Over the next five years, we need to remove the barriers that prevent knowledge institutions from fulfilling their public mission in the digital environment. Specifically, we need a targeted legislative intervention – a Digital Knowledge Act –  that enables knowledge institutions to offer the same services online as offline.

Such a regulation would require a few surgical interventions in copyright law, such as the introduction of a unified research exception (see our Policy Recommendation #9) and an EU-wide e-lending right (see our Policy Recommendation #10). However, it would mostly involve measures that fall outside of the scope of recent copyright reform discussions.

Above all, we’re envisioning a number of safeguards that would protect knowledge institutions against the abuse of property rights. Due to the complex and fragmented state of European copyright law, many institutions shy away from fully exercising their usage rights. We believe that an exemption from liability for those who act in good faith and believe that their activities are legal would mitigate this chilling effect (see our Policy Recommendation #17).

Another limiting factor for knowledge institutions in the digital realm are unfair licensing conditions. We believe that rightsholders should be obliged to license works under reasonable conditions to libraries as well as educational and research institutions.

Finally, knowledge institutions should be allowed to circumvent technological protection measures where locks prevent legitimate access and use of works, such as uses covered by limitations and exceptions (see our Policy Recommendation #13).

These demands are far from new and even the idea of a Digital Knowledge Act has been floating around in Brussels policy circles for a long time. Now it is up to the incoming legislators to show that they have the political will to tackle these problems in a comprehensive manner to unlock the full potential of Europe’s knowledge institutions.

The post A Digital Knowledge Act for Europe appeared first on COMMUNIA Association.

At the 43rd session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR), which took place in March, we witnessed a major shift in the EU’s position on international lawmaking in the area of exceptions and limitations to copyright (L&Es). The discussions also brought to light the rationale of the demandeurs of a Broadcast Treaty, deepening the civil society’s concerns about the impact of a new copyright-like right on the public domain and public interest activities.

Exceptions and limitations: a departure from the EU’s stance on text-based negotiations

The last time the most important forum at the global level for copyright rulemaking engaged in text-based negotiations on L&Es was a decade ago, in the lead-up to the adoption in 2013 of the Marrakesh Treaty. After the treaty was adopted, many developed countries claimed that the international instrument for persons with print disabilities was meant to be an exception, and opposed the drafting of any other instrument on copyright exceptions, be it binding or non-binding (such as a joint recommendation or a model law).

This stance was repeated ad nauseam over the years, particularly by the EU. So much so that not even the COVID-19 pandemic, which demonstrated clearly how important it is for schools and cultural heritage institutions to be able to operate remotely and across borders, seemed to remove them from those crystallised positions. 

This status quo remained until the last SCCR, when developed countries finally showed a change of heart. While still opposing the drafting of a legally binding instrument, the EU stated that it was willing to discuss non-binding instruments:

In this context, as consistently expressed in the past, we would like to remind, however, that the EU and its member states cannot support work towards legally binding instruments at the international level or any preparations in this regard. However, we stand ready to continue to engage constructively under this Agenda Item to reflect further on the other possible non-binding instruments and ways how WIPO can best help to provide guidance to WIPO member states to address the problems faced by institutions and people with disabilities including through the introduction of meaningful exceptions and limitations in their respective national laws. (…)

However, as the week proceeded, it became apparent that France wanted to soften the EU statement delivered by the Commission. The only EU country to ask for the floor, France made the following intervention, repeating what had been the EU’s position until that point:

In this regard, France has reservations regarding the fact that the conversation on L&Es could touch upon normative instruments. The continuation of discussions in L&Es should be founded on the exchange of best practices at the national level (…).

Frustrated with these continued attempts to divert the conversation away from concrete language to address the problems and solutions faced by educators, researchers, and cultural heritage institutions, in our statement we threatened not to return to the Committee:

We come here, year after year, to defend the rights of teachers and researchers. We support your discussions. We bring evidence. We talk to you, the person that was here before you and the person that will come after you. It’s a massive effort. Yet, every year, we leave this room empty handed, with no binding instruments, no soft laws, nothing that could make a difference. Do know that we question if we should come back.

