(2) The directives that have been adopted in the area of copyright and related rights contribute to the functioning of the internal market, provide for a high level of protection for rightholders, facilitate the clearance of rights, and create a framework in which the exploitation of works and other protected subject matter can take place.
That harmonised legal framework contributes to the proper functioning of the internal market, and stimulates innovation, creativity, investment and production of new content, also in the digital environment, in order to avoid the fragmentation of the internal market.
The protection provided by that legal framework also contributes to the Union's objective of respecting and promoting cultural diversity, while at the same time bringing European common cultural heritage to the fore.
Article 167(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union requires the Union to take cultural aspects into account in its action.
- = -
(3) Rapid technological developments continue to transform the way works and other subject matter are created, produced, distributed and exploited.
New business models and new actors continue to emerge.
Relevant legislation needs to be future-proof so as not to restrict technological development.
The objectives and the principles laid down by the Union copyright framework remain sound.
However, legal uncertainty remains, for both rightholders and users, as regards certain uses, including cross-border uses, of works and other subject matter in the digital environment.
As stated in the Commission Communication of 9 December 2015 entitled ‘Towards a modern, more European copyright framework’, in some areas it is necessary to adapt and supplement the existing Union copyright framework, while keeping a high level of protection of copyright and related rights. This Directive provides for rules to adapt certain exceptions and limitations to copyright and related rights to digital and cross-border environments, as well as for measures to facilitate certain licensing practices, in particular, but not only, as regards the dissemination of out-of-commerce works and other subject matter and the online availability of audiovisual works on video-on-demand platforms, with a view to ensuring wider access to content.
It also contains rules to facilitate the use of content in the public domain.
In order to achieve a well-functioning and fair marketplace for copyright, there should also be rules on rights in publications, on the use of works or other subject matter by online service providers storing and giving access to user-uploaded content, on the transparency of authors' and performers' contracts, on authors' and performers' remuneration, as well as a mechanism for the revocation of rights that authors and performers have transferred on an exclusive basis.
- = -
(5) In the fields of research, innovation, education and preservation of cultural heritage, digital technologies permit new types of uses that are not clearly covered by the existing Union rules on exceptions and limitations.
In addition, the optional nature of exceptions and limitations provided for in Directives 96/9/EC, 2001/29/EC and 2009/24/EC in those fields could negatively impact the functioning of the internal market.
This is particularly relevant as regards cross-border uses, which are becoming increasingly important in the digital environment.
Therefore, the existing exceptions and limitations in Union law that are relevant for scientific research, innovation, teaching and preservation of cultural heritage should be reassessed in the light of those new uses. Mandatory exceptions or limitations for uses of text_and_data_mining technologies, illustration for teaching in the digital environment and for preservation of cultural heritage should be introduced.
The existing exceptions and limitations in Union law should continue to apply, including to text_and_data_mining, education, and preservation activities, as long as they do not limit the scope of the mandatory exceptions or limitations provided for in this Directive, which need to be implemented by Member States in their national law.
Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC should, therefore, be amended.
- = -
(8) New technologies enable the automated computational analysis of information in digital form, such as text, sounds, images or data, generally known as text_and_data_mining.
Text and data mining makes the processing of large amounts of information with a view to gaining new knowledge and discovering new trends possible.
Text and data mining technologies are prevalent across the digital economy; however, there is widespread acknowledgment that text_and_data_mining can, in particular, benefit the research community and, in so doing, support innovation.
Such technologies benefit universities and other research_organisations, as well as cultural_heritage_institutions since they could also carry out research in the context of their main activities. However, in the Union, such organisations and institutions are confronted with legal uncertainty as to the extent to which they can perform text_and_data_mining of content.
In certain instances, text_and_data_mining can involve acts protected by copyright, by the sui generis database right or by both, in particular, the reproduction of works or other subject matter, the extraction of contents from a database or both which occur for example when the data are normalised in the process of text_and_data_mining.
Where no exception or limitation applies, an authorisation to undertake such acts is required from rightholders.
- = -
(10) Union law provides for certain exceptions and limitations covering uses for scientific research purposes which may apply to acts of text_and_data_mining.
