand, they clashed on article 4 (exceptions for education) due to a left-right political divide. Axel Voss proposed limiting the time required for using content for illustrative purposes in education activities and authorising the member states not to have to use this exception for products in the education market or musical scores. He also suggested compulsory compensation (no longer voluntary) for damages suffered by rights holders resulting from the use of their property.
During the meeting, the groups on the left opposed the Commission idea of making the application of the exception entirely or partially conditional on the availability of appropriate licenses. We were also informed by one source that they had also called for library or museum teaching activities to be included in the scope of the directive.
The shadow rapporteurs, however, did not have time to discuss the compromise proposal on article 5 (exceptions for the management of cultural heritage). According to our information, Mr Voss proposed adding cultural heritage management institutions covered by the derogation to, “educational establishments, research bodies and public service broadcasting organisations or third parties acting on their behalf”.
Toughest part still to come
According to the information we have received, the rapporteur is soon expected to present compromises on articles 14-16 on fair remuneration. Article 11 (neighbouring law for newspaper publishers) and article 13 (value disparity) are expected to cause him the most difficulty.
It should be pointed out that a workshop will be organised on 7 December at the European Parliament on the study carried out by Parliament on a neighbouring law for newspaper publishers (see EUROPE 11881). (Original version in French by Sophie Petitjean)