We further shared the story of Jonas, a Senior Lecturer in Comparative Literature at the University of Gothenburg, in Sweden, who we interviewed for our publication “Nobody puts research in a cage”. We explained his struggles with accessing the data sources he uses in his research remotely and sharing his research results with colleagues for purposes of verification and validation of his research. And we read his words out loud, hoping they could make a difference in the discussions:

Perhaps they did. At the end of the last day of SCCR/43, the Committee finally agreed to approve the revised African Group proposal for a work program on L&Es, which includes drafting work towards “objectives and principles and options for implementation at national level”. The Chair was tasked with advancing information sharing and consensus building on L&Es between SCCR meetings and given the option to create working groups of member states supported by experts to produce outcomes for consideration by the Committee.

Broadcast Treaty: increasingly difficult to grasp!

The discussions on the protection of broadcasting organisations against unauthorised retransmission and related uses were centred around the Chair’s Second Revised Draft Text for the WIPO Broadcasting Organizations Treaty, which continues to raise substantial issues of concern. 

While there seems to be a common understanding that any potential treaty should be narrowly focused on signal piracy and not extend to post-fixation activities, there are still many important issues to be agreed upon, including fixation rights, a perpetual term of protection, and limitations and exceptions.

The revised draft text contains important changes to the L&Es provision. Yet, none of the exceptions are mandatory, not even those that are already mandatory for copyrighted works (such as quotation, news of the day, and providing access for the visually impaired). Furthermore, unlike the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, the text does not even mandate the contracting parties to achieve a fair balance between the rights and interests of authors and rightsholders, and those of  users. 

Equally concerning is the idea to give contracting parties the option to protect signals by means of a fixation right. This would grant broadcasters a new lawyer of exclusive rights over the programme-carrying signal on top of the rights they already have on the signal content, effectively extending the scope of protection beyond the mere signal. This is particularly concerning when the signal content is already in the public domain, as it would allow broadcasters to re-appropriate public domain broadcasts. Broadcasters are sitting on huge collections of public domain content and are the only ones that have complete, high-quality copies of those materials. Prohibiting the fixation of signal would mean preventing access to, and re-use of, the public domain material itself. 

When questioned why public domain materials were not being excluded from this new layer of rights, the facilitators made it clear that this was intentional. They claimed that broadcasters needed to be incentivised to promote public domain works to the public. We found this reasoning nonsensical and asked why corporations would need copyright-like incentives to use materials that are free for anyone to use and for which they would not need to pay any copyright licence fees. However, none of the facilitators were able to provide a response.

The next SCCR will take place in Geneva on November 6-8. This time, the Committee will meet for three days instead of five, and attendees will be asked to forego making oral opening statements and general declarations, in order to allow the Committee to focus on substantive discussions. Certainly something to look forward to!

The post Finally, something to look forward to at WIPO appeared first on COMMUNIA Association.

We made the following statement regarding limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities (Agenda Item 7):

Dear Delegates,

We come here, year after year, to defend the rights of teachers and researchers. We support your discussions. We bring evidence. We talk to you, the person that was here before you and the person that will come after you. It’s a massive effort. Yet, every year, we leave this room empty handed, with no binding instruments, no soft laws, nothing that could make a difference.

Do know that we question if we should come back. The only reason why we persist is because we cannot stand talking with those researchers and teachers about the challenges they face when researching newspapers or showing Youtube videos in Zoom classes, and turn our backs on them.

So today, I’ll use the 1 minute that I have to let you hear from one of them, in the hope that this will be it, that these will be the words that will also make you stand for them.

Jonas is a Senior Lecturer in Comparative Literature at the University of Gothenburg, in Sweden, and we interviewed him for our publication “Nobody puts research in a cage”.

Jonas is struggling because he cannot have remote access to the data sources he uses in his research and also because he cannot share his research results and underlying resources with colleagues for purposes of verification and validation of his research. In his words:

We are studying book reviews in Swedish newspapers from 1906, 1956 and 2006. We want to train the computers to understand different expressions in their context. We also have a dream that feels more and more likely, insane at first but now maybe real? That is, to train a text corpus to identify what is a book review!
To access material from 1956, we have to go to the National Library Lab in Stockholm. It is a small glass cage with three data terminals. You sit in the lab, annotate. Access to it costs SEK 70,000 the first year, and 35,000 in the following years. You are not allowed to take data in or out, all labs must be done in the cage.
The transparency is non-existent. If someone wants to verify the results, they also have to buy the license for a lot of money. An incredible anxiety!