However, those exceptions and limitations are optional and not fully adapted to the use of technologies in scientific research.
Moreover, where researchers have lawful access to content, for example through subscriptions to publications or open access licences, the terms of the licences could exclude text_and_data_mining.
As research is increasingly carried out with the assistance of digital technology, there is a risk that the Union's competitive position as a research area will suffer, unless steps are taken to address the legal uncertainty concerning text_and_data_mining.
- = -
(19) Article 5(3)(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC allows Member States to introduce an exception or limitation to the rights of reproduction, communication to the public and making available to the public of works or other subject matter in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and a time individually chosen by them, for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching.
In addition, Articles 6(2)(b) and 9(b) of Directive 96/9/EC permit the use of a database and the extraction of a substantial part of its contents for the purpose of illustration for teaching.
The scope of those exceptions or limitations as they apply to digital uses is unclear.
In addition, there is a lack of clarity as to whether those exceptions or limitations would apply where teaching is provided online and at a distance.
Moreover, the existing legal framework does not provide for a cross-border effect.
This situation could hamper the development of digitally supported teaching activities and distance learning.
Therefore, the introduction of a new mandatory exception or limitation is necessary to ensure that educational establishments benefit from full legal certainty when using works or other subject matter in digital teaching activities, including online and across borders.
- = -
(20) While distance learning and cross-border education programmes are mostly developed at higher education level, digital tools and resources are increasingly used at all education levels, in particular to improve and enrich the learning experience.
The exception or limitation provided for in this Directive should, therefore, benefit all educational establishments recognised by a Member State, including those involved in primary, secondary, vocational and higher education.
It should apply only to the extent that the uses are justified by the non-commercial purpose of the particular teaching activity.
The organisational structure and the means of funding of an educational establishment should not be the decisive factors in determining whether the activity is non-commercial in nature.
- = -
(21) The exception or limitation provided for in this Directive for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching should be understood as covering digital uses of works or other subject matter to support, enrich or complement the teaching, including learning activities. The distribution of software allowed under that exception or limitation should be limited to digital transmission of software.
In most cases, the concept of illustration would, therefore, imply the use only of parts or extracts of works, which should not substitute for the purchase of materials primarily intended for the educational market.
When implementing the exception or limitation, Member States should remain free to specify, for the different types of works or other subject matter, in a balanced manner, the proportion of a work or other subject matter that can be used for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching.
Uses allowed under the exception or limitation should be understood to cover the specific accessibility needs of persons with a disability in the context of illustration for teaching.
- = -
(22) The use of works or other subject matter under the exception or limitation for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching provided for in this Directive should only take place in the context of teaching and learning activities carried out under the responsibility of educational establishments, including during examinations or teaching activities that take place outside the premises of educational establishments, for example in a museum, library or another cultural_heritage_institution, and should be limited to what is necessary for the purpose of such activities. The exception or limitation should cover both uses of works or other subject matter made in the classroom or in other venues through digital means, for example electronic whiteboards or digital devices which might be connected to the internet, as well as uses made at a distance through secure electronic environments, such as in the context of online courses or access to teaching material complementing a given course.
Secure electronic environments should be understood as digital teaching and learning environments access to which is limited to an educational establishment's teaching staff and to pupils or students enrolled in a study programme, in particular through appropriate authentication procedures including password-based authentication.
- = -
(23) Different arrangements, based on the implementation of the exception or limitation provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC or on licensing agreements covering further uses, are in place in a number of Member States in order to facilitate educational uses of works and other subject matter.
Such arrangements have usually been developed taking account of the needs of educational establishments and of different levels of education.
While it is essential to harmonise the scope of the new mandatory exception or limitation in relation to digital uses and cross-border teaching activities, the arrangements for implementation can vary from one Member State to another, to the extent that they do not hamper the effective application of the exception or limitation or cross-border uses. Member States should, for example, remain free to require that the use of works or other subject matter respect the moral rights of authors and performers. This should allow Member States to build on the existing arrangements concluded at national level.
In particular, Member States could decide to subject the application of the exception or limitation, fully or partially, to the availability of suitable licences, covering at least the same uses as those allowed under the exception or limitation.
