[Advocacy Advisors] EU Monitoring Report - February

Tue Mar 4 10:58:00 UTC 2014

Thanks for this report, Dimi.

Best regards,
Bence

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov <
dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov at gmail.com> wrote:

> Wikimedia and the EU
>
> February Report
>
> We’ve had some crazy weeks over here with things happening on the
> political, policy and legal fronts and across Brussels, Luxembourg and
> Strasbourg.
>
> Dimi
>
> tl;dr
>
> A White Paper on copyright can be expected before the summer break,
> according to Commissioner Barnier. He also wants to revive the attempts for
> “notice and action” legislation, although even his staff in Brussels was
> unaware of that. In Luxembourg, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled that
> no extra permission is needed to link to content available online. Finally,
> in Strasbourg, the Parliament passed the Collective Rights Management
> Directive explicitly allowing “non-commercial” licensing.
>
> This and past reports:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor/MR
>
> ToC
>
> 1. Beyond the Copyright Consultation
>
> 2. CJEU: Linking to Copyrighted Content Without Permission Legal
>
> 3. Restarting the Notice and Take Down Directive
>
> 4. Collective Rights Management Directive Adopted
>
> 5. Short Stories: Internet Governance, Food Porn and a Study on InfoSoc
>
> -----------------
> -----------------
>
> #copyright
>
> 1. Beyond the Copyright Consultation
>
> Why is this relevant?
>
> The Consultation on Copyright by the European Commission [1] targets
> almost all our IP issues areas and is likely to play a significant role in
> a possible future copyright reform.
>
> What happened?
>
> The consultation was extended by one month until the 5th of March just a
> few days before the initial deadline. According to the Commission, this
> happened because of a massive amount of requests from all sectors. Rumours
> started that an internal struggle between office and cabinet was the reason
> for this last-minute decision, [2] which could mean that the services
> (bureaucrats) want to push the dossier ahead, while the cabinet (political
> staff, to be exchanged this year) is hesitant. The problem here is that we
> can’t know whether the next cabinet will be at all keen on reforming
> copyright.
>
> What comes next?
>
> Commissioner Barnier announced during his speech at plenary session of the
> European Parliament in Strasbourg that a White Paper on copyright is to be
> finalised before summer. [3] According to other sources from DG MARKT the
> current consultation and a number of recently released [4] and to-be
> released studies will be the basis for this document.  White Papers in the
> EU propose actions in specific policy areas.
>
> On a side note, we have also asked DG MARKT to release the data sets of
> the consultation responses, which they’ve said they will try to do. [4a]
>
> -----------------
> -----------------
>
> #svensson
>
> 2. CJEU Rules Linking to Copyrighted Content Without Permission to be Legal
>
> Why is this relevant?
>
> It partly defines the legality of linked or even embedded content. The
> question posed to the court was whether or not one has to clear permission
> with the copyright holder before linking to their content online.
>
> What happened?
>
> The court’s ruling [5] was that linking to publicly accessible content
> does not constitute a new case of “communication to the public”, i.e.
> giving access. This means that no new permissions need to be granted for
> linking to materials online. The judgement does not regard the cases of
> linking to illegal content. It makes, however, no difference if the user is
> given the impression that the work is on the initial website (e.g. framing,
> embedding). Further reading: [6][7]
>
> What comes next?
>
> The decision could also have implication on Germany’s “ancillary copyright
> for press publishers” [8] with similar legal proposals currently under
> discussion in other EU countries. [9] as the court ruled in its fourth
> answer that Member States are not allowed to redefine the concept of
> “communication to the public” and hence give copyright holders wider
> protection than is defined in the InfoSoc Directive (2009/29/EC). [10]
>
> -----------------
> -----------------
>
> #NTD
>
> 3. Notice and Take Down Directive Seemingly Revived by Barnier
>
>  Why is this relevant?
>
> Such a Directive would regulate how (allegedly) illegal content can be
> taken off the internet by request of (self-proclaimed) copyright holders.
>
> What happened?
>
> After a public consultation was held in 2012 [11] and in 2013 the whole
> project was given up by DG Internal Market after it seemed impossible to
> reconcile all the stakeholders in an acceptable way. [12] Back then nobody
> was able to find a compromise on the strong demand by civil society
> organisations to introduce a “counter notice”, giving content providers a
> chance to appeal the take down procedure. Beginning of February 2014, at
