Another step has been taken. After having envisaged the possibility of postponing the vote at the beginning of the session, the European Parliament's judicial affairs committee (JURI) adopted its position on the draft directive on copyright on Wednesday 20 June. Nonetheless, it is possible that the entire European Parliament could request a re-vote on this dossier during its meeting on 4 July due to the level of polarisation in the respective positions.
It should be recalled that the draft directive introduces new exceptions to the copyright rules and sets out new provisions for ensuring better protection for European creativity. The Committee of Permanent Representatives to the EU obtained a general approach on 25 May and now expects Parliament to reach its position so that inter-institutional negotiations can begin.
Two “very sensitive” questions
The Commission proposal tackles two very controversial provisions, namely: the introduction of a neighbouring law for newspaper publishers (article 11) and the creation of legal measures to tackle the value gap (article 13).
With regard to article 11, the JURI committee introduces a new right for press publishers (including press agencies) over a five year duration, whereas the Commission proposed 20 years and the Council argued for one year. The compromise explains that the new directive does not cover hyperlinks and makes it incumbent on the member states to “attempt to ensure that the authors receive an appropriate share of the additional revenues that the press publishers receive” for the use of their content by the platforms. The alternative compromise amendments, submitted by the Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL groups, in favour of a “presumption” of representation, was rejected by just one vote during the e-vote, despite the positive indications provided by the shadow rapporteurs at the S&D and ALDE for the vote.
In respect of article 13, the MEPs maintain the Commission's idea of encouraging the conclusion of licenses between the platforms (those that store and provide access or disseminate work downloaded by users and who optimise this content and who therefore conduct themselves “actively”) and the rights holders. They also explained that these platforms that effectively undertake “an act of communication” are therefore “responsible” and must take “appropriate and proportionate” measures to ensure that the license agreements apply or if needs be, ensure that unauthorised works are not available. They also include “efficient and swift complaints and appeals mechanisms” for users and an opportunity for the rights holders to use an alternative conflict settlement system.
For all other issues...
For all other issues, JURI approved the exemptions to the copyright rules proposed by the Commission, namely, those on text and data mining for research, education and the preservation of cultural heritage. They adopted a broader optional exception for text and data mining but rejected the alternative amendments from the Greens/EFA in favour of the freedom of panorama.
MEPs also added two new provisions to the text: in an article 14a, they call on the member states to ensure that authors and interpreters receive fair and proportionate remuneration for the use of their work (explaining that the referencing in search engines should not be considered as remuneration). Also, in article 16a, they introduce a right of revocation by the author of licensing agreements in the event of non-exploitation of the work or the lack of necessary information, in addition to fair and proportionate remuneration.
Reactions
Unsurprisingly, the rights holders and newspaper publishers applauded the vote. Particularly the following publishing organisations, EMMA, ENPA, EPC and the NME, which welcomed the provisions on neighbouring law (article 11), the GESAC on the provisions on the value gap (article 13) and the SAA and Fair Internet Coalition on fair remuneration (article 14a).
On the other hand, the BEUC (consumers), EDRI (online freedom), CCIA (representing Facebook and Google), EDiMa (the online platforms' association) and Digital Europe (the digital technology industry) were disappointed and called on the plenary to demand that the mandate be amended. (Original version in French by Sophie Petitjean)