1. Discussion in the Member States on the draft Directive on Copyright in the DSM
Presentation 12th may 2017
GRUR meets Brussels workshop
Ms. Amanda van Rij LLM
Legal Policy Advisor at the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science

2. Discussion points on the draft Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market
Text and Datamining (art. 3)
Use of out-of-commerce works by cultural heritage institutions (art. 7-9)
Protection of press publications concerning digital uses (art. 11)
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 (art. 13)

3. Text and Datamining (art. 3)
Mandatory exception for reproductions and extractions made by research organisations in order to carry out text and data mining of works or other subjectmatter to which they have lawful access for the purposes of scientific research.

4. Text and datamining (art. 3)
Definition of research institution (art. 2):
a university, a research institute or any other organisation the primary goal of which is to conduct scientific research or to conduct scientific research and provide educational services:
on a non-for-profit basis or by reinvesting all the profits in its scientific research; or
pursuant to a public interest mission recognised by a Member State;
in such a way that the access to the results generated by the scientific research cannot be enjoyed on a preferential basis by an undertaking exercising a decisive influence upon such organisation;
Who exactly can benefit? Persons that work at the research institute? How about for example students?

5. Tekst and Datamining (art. 3)
Art 3 restricts the exception to research institutes as defined before Why would not everybody with legal access performing research be able to benefit from this exception? Other institutes like Libraries? Or Journalists? And other individuals who work on non-profit basis.

6. Use of out-of-commerce works by cultural heritage institutions (art
Non-exclusive licence for non-commercial purposes for the digitisation, distribution, communication to the public or making available of out-of-commerce works or other subject-matter permanently in the collection of the institution. Such a non-exclusive licence may be extended or presumed to apply to rightholders of the same category as those covered by the licence who are not represented by the collective management organisation, provided certain conditions are fulfilled.

7. Use of out-of-commerce works by cultural heritage institutions (art

8. Use of out-of-commerce works by cultural heritage institutions (art
Conditions:
A work or other subject-matter shall be deemed to be out of commerce
The collective management organisation is broadly representative of rightholders in the category of works or other subject-matter and of the rights which are the subject of the licence
licences are sought from a collective management organisation that is representative for the Member State where:
the works or phonograms were first published or, in the absence of publication, where they were first broadcast, except for cinematographic and audiovisual works;
the producers of the works have their headquarters or habitual residence, for cinematographic and audiovisual works; or
(c) the cultural heritage institution is established, when a Member State or a third country could not be determined, after reasonable efforts, according to points (a) and (b)
Equal treatment is guaranteed to all rightholders in relation to the terms of the licence
Opt out possiblity
appropriate publicity measures

9. Use of out-of-commerce works by cultural heritage institutions (art
How can we make the proposal more practical? Reciprocal agreements?

10. Protection of press publications concerning digital uses (art. 11)
New related right for press publishers
Will expire 20 years after the publication of the press publication
Reasons:
Press publishers are facing difficulties in licensing their publications online and obtaining a fair share of the value they generate.
The introduction of a related right for press publishers would improve legal certainty and their bargaining position.

11. Protection of press publications concerning digital uses (art. 11)
4 possible solutions:
No new related right for publishers
New related right for press publishers (which expires after 20 years)
New related right for press publishers (which expires after 1 or 2 years)
d. a (disputable) presumption of transfer of the rights to the press publisher which would be applicable in cases where the publisher is granting a license for digital use and for enforcement purposes.
(So d goes further than the proposal of Comodini of the European Parliament to introduces a presumption of representation instead of a publisher's right which would merely entitle press publishers to sue in their own name on the basis of authors' rights.
Benadruk dat het gaat om de originaliteit: dat als er iets gecreëerd wordt deze werken worden beschermd onder het auteursrecht. Op basis van nationale ervaringen wordt vastgesteld dat de voornaamste uitdaging is dat uitgevers moeten bewijzen dat de rechten door auteurs zijn overgedragen aan persuitgevers. De ervaring leert dat bij licentie bewijs moet worden geleverd dat de rechten zijn overgedragen voor elke perspublicatie. Hoewel bescherming afdoende zou kunnen zijn en niet het negatieve gevolg heeft waarbij elke ‘snippet’ zou vallen onder die bescherming. POL gelooft dan ook dat nieuwe rechten niet het gewenste effect heeft, maar ziet meer in een efficiënt proces waarbij er sprake is van het vermoeden dat rechten zijn toegekend. POL benadrukt dat deze gedachte onder meer LS en het EP leeft. POL gelooft dat een dergelijke veronderstelling een bredere aanpak dient te kennen, niet alleen handhaving, maar ook bij de toekenning van rechten. POL wil de situatie vermijden dat uitgevers het recht krijgen auteurs te vertegenwoordigen zonder dat er sprake dat rechten zijn overdragen. POL wil wel dat de bewijslast ook onder de veronderstelling valt (steun SLV, NL, HON, BEL, ZWE, IER).

12. 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 (art. 13)
Gives many questions…
Recital 38: Where information society service providers store and provide access to the public to copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users, thereby going beyond the mere provision of physical facilities and performing an act of communication to the public, they are obliged to conclude licensing agreements with rightholders, unless they are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 34.
Interpretation of communication to the public? Isn’t that up to the court of Justice? Why not put this text in the article 13? Interplay with e-commerce directive

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 (art. 13)
“Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers.” What are ‘large amounts of works’? What agreements (on which legal basis)?