> the Strasbourg session of Parliament, Commissioner Barnier announced its
> revival. [13]
>
> It is however unclear how this issue will be resolved, since the only
> relevant things the Commissioner said were that it will not be “strictly
> linked to copyright” and that it will be done with "full respect for
> fundamental rights"
>
> What comes next?
>
> We don’t yet know how to interpret Barnier’s statements and if we should
> interpret them widely or narrowly. It is also unclear if this is a
> seriously ment legislative attempt or just a political manoeuvre. Either
> way, Notice and Take Down is back on the table for now.
>
> -----------------
> -----------------
>
> #CRM
>
> 4. Collective Rights Management Directive Adopted
>
>  Why is this relevant?
>
> Collective rights management societies are in many EU countries state
> condoned monopolies. Due to their exclusive and restrictive contracts with
> authors, it was impossible for musicians to release their works under
> permissive licenses.
>
> What happened?
>
> The European Parliament adopted during its plenary session beginning of
> February the Collective Rights Management Directive. [14] Luckily, the
> Directive forces collecting societies to allow their clients a more liberal
> licensing. Unluckily, this is only the case for non-commercial licenses. A
> coalition of civil society groups, including Creative Commons and Communia
> [15][16] had lobbied for free licenses, but had to compromise on the
> non-commercial component.
>
> What comes next?
>
> We (Wikimedia/Free Knowledge Advocacy Group) tried to point out the
> importance of truly free licenses, but started our efforts way too late and
> after the main compromises were struck. There are two teachings to take
> from this. Firstly, it is crucial to follow up legislative procedures as
> early as possible. Secondly, even the most like-minded partners don’t
> always have the same priorities.
>
> -----------------
> -----------------
>
> #IG #InfoSoc #foodporn
>
> 5. Shorts
>
> Internet Governance
>
> The European Commission released a statement calling for a move towards
> the internationalisation of the governance of the internet away from
> California-based ICANN. [17]
>
> ---
>
> Information Society Directive
>
> A new (600 page) study on the InfoSoc Directive, commissioned by the
> Internal Market and Services Directorate General (DG MARKT), has been
> released. [18] According to a DG MARKT representative it will, along with
> other studies and the current copyright consultation, play a pivotal role
> in the coming White Paper on copyright. There is a Wikimedia initiative to
> collaboratively work through the paper. [19]
>
> ---
>
> Food Porn
>
> French chefs have been active in the media recently complaining about
> “food porn”, i.e. taking pictures of food and posting them on social
> networks. One of the claims is that this constitutes an infringement of
> intellectual property rights. [20]
>
> -----------------
> -----------------
>
> [1]
> http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-rules/docs/consultation-document_en.pdf
>
> [2]https://twitter.com/teirdes/status/429260615597576193
>
> [3]https://twitter.com/MBarnierEU/status/430618637121359872
>
> [4]
> http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/studies/131216_study_en.pdf
>
> [4a]https://twitter.com/EU_Markt/status/438329907836620800
>
> [5]
> http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=147847&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=60713
>
> [6]http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/early-thoughts-on-svensson.html
>
> [7]
> http://kluwercopyrightblog.com/2014/02/21/the-svensson-case-and-the-act-of-communication-to-a-new-public/
>
> [8]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_copyright
>
> [9]
> http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/an-ancillary-right-over-news-to-be-soon.html
>
> [10]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfoSoc_Directive
>
> [11]
> http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/e-commerce/notice-and-action/index_en.htm
>
> [12]http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php/ipred/893
>
> [13]
> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ep-live/en/plenary/video?debate=1391500981594
>
> [14]
> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A7-2013-0281&language=EN&mode=XML#title1
>
> [15]http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/40959
>
> [16]
> http://www.communia-association.org/2013/01/07/communia-policy-paper-on-proposed-directive-on-collective-management-of-copyright/
>
> [17]http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-142_en.htm
>
> [18]
> http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/studies/131216_study_en.pdf
>
> [19]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Research/Study_on_InfoSoc
>
> [20]
> http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/chefs-take-issue-with-food-porn-but.html
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20140304/16e3fe02/attachment-0001.html>