Brussels
17 February 2017
Reporter: Barney Dixon

EU's Article 13 ‘needs to be properly defined’


A rapporteur for the European Parliament committee on culture and education has submitted draft amendments to the proposed EU Digital Single Market copyright directive, arguing that Article 13 does not properly define its own scope.

The directive is part of 16 initiatives set out by the European Commission to create the Digital Single Market in Europe.

The draft opinion, submitted by rapporteur Marc Joulaud to the European Parliament committee as it considers what has been proposed, said that the proposal does not “define with enough provision” the scope of the services that will fall under Article 13 of the directive. This will create “legal uncertainty and a potential broader effect”.

Currently, Article 13 proposes that user content platforms and services such as YouTube use content recognition technologies to remove potentially infringing subject matter from their sites.

These systems would be akin to YouTube’s ContentID technology.

But, according to Joulaud, the European Commission does not “acknowledge the position consumers, as service users, now occupy in the digital environment”, and the proposal must create a “new pillar to protect consumer’s legitimate practices”.

To create this fourth pillar, a new mandatory exception should be made to protect the use of extracts of copyright-protected works in “user-generated content”.

Joulaud also tabled several other amendments relating to four key objectives, including the provision of legal certainty regarding the new exceptions and limitations.

He said: “The current proposal does not provide full legal clarity on the burden of the parties involved in each exception, which would jeopardise their effectiveness and hamper their harmonised implementation.”

Further, the proposal needs to define digital content platforms and ensure fair cooperation with rights holders.

Joulaud said that this amendment would cover specific uses of these works where use is not harmful to rights holders.

The fourth and final objective asks that the directive allow authors and performers to effectively enforce their rights, asking that disputes between authors performers and their contractual partners may be initiated “either on an individual or collective basis”.

More news
The latest news from IPPro The Internet
Join Our Newsletter

Sign up today and never
miss the latest news or an issue again

Subscribe now
Vishal Amin confirmed as IPEC
17 August 2017 | Washington DC | Reporter: Barney Dixon
The US Senate has approved President Donald Trump’s nomination for White House intellectual property enforcement coordinator
BREIN shuts down sheet music group
17 August 2017 | Amsterdam | Reporter: Barney Dixon
Dutch anti-piracy group Brein has closed down a Facebook group that was offering infringing sheet music
Prosecutions are coming following GoT leak
17 August 2017 | Maharashtra | Reporter: Barney Dixon
Four people have been arrested in connection with the leak of an episode of hit HBO TV show Game of Thrones, Star India has confirmed
Sci-Hub holds more than two thirds of all scholarly articles
16 August 2017 | | Reporter: Barney Dixon
Academic pirate website, Sci-Hub contains nearly 69 percent of all 81.6 million scholarly articles, which rises to 85 percent for those published in closed access journals
Verizon takes eight
16 August 2017 | Geneva | Reporter: Barney Dixon
Verizon has laid claim on eight parked domains after a World IP Organisation Arbitration and Mediation Centre panel found the original registrations to be bad faith
Virgin reclaims Atlantic domain
15 August 2017 | Geneva | Reporter: Barney Dixon
Virgin Enterprises has reclaimed an infringing domain name after the original registrant tried to extort the company for money
Trump fires forward in China IP investigation
15 August 2017 | Washington DC | Reporter: Barney Dixon
US President Donald Trump has signed a memorandum asking the US Trade Representative to examine whether China should be investigated for alleged intellectual property malpractice