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.

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.

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.

We launched a new website, dedicated to reviewing the implementation of these policy recommendations. 10 years on, it is possible to see that half of our recommendations have been implemented – fully or partially -, and the other half remains unfulfilled. Most importantly, almost all of the recommendations are still relevant.

Where victory can be claimed: freeing digital reproductions of public domain works and giving access to orphan works

One of COMMUNIA’s main objectives since its foundation has been to promote and protect the digital public domain. Therefore, when the EU Parliament decided to follow our Recommendation #5 and proposed the introduction of a provision in the new Copyright Directive, preventing Member States from protecting non original reproductions of works of visual arts in the public domain with copyright or related rights, we were exhilarated. Article 14 not only reconfirms the principle that no one should be able to claim exclusive control over works that are in the public domain; it’s also the first EU piece of legislation to expressly refer to the concept of “public domain”.

Getting the “public domain” to enter the EU acquis lexicon was a major victory for user rights, but for sure more measures are needed to effectively protect the Public Domain. Our Recommendation #6, which called for sanctioning false or misleading attempts to misappropriate or claim exclusive rights over public domain material, has not been implemented and is more relevant than ever, particularly on online content sharing platforms. Here, a false ownership claim can easily lead to the false blocking of public domain material, as a result of the use of automated content recognition systems combined with the lack of public databases of ownership rights (that’s why the German legislator has recently adopted measures against this type of abuse, setting a new standard for the protection of the Public Domain).

Another victory coming out from the recent EU copyright reform relates to the creation of an efficient pan European system that grants users full access to orphan works (Recommendation #9). The first attempt of the EU legislator to address this issue, through the Orphan Works Directive, is widely considered a failure, since the Directive only works for a small number of cinematographic works. However, the provisions on the use of out of commerce works in the DSM Directive provide a comprehensive solution for the problem of orphan works (by definition orphan works are also out of commerce and so these provisions also apply to them) (cf. Articles 8-11).

Where major advances have been made: mandatory exceptions to copyright and open access to publicly funded resources

Recommendations #3, #9, #10, #12 all asked for the creation and harmonization of exceptions and limitations to copyright, and we have seen major advances on this topic in recent years. Cultural heritage institutions now benefit from a set of mandatory exceptions regarding uses of orphan works and of out-of-commerce works, and for preservation purposes. There is a new exception for the benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled, and the Commission has recently concluded a consultation on the availability of works for persons with other disabilities, which might lead to further developments in this field. The fields of education and research were also considered in the recent EU copyright reform, with the approval of new exceptions for text and data mining, and for digital and cross-border teaching activities. New mandatory exceptions for quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody or pastiche on certain online content-sharing platforms are also part of the Article 17 package. Finally, the CJEU has recently indicated that the exceptions and limitations of the Copyright Directive that are aimed to observe fundamental freedoms might be mandatory for Member States (cf. the judgments of 29 July 2019 Funke Medien, C-469/17, para. 58; Pelham, C-476/17, para. 60; and Spiegel Online, C‐516/17, para. 43), which means that there is a possibility of further harmonization of exceptions in the coming years through judicial development.

Certainly, more progress is needed in the area of exceptions and limitations, particularly after the massive shift of education, research and cultural activities to the online environment, following the pandemic closure of institutions. Not only do we need a higher level of harmonization among Member States, but also flexibility to adapt this legal framework to rapid societal and technological changes. Therefore, our recommendation #3 to harmonize exceptions and open up the exhaustive list of user prerogatives is still highly relevant.

In the past decade, we have also seen great advancements on the issue of open access to public funded resources. Recommendations #11, #12 and #13 asked for publicly funded digitized content, research output, educational resources and public sector information to be made publicly available free from restrictions. Over the past years the idea that publicly funded resources need to be available to the public has gained traction not only among policy makers but also within the vast majority of cultural heritage and research institutions. Initiatives from public research funders have led to the increasing adoption of open access policies within the academic research sector. In 2013 the scope of application of the PSI Directive was extended to libraries, museums and archives. Also, Member States are required to ensure that documents on which those institutions hold intellectual property rights shall be re-usable for commercial or non-commercial purposes  under the Open Data Directive. This means that this set of recommendations has been partially implemented; the principle that public money should result in public access has not, however, yet been universally accepted.

Where nothing has changed: terms of protection, registration, technical protection measures, and alternative reward systems 

The excessive length of copyright protection combined with an absence of formalities is highly detrimental to the accessibility of our shared knowledge and culture. Therefore, a decade ago, we recommended reducing the terms of copyright protection (Recommendation #1). Unfortunately the trends in the past decade have gone in the opposite direction. The proposed term extension for performers and sound recordings, which we had recommended not to be adopted (Recommendation #2), was approved by Directive 2011/77/EU. Furthermore, the rules for establishing the duration of the term of protection of individual works remain fragmented and highly complex, contrary to our Recommendation #4.

On the issue of formalities, while our Recommendation #8 to grant full copyright protection only to works that have been registered by their authors has not been implemented, it has become increasingly clear that, for the copyright system to continue to function, registration of works will become ever more important. Over the past year the EU legislator has been making a number of baby steps towards systems to reserve or claim rights. These have been mostly as a condition to expand exceptions and limitations further, with rightholders being given the right to opt out from certain permitted uses of their works if they express such intention by specific means: this is the case of some text and data mining activities, where rightholders have the right to prevent those activities provided that they expressly do so “in an appropriate manner” (cf. Article 4(4) of the DSM Directive), and it is also the case in the context of the use of out-of-commerce works by cultural heritage institutions (cf. Article 8(3) of the DSM Directive), where rightholders are allowed to opt-out through the EUIPO Out of Commerce Works Portal. Yet, the new Commission’s Intellectual Property Action Plan reveals the intention to look deeper into how “to promote the quality of copyright data and achieve a well-functioning “copyright infrastructure” (e.g. improve authoritative and updated information on right holders, terms and conditions and licensing opportunities)”.

Another area where there were barely any changes to the EU policy is the area of technological overrides of exceptions and limitations. The only improvement we have seen in the new Copyright Directive is that the beneficiaries of the new exceptions have the right to require the technical means necessary to use TPM-protected works even when the work was acquired under contract and made available across the internet (something that was not the case under the InfoSoc legislation). However, the vast majority of EU Member States do not have mechanisms in place to grant users access to TPM-protected works. This means that technical protection measures can still significantly inhibit the use of works under exceptions and limitations. In other words, it is about time for the EU lawmaker to recognize this problem and implement our Recommendation #7, allowing users to circumvent TPMs when exercising rights under exceptions or when using public domain works.

Finally, our last Recommendation (#14), advising lawmakers to switch the focus of their policies from extension of copyright protection and enforcement of rights to alternative rewards systems and cultural flat rate models has also not been implemented.  Since we have issued this recommendation we have seen massive changes in the way cultural expression and exchange are taking place online, with the emergence of subscription services for creative content and new creator cultures that rely on advertising driven platforms. Copyright plays an important role in these business models but any real solution to ensure a fairer distribution of the economic benefits of these models likely requires intervention way beyond copyright alone.

The post 10 years of COMMUNIA, a decade of copyright reform: how far did we get? appeared first on COMMUNIA Association.