End of quote.

Thank you.

The post SCCR/43: COMMUNIA Statement on Limitations and Exceptions appeared first on COMMUNIA Association.

We made the following statement regarding the protection of broadcasting organisations (Agenda Item 5):

COMMUNIA works to defend the public domain and in our opinion the proposed broadcast treaty is a threat to the public domain and usage rights.

The current version of the draft treaty allows countries to protect broadcasters with exclusive rights without sufficient balance or consideration for the societal needs related with access to knowledge and information.

Broadcast signals carry content that plays an essential informational, cultural and educational role in our society. It is therefore crucial to ensure that the rights-based model currently under discussion does not create an additional obstacle to education, research and the activities of cultural heritage institutions.

Let us give you an example. We recently interviewed EU researchers to better understand the needs and challenges faced by them. A Swedish researcher told us that they use broadcasts as sources of scientific research. They research public discourse and they analyse mainly radio broadcasts and daily newspapers. With the current legal framework they already face considerable copyright-related obstacles. In their words “We really get into copyright issues and there it has been very messy.”

So why make things harder for them? This treaty needs to get rid of fixation rights. It needs to mandate that the parties achieve a fair balance by means of exceptions, and it needs to have the same mandatory exceptions that we have in Berne and in the Marrakesh Treaty. And this is just a start. We count on you to make it right.

The post SCCR/43: COMMUNIA Statement on the Protection of Broadcasting Organisations appeared first on COMMUNIA Association.

This blog post analyses the implementation of the copyright exceptions for Text and Data Mining, which is defined in the Italian law as any automated technique designed to analyse large amounts of text, sound, images, data or metadata in digital format to generate information, including patterns, trends, and correlations (Art. 70 ter (2) LdA). As we will see in more detail below, the Italian lawmaker decided to introduce some novelties when implementing Art. 3, while following more closely the text of the Directive when implementing Art. 4.

Text and data mining for scientific purposes

Art. 70 ter (1) LdA permits reproductions made by research organisations and cultural heritage institutions for scientific research purposes, for purposes of extraction of text and data from works or other materials available on networks or databases to which they lawfully have access to, as well as communication to the public of the results of research when expressed in new original works. It seems that the Italian lawmaker committed a lexical fallacy by adding that the purpose of the reproduction is to extract text and data from works and other materials available in networks or databases. This, as well as limiting the type of protected materials to those present on networks or databases, appear to be legislative inventions incompatible with the directive.

Notably, the new Italian exception also allows the communication to the public of the research outcome when such outcomes are expressed through new original works. In other words, the communication of protected materials resulting from computational research processes is permitted, provided that such results are included in an original publication, data collection or other original work.

The right of communication to the public was not contemplated in the original government draft; it was introduced in the last version of the article to accommodate the comments of the Joint Committees of the Senate and the Joint Committees of the Chamber, both highlighting the need to specify that the right of communication to the public concerns only the results of research, where expressed in new original works.

The beneficiaries of the TDM exception for scientific purposes are research organisations and cultural heritage institutions. Research organisations essentially reflect the definition offered by the directive. These are universities, including their libraries, research institutes or any other entity whose primary objective is to conduct scientific research activities or to conduct educational activities that include scientific research, which alternatively:

• operate on a non-profit basis or whose bylaws provide for the reinvestment of profits in scientific research activities, including in the form of public-private partnerships;
• or pursue a public interest purpose recognised by a European Union member state (Art. 70 ter, (4)LdA).

If commercial enterprises exercise a decisive influence, such as allowing access on a preferential basis to the results generated by scientific research activities (Art. 70 ter, (5) LdA), an organisation will not be considered a research organisation under this law. Cultural heritage institutions are defined broadly, including libraries, museums, and archives, as long as they are open to the public or accessible to the public, also those belonging to educational institutions, research organisations and public broadcasting bodies, as well as the institutes for the protection of film and sound heritage and the public broadcasting bodies (Art. 70 ter, (3)LdA).

The copies of works or other subject matter created need to be stored with an adequate level of protection and can be kept and used only for scientific research purposes, including the verification of research results (Art. 70 ter, (6)). Rightsholders are authorised to apply measures to ensure the safety and integrity of the networks and databases where the works or other subject materials are hosted (Art. 70 ter, (7) LdA). Such measures shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve and can also be defined based on agreements between right holder’s associations, cultural heritage institutes and research organisations (Art. 70 ter (8) LdA). Such negotiations have not taken place so far.

