Category Regional Fora

Does Copyright Require Authorization to Use Data “Subsisting in Copyright Works?”

The World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva has requested comments on a series of questions about whether “use of the data subsisting in copyright works without authorization for machine learning constitute an infringement of copyright?” I have joined other copyright experts in a submission to WIPO commenting on their questions. This note explains in more detail some of my reservations about use of the phrase “use of the data subsisting in copyright works without authorization” in WIPO’s questions and in our general thinking about the relation between copyright and text and data mining.

Reconstructing Rights: Project Synthesis and Recommendations

[P. Bernt Hugenholtz and Martin Kretschmer] Abstract: ... This introductory chapter gives an overview of a collaborative research project (‘Reconstructing Rights’) that normatively examined the core economic rights protected under EU copyright law, with the aim of realigning these rights with economic and technological realities. Five ‘borderline’ cases are being examined to explore the implications of different theoretical models: (1) Digital Resale; (2) Private Copying; (3) Hyperlinking and Embedding; (4) Cable Retransmission; (5) Text and Data Mining.

Article 17: Both French and Dutch Implementation Proposals Lack Key User Rights Safeguards

[Communia Association] As of January 2020 there are two Member States that have published legislative proposals for the implementation of Article 17 CDSM... These first implementation proposals are coming from a main proponent of Article 17 (France) and one of the most vocal opponents (Netherlands), and allow us to get a first impression of how Member States across the EU are likely going to deal with this controversial article. Irrespective of the different positions by France and the Netherlands during the directive negotiations, the implementation proposed by both Member States do not diverge much from each other.

Article 17 Stakeholder Dialogue (Day 4): It’s All About Transparency

[Paul Keller] The fourth meeting of the Article 17 stakeholder dialogue took place in the last week before the holiday break. Just like the third meeting, this meeting was dedicated to (more or less) technical presentations on content management technologies and existing licensing practices. In total there were 12 presentations from platforms (Facebook, Seznam, Wattpad), providers of content management tools (Audible Magic, Ardito, Fifthfreedom, Smart protection), rightholders (GESAC, Universal Music Publishing, Bundesliga) as well as by BEUC and the Lumen database.

What is Left of User Rights? – Algorithmic Copyright Enforcement and Free Speech in the Light of the Article 17 Regime

[Sebastian Felix Schwemer and Jens Schovsbo] Abstract: Article 17 of the Directive on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (the DSM Directive) has strengthened the protection of copyright holders. Moving forward, online content-sharing providers will be responsible for copyright infringement unless the use of works on their platforms is authorized or if they have made ‘best efforts’ to obtain an authorization and prevent the availability of unlicensed works. At the same time, the Directive has made it clear that users of protected works shall be able to rely on the existing limitations and exceptions regarding quotation, criticism and review and caricature, parody or pastiche. The Directive even casts these limitations and exceptions as user rights.

Implementing the New EU Press Publishers’ Right

[Teresa Nobre] Last week, we launched our Guidelines for the Implementation of the DSM Directive. This is part of a series of blogposts dedicated to the various provisions analysed in our guidelines. Today we give a quick explanation of the new exclusive right granted to EU press publishers by the new Copyright Directive.

Our Guidelines for the Implementation of the DSM Directive

[Communia Association] We are thrilled to release our Guidelines for Implementation of the DSM Directive. These guidelines explain different provisions of the new Copyright Directive and make suggestions on what to advocate for during the implementation process of those provisions in the EU Member States. They are aimed at local advocates and national policy makers, and have the general objective of expanding and strengthening user rights at a national level beyond what is strictly prescribed by the new Directive.

Safeguarding User Freedoms in Implementing Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive

[Sign on document circulated by IViR, University of Amsterdam] On 17 May 2019 the new Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market was officially published (DSM Directive). Article 17 (ex-Article 13) is one of its most controversial provisions. Article 17(10) tasks the Commission with organising stakeholder dialogues to ensure uniform application of the obligation of cooperation between online content-sharing service providers (OCSSPs) and rightholders, and to establish best practices with regard to appropriate industry standards of professional diligence. This document offers recommendations on user freedoms and safeguards included in Article 17 of the DSM Directive – namely in its paragraphs (7) and (9) – and should be read in the context of the stakeholder dialogue mentioned in paragraph (10).

90 Organisations Demand Reform of African Regional Patent Office (ARIPO) to Improve Access to Medicines

Monrovia, Liberia, 18th November 2019 — More than 90 civil society organisations are today calling for urgent reform of the Harare Protocol of the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) in order to ensure people have access to more affordable medicines. The organisations demand that Ministers representing ARIPO Member States — who are meeting for the ARIPO Administrative and Ministerial Councils from 18 to 21 November in Liberia to change how they grant patents on medicines, in order to promote cost cutting generic competition.

Article 17 Stakeholder Dialogue (Day 2): Filters, Not Licenses!

[Communia Association] On Tuesday this week the participants of the stakeholder dialogue on Article 17 of the EU copyright directive convened in Brussels for the second meeting. After a first meeting that focused on practices in the music, games and software sectors (see our report here), this week’s meeting focused on the current situation in the audiovisual (AV) and publishing sectors.

Article 17 Stakeholder Dialogue (Day 1): Same Old, Same Old

[Communia Association] Article 17(10) of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market directive requires the Commission to “organise stakeholder dialogues to discuss best practices for cooperation between online content-sharing service providers and rightholders”. Last week Tuesday we took part in the first meeting of the stakeholder dialogue. The dialogue (which will consist of a series of meetings) is supposed to provide the Commission with input for producing guidelines can “balance fundamental rights and the use of exceptions and limitations” with the upload filtering obligations introduced by Article 17 of the directive.

Article 17 Stakeholder Dialogue: We’ll Continue to Advocate for Safeguarding User Rights

[Paul Keller] Article 17(10) of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market directive requires the Commission to “organise stakeholder dialogues to discuss best practices for cooperation between online content-sharing service providers and rightholders”. Based on the outcome of these dialogues with “content-sharing service providers, rightholders, users’ organisations and other relevant stakeholders” the Commission is expected to “issue guidance on the application of Article 17” that is supposed to “balance fundamental rights and the use of exceptions and limitations” with the upload filtering obligations introduced by Article 17.