The WMF's take on the EU Copyright Directive

External image
External image
	Vote breakdown: 348 for, 274 against, 36 abstentions

← Back to Contents

View Latest Issue

31 March 2019

News from the WMF

The WMF's take on the EU Copyright Directive

Contribute —

By Jan Gerlach and Allison Davenport

European Parliament limits internet freedom in controversial copyright vote

Today, the European Parliament voted 348–274 to pass a new copyright directive that includes problematic rules that will harm free knowledge. They did so after years of discussions, revisions, and more recently street protests. We believe that this is a disappointing outcome, the impacts of which will certainly be felt for years to come.

As Articles 15 and 17 (formerly 11 and 13) of the directive will take effect across the European Union (EU), we expect to see direct repercussions on all online activities. Article 15 will require certain news websites to purchase licenses for the content they display. As a result, many websites that helped people find and make sense of the news may choose not to offer this type of service, making it harder to find high-quality news items from trusted sources online. Article 17 will introduce a new liability regime across the EU, under which websites can be sued for copyright violations by their users. This will incentivize websites to filter all uploads and keep only "safe" copyrighted content on their sites, eroding essential exceptions and limitations to copyright by making platforms the judges of what is and isn't infringement.

Still, there are elements to celebrate in the new directive. A new safeguard for the public domain will ensure that faithful reproductions of public domain works remain uncopyrighted, even as they are digitized. Museums, archives, and libraries will now be able to provide digital access to out-of-commerce works that have not yet fallen into the public domain. Research organizations and cultural heritage institutions will be able to engage in text and data mining on works they have lawful access to.

While we are disappointed, the fight is not over. The impact of the copyright directive will be determined by how lawmakers in each country choose to implement it. As the copyright directive is implemented into national law over the next two years, it presents an opportunity for Europeans to proactively engage with policymakers and ensure national copyright protects internet freedom and empowers everyone to participate in knowledge. Many countries will be opening up their copyright law for amendments for the first time in years. Now is the time to advocate for the good and try to mitigate the harmful parts of the new EU Copyright Directive, and Wikimedia is committed to this task.

Although Articles 15 and 17 remain in the directive, Wikimedians are already working to ensure that they are implemented safely and interpreted in the best possible light in national law, while also pushing for safeguards that benefit the public like freedom of panorama or user-generated content exceptions.

It is disappointing that, in the end, the majority of members of the European Parliament chose not to listen to the millions of voices in Europe concerned about the direction this directive has taken. We look forward to making sure that national lawmakers in the EU member states will understand how their actions in future national legislation will affect internet freedom. Stay tuned to our blog and our public policy portal for future updates and ways you can help.

Jan Gerlach, Senior Public Policy Manager, Legal
Allison Davenport, Technology Law and Policy Fellow, Legal
Wikimedia Foundation

← Previous "News from the WMF"

Next "News from the WMF" →

In this issue

31 March 2019 (all comments)

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Where are the best places to follow this story as it affects Wikipedia and the Internet in general? czar 16:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll copy what Guy comment on the Blackout story (the MWF blog is good too)Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - From the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of "Out of Commerce Works" in copyright context. [1] Jim.henderson (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably what most people call "orphan works". Just an example - a book published in 1927 which sold 1,000 copies, and then went out-of-print in 1929. It's still covered under copyright, but is not part of any commerce now. The relation to copyright is indirect but powerful. Say you find the book in a library and say "this is the greatest book I've ever read" and want to republish it, serialize it, put it on the web, etc. All you need to do is find out who owns the copyright, track them down and negotiate a license. All 3 of those steps are now required and any of the 3 can be impossible for many reasons (e.g. the wife of the author just died without a will and no estate except the copyright and nobody really ever cared who owned the copyright anyway or even remembers about it). So "copyright in general" prevents you from publishing, even though there is (very likely) nobody who claims copyright. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphan works are already covered in the 2012 Orphan Works Directive for much the same actions by cultural institutions. According to the new directive, out-of-commerce works shall be deemed such "when the whole work or other subject-matter, in all its translations, versions and manifestations, is not available to the public through customary channels of commerce and cannot be reasonably expected to become so". Each member state should have a register of them, similar to the register of orphan works which should already exist. I think a lot depends on how the new directive is implemented, but once a cultural institution has an agreement with a collective rights management organisation for a type of work, it should be able to assume that the same rules will apply for similar works of which the right-holders are not covered by the organisation (but the right-holders of each work will still be able to veto this). Strobilomyces (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Get the latest headlines on your user page – just add {{Signpost-subscription}}.

Home

About