The Italian lawmaker did not expressly contemplate any specific and fast procedure for cases where technical protection measures prevent a beneficiary from carrying out the permitted acts under both TDM exceptions. However, the law now recognises to the beneficiaries the right to extract a copy of the material protected by technological  measures in certain cases. Under Art. 70-sexies, LdA, beneficiaries of the TDM exception for scientific purposes (as well as the beneficiaries of the exception for digital and cross-border teaching activities exception) shall have the right to extract a copy of the protected material, when technological measures are applied based on agreements or on administrative procedures or judicial decisions. In order to benefit from this right, the person shall have lawful possession of copies of the protected material (or have had legal access to them), shall respect the conditions and the purposes provided for in the exception, and such extraction shall not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work or the other materials or cause an unjustified prejudice to the rights holders.

While the Italian lawmaker should be praised for introducing such a right, the Italian implementation still missed an opportunity to update the controversial and rarely applied negotiation and mediation procedures set forth in Art. 71 quinquies, (2) LdA (which transposed Art. 6(4) of the Infosoc Directive) to the actual needs of all beneficiaries of copyright exceptions. Furthermore, it should be noted that the law continues to reserve the application of the three-step test only to  the exceptions and limitations related to the use of protected materials available through on-demand services only, including under the new copyright exceptions, contrary to what is mandated by Art. 7(2) of the CDSM Directive.

Regarding contractual override protection, as stated by Art. 7(1) of the CDMS Directive, conflicting agreements with the TDM exception for scientific purposes are void.

Text and data mining for other purposes

The implementation of the exception for text and data mining for purposes beyond scientific research by any individual or organisation follows for the most part the text of Art. 4 of the CDSM Directive. Reproductions and extractions are allowed from works or other subject-matters available online or databases to which users have lawful access for TDM. The exception is subject to the possibility of rightsholders reserving their rights, but there is no clarification on how this reservation should be made. In this regard, the Italian law doesn’t mention the need​​ to express such reserves appropriately, such as through machine-readable standards when contents are made publicly available online.

No additional conditions or precisions are established on the retention and storing of copies of materials made to conduct text and data mining, nor on the measures that rights holders may take to ensure the safety and integrity of the networks and databases where the materials mined are hosted. Reproductions and extractions may be retained only for the time necessary for text and data mining as stated in  Art. 4 of the CDSM Directive.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Italian legislator should be praised for going beyond what is required by art. 3 of the CDSM Directive. The Italian implementation allows the application of the TDM exception for scientific purposes to the reproduction for the extraction of texts and data or other subject matters (to which the beneficiaries have lawful access) and to the communication to the public of the research outcome when it is expressed through new original work. Therefore, in this respect, the Italian legislator exercised the option allowed by Art. 25 of the CDSM Directive to adopt a broader provision, compatible with the exceptions and limitations provided for in the InfoSoc and Database Directives.

For TDM for other purposes, the lawmaker reproduced the text of Art. 4 of the directive, not adding any extra elements to regulate, as written before, the exercise of the faculty to opt out by rights holders in a suitable and machine-readable by the computers. The Italian implementation also missed an opportunity to introduce provisions to allow the reproduction of material protected by technical measures that prevent beneficiaries from carrying out the permitted acts under the both TDM  exceptions. In sum, a total organic revision of the Italian copyright law would be desirable, which would allow for a better understanding and knowledge by not only the interpreter of the law, but also by rightsholders and users.

The post The Italian Implementation of the New EU Text and Data Mining Exceptions appeared first on COMMUNIA Association.

Today, the A2K Coalition is launching its website with demands for education, research and cultural heritage.

Access to knowledge is not enjoyed equally across the world. Crises, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the climate emergency, highlight the barriers that the current copyright system poses for those who learn, teach, research, create, preserve or seek to enjoy the world’s cultural heritage.

The international copyright system has failed to keep pace with advancing technology and practices, including for digital and cross-border activities. Consequently, we have been unable to seize the possibilities that exist to promote access to, and use of, knowledge to fulfill human rights and achieve more equitable, inclusive and sustainable societies.

The members of the A2K Coalition represent educators, researchers, students, libraries, archives, museums, other knowledge users and creative communities around the globe. Our individual missions are varied but we all share a vision of a fair and balanced copyright system.

In addition to our mission statement and demands, the A2K Coalition website features evidence to substantiate our claims. Three maps track the state of copyright limitations and exceptions for online education, text and data mining, and preservation across most countries in the world. Currently, only the text and data mining map is fully implemented, but the maps for online education and preservation will follow soon. The website is available in English, French and Spanish language versions.

We invite you to explore the A2K website and spread the word about the A2K Coalition.

The post Global Civil Society Coalition Promotes Access to Knowledge appeared first on COMMUNIA Association.

At the workshop, three websites/databases tracking the status of users’ rights and copyright flexibilities in Europe: https://www.copyrightexceptions.eu, http://www.copyrightflexibilities.eu and http://www.copyrightuser.eu will be launched. In addition, we will gather feedback on the websites’ functionality and plan their future. We will be joined by copyright experts who contributed to the mapping and stakeholders representing various groups of beneficiaries to discuss the state of copyright flexibilities and policy options at the EU and national levels. 

Represented by Teresa Nobre and Paul Keller, COMMUNIA will showcase the project copyrightexceptions.eu, a collaborative effort of COMMUNIA, Open Future and Digital Republic, mapping the European Union’s copyright framework and providing information on the national implementation of the various exceptions and limitations to copyright and related rights contained in EU copyright law.

Registration for both online and offline attendance is free of charge. Please register here.

For any queries, please contact rosie.allison@libereuriope.org.

Programme

9:00 – 9:15 Introduction and greetings (Paul Keller, Caterina Sganga)

9:15 – 10:15 Three platforms to explain, engage, empower

• copyrightexceptions.eu (Paul Keller, COMMUNIA/Open Future)
• copyrightflexibilities.eu (Caterina Sganga, reCreating/Sant’Anna Pisa)
• copyrightuser.eu (Bartolomeo Meletti, reCreating/CREATe Glasgow)

10:15 – 11:15 Flexibilities for teaching and research

Chair: Teresa Nobre (COMMUNIA)

Speakers: Ana Lazarova (COMMUNIA/Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski); Justin Jutte (University College Dublin); Matej Myska (Masaryk University Brno)

11.15 – 11.30 – Coffee break

11:30 – 12:30 Flexibilities for cultural uses and preservations

Chair: Caterina Sganga (reCreating/Sant’Anna Pisa)

Speakers: Francisco Duque Lima (KU Leuven); Rita Matulionyte (Macquarie University Sidney); Leo Pascault (Science Po Paris)

12:30 – 13:45 Flexibilities for freedom of expression (quotation, parody, informatory purposes)

Chair: Paul Keller (COMMUNIA/Open Future)

Speakers: Tatiana-Eleni Synodinou (University of Cyprus); Philipp Homar (Donau-Universität Krems); Julien Cabay (Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) and University of Liege); Conception Saiz Garcia (University of Valencia)

13.30 – 14.30 Lunch break

14:30 – 15:30 Roundtable on best practices on Copyright flexibilities

• Presentation of best practices and moderation (Caterina Sganga)
• Open debate

15:30 – 16:30 Roundtable on the way ahead: data collection, editorial boards, platforms maintenance

Moderator: Paul Keller (COMMUNIA/Open Future)

16:30 Wrap up, closing and drinks

The post Mapping, explaining, empowering: COMMUNIA and reCreating Europe Workshop on Copyright Flexibilities appeared first on COMMUNIA Association.

We are attending the 42nd session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) in Geneva. Today, the Committee is discussing the issue of limitations and exceptions for educational and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities (Agenda Item 8) and the following statement was delivered on behalf of COMMUNIA:

Dear Delegates,

It will not be easy to convince your families, friends, neighbours that policymakers from across the world should spend time discussing how to improve copyright exceptions.

There is absolutely no doubt that the restrictions copyright laws pose on access to knowledge and information condition the right to education and the right to research, and that educational and research exceptions would benefit society as a whole. That is what will determine whether teachers can show a short news report during live-streamed online classes, whether researchers can conduct medical research or track desinformation online.

Yet, the fact that copyright laws are hard to understand will be an obstacle to reforming copyright laws at national level. Therefore, when Global North delegations claim that each one of you can go back to your countries and introduce exceptions that work for education and research in the 21st Century, we say: that is easier said than done.

Indeed, if you look at the national exceptions for education and research in the European Union, before the recent EU-wide copyright reform, you will see that not even the EU Member States were investing time in solving these issues if they had not been forced to do so through a binding regional instrument.

It should also be said that the fact that copyright exceptions are now outdated only in the Global South does not make this issue less problematic for the Global North. Institutions in Europe and North America engage in cross-border education and research activities outside of their regions on a regular basis. Think about EU distance education programmes attended by students located in Latin America or international research programmes involving North American and Asian researchers. It is clear that the lack of the same minimum set of rights across the world prevents these cross-border activities from taking place, affecting both the North and the South.

We understand that this Committee is not ready to make a decision on how to positively affect copyright frameworks to actually protect the right to education and research. At the same time, this Committee has been discussing this agenda item for nearly 15 years.

We believe that it is fair to say that the work undertaken by the Committee so far has not had much impact on the copyright provisions that frame how educators and researchers can have access to knowledge and information. The African Group proposal could change the course of action to make the work of the Committee more useful. We, thus, urge this Committee to use its best efforts to reach an agreement on how to move forward towards more positive and impactful outcomes.

Thank you.

The post SCCR/42: COMMUNIA statement on limitations and exceptions for education and research appeared first on COMMUNIA Association.

The Salon started with João Pedro Quintais (Assistant Professor at the Institute for Information Law (IViR), University of Amsterdam), who presented an overview of the case and the three main takeaways of the judgment, according to his preliminary reading of the judgment. First, the Court clarified that Article 17 follows a normative hierarchy, where the obligation of result to protect user rights or freedoms takes precedence over the obligations of best efforts that exist for preventive measures. Secondly, the ruling makes it clear that ex-post procedural safeguards are insufficient to take care of overblocking; ex-ante safeguards are also required to protect user rights or freedoms. Finally, with regards to filtering measures, it appears that it will be difficult to argue that the judgment leads to a conclusion that is different from the AG Opinion, according to which only manifestly infringing content can be blocked at upload.

Next, Marco Giorello (Head of the European Commission’s Copyright Unit at DG CONNECT) shared his first insights on the judgment. Giorello started by saying that the Commission was satisfied that the Court had not only confirmed the validity of Article 17 but it had also largely confirmed the interpretation of the provision brought forward by the Commission. He highlighted that, since the judgment did not define how exactly the national legislator has to implement Article 17, the Commission’s guidelines for the implementation of Article 17 (which Giorello could not yet confirm if the Commission would revise in light of the judgment) could help legislators, courts and market players to get a sense of what could be a practical way of implementing the general principles drawn by the CJEU. Finally, he added that, while it is not possible to draw firm conclusions on what the judgment means for the Member States’ implementation (namely if they could make literal implementations of Article 17), it is very clear that ex-post redress mechanisms are not enough and there needs to be an ex-ante consideration for users rights leading to the distinction between lawful/unlawful content at upload.

The third speaker, Felix Reda (former MEP and Control © project lead at the Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte), started by highlighting that, given that the CJEU had already confirmed that under very certain circumstances automated content recognition technologies can or should be used, he was quite happy with the outcome of the judgment, since the Court now sets specific requirements for upload filters, namely that they cannot be used unless they can ensure that lawful content does not get blocked, which is a very high bar to meet. Reda then focused his intervention on the discussion of who has to define the ex-ante safeguards against overblocking. In his view, the platforms cannot be the ones defining the technical parameters of the upload filters. According to Reda’s reading of the judgment, this follows logically from the conclusion that the platforms cannot be required to employ upload filters that do not adequately distinguish between legal and illegal content, together with the conclusion that they cannot be required to make an independent assessment of the lawfulness of the content at upload. As a consequence, the verbatim implementations of Article 17 appear to not be enough. Member States need to define ex-ante safeguards in the law (or, possibly, in secondary legislation).

Finally, Eliška Pírková (Global Freedom of Expression Lead at Access Now) presented the civil society and fundamental rights perspective and connected the discussion with the recently finalized Digital Services Act. Pírková started by recalling that the civil society has for many years challenged the deployment of upload filters because they impose ex-ante restrictions on legal forms of expression. Still, since upload filters are a reality, she welcomed the fact that online platforms do not have to turn into judges of the legality of uploaded content; that filtering system must be able to recognize, and not automatically block, lawful content; and the ex-ante safeguards of fundamental rights of users. She then turned on to discuss the relationship between the horizontal umbrella framework provided by the DSA and the sectoral legislation that precedes such regulation, such as Article 17 of the DSM directive.

The panel was followed by a Q&A session with the participants.

The post Video recording of the COMMUNIA Salon on the CJEU decision on Article 17 appeared first on COMMUNIA Association.

Article 17 contains sufficient safeguards to minimise the impact of upload filters on fundamental freedoms

According to the CJEU, the preventive measures to monitor and block users’ uploads envisioned by Article 17(4) constitute a limitation on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and information of the users of online sharing services, but such a limitation is compatible with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since all the conditions laid down in Article 52(1) of the Charter are satisfied.

The Court held that the risks that the use of upload filters entails for the right to freedom of expression and information of users of sharing platforms have been sufficiently addressed by the EU legislator, which laid down sufficient safeguards in Article 17(7), (8) and (9) to protect those rights:

• online sharing providers have an obligation of result to not preventively block lawful content (Article 17(7));
• those providers are only obliged to detect and block content in on the basis of  relevant and necessary information provided by rightholders and cannot be required to block content which, in order to be found unlawful, would require an independent assessment of the content by them (Article 17(8));
• additionally, and as final safeguard for situations where, despite the obligation in Article 17(7), those providers nevertheless block such legitimate content, users have at their disposal a complaint and redress mechanism as well as out-of-court mechanisms (Article 17(9)).

Upload filters can only be used if they are able to recognize, and not automatically block, lawful uploads

While Article 17(4) does not define the specific measures that online sharing platforms should adopt to monitor and block users’ uploads, the Court considered that the EU legislator has laid down a clear and precise limit in Article 17(7) and (9): measures which filter and block lawful content at upload are off limits.

In the Court’s view, the measures adopted by sharing services to comply with their obligations under Article 17(4) must “be strictly targeted in order to enable effective protection of copyright but without thereby affecting users who are lawfully using those providers’ services”. The Court says that this obligation imposed on sharing services to not affect the essence of the fundamental rights of users who share lawful content on their platforms clearly follows from Articles 17(7) and (9).

This implies that, if the online sharing platform adopts a filtering system, such a system must be able to recognize, and not automatically block, lawful content. The Court is adamant:

“(A) filtering system which might not distinguish adequately between unlawful content and lawful content, with the result that its introduction could lead to the blocking of lawful communications, would be incompatible with the right to freedom of expression and information, guaranteed in Article 11 of the Charter, and would not respect the fair balance between that right and the right to intellectual property.”

Unlike the Advocate General in his Opinion, the Court does not formulate any criteria to help determine cases where the content concerned must be presumed to be lawful and the upload must be permitted. The Court only clarifies that this should not require an independent assessment by the platforms of the information provided by the rightholders and of any copyright exceptions. In other words fully automated filters should be only allowed to block (manifestly) infringing uploads. In all other cases matches must be flagged and reviewed by rightholders who can request the removal. According to the Court, such removal requests must be “duly substantiated”.

Ex-post safeguards are additional to ex-ante protections of users rights

With this ruling, the CJEU decided one of the most controversial questions in the debate surrounding the implementation of user rights safeguards: whether those rights need to be protected ex-ante, or if it is enough to consider them after the upload has been blocked.

Rejecting the interpretation put forward by the French and Spanish governments, according to which content could be systematically blocked ex-ante, provided that users could obtain its reinstatement ex-post, the Court ruled that:

“(T)he first and second subparagraphs of Article 17(9) of Directive 2019/790 introduce several procedural safeguards, which are additional to those provided for in Article 17(7) and (8) of that directive, and which protect the right to freedom of expression and information of users of online content-sharing services in cases where, notwithstanding the safeguards laid down in those latter provisions, the providers of those services nonetheless erroneously or unjustifiably block lawful content.” (emphasis added)

The post Case C-401/19: CJEU limits the use of automated filters and protects user rights at upload appeared first on COMMUNIA Association.