Member States should ensure that where licences cover only partially the uses allowed under the exception or limitation, all the other uses remain subject to the exception or limitation.
- = -
(24) Member States should remain free to provide that rightholders receive fair compensation for the digital uses of their works or other subject matter under the exception or limitation provided for in this Directive for illustration for teaching.
In setting the level of fair compensation, due account should be taken, inter alia, of Member States' educational objectives and of the harm to rightholders. Member States that decide to provide for fair compensation should encourage the use of systems that do not create an administrative burden for educational establishments.
- = -
(25) Cultural heritage institutions are engaged in the preservation of their collections for future generations. An act of preservation of a work or other subject matter in the collection of a cultural_heritage_institution might require a reproduction and consequently require the authorisation of the relevant rightholders. digital technologies offer new ways of preserving the heritage contained in those collections but they also create new challenges. In view of those new challenges, it is necessary to adapt the existing legal framework by providing for a mandatory exception to the right of reproduction in order to allow such acts of preservation by such institutions.
- = -
(28) Cultural heritage institutions do not necessarily have the technical means or expertise to undertake the acts required to preserve their collections themselves, particularly in the digital environment, and might, therefore, have recourse to the assistance of other cultural institutions and other third parties for that purpose.
Under the exception for preservation purposes provided for by this Directive, cultural_heritage_institutions should be allowed to rely on third parties acting on their behalf and under their responsibility, including those that are based in other Member States, for the making of copies.
- = -
(37) Considering the variety of works and other subject matter in the collections of cultural_heritage_institutions, it is important that the licensing mechanisms and the exception or limitation provided for by this Directive are available and can be used in practice for different types of works and other subject matter, including photographs, software, phonograms, audiovisual works and unique works of art, including where they have never been commercially available.
Never-in-commerce works can include posters, leaflets, trench journals or amateur audiovisual works, but also unpublished works or other subject matter, without prejudice to other applicable legal constraints, such as national rules on moral rights. When a work or other subject matter is available in any of its different versions, such as subsequent editions of literary works and alternate cuts of cinematographic works, or in any of its different manifestations, such as digital and printed formats of the same work, that work or other subject matter should not be considered out of commerce.
Conversely, the commercial availability of adaptations, including other language versions or audiovisual adaptations of a literary work, should not preclude a work or other subject matter from being deemed to be out of commerce in a given language.
In order to reflect the specificities of different types of works and other subject matter as regards modes of publication and distribution, and to facilitate the usability of those mechanisms, specific requirements and procedures might have to be established for the practical application of those licensing mechanisms, such as a requirement for a certain time period to have elapsed since the work or other subject matter was first commercially available.
It is appropriate that Member States consult rightholders, cultural_heritage_institutions and collective management organisations when establishing such requirements and procedures.
- = -
(46) Given the increasing importance of the ability to offer flexible licensing schemes in the digital age, and the increasing use of such schemes, Member States should be able to provide for licensing mechanisms which permit collective management organisations to conclude licences, on a voluntary basis, irrespective of whether all rightholders have authorised the organisation concerned to do so. Member States should have the ability to maintain and introduce such mechanisms in accordance with their national traditions, practices or circumstances, subject to the safeguards provided for in this Directive and in compliance with Union law and the international obligations of the Union.
Such mechanisms should only have effect in the territory of the Member State concerned, unless otherwise provided for in Union law.
Member States should have flexibility in choosing the specific type of mechanism allowing licences for works or other subject matter to extend to the rights of rightholders that have not authorised the organisation that concludes the agreement, provided that such mechanism is in compliance with Union law, including with the rules on collective management of rights provided for in Directive 2014/26/EU.
In particular, such mechanisms should also ensure that Article 7 of Directive 2014/26/EU applies to rightholders that are not members of the organisation that concludes the agreement.
Such mechanisms could include extended collective licensing, legal mandates and presumptions of representation.
The provisions of this Directive concerning collective licensing should not affect the existing ability of Member States to apply mandatory collective management of rights or other collective licensing mechanisms with an extended effect, such as that included in Article 3 of Council Directive 93/83/EEC (12).
- = -
(53) The expiry of the term of protection of a work entails the entry of that work into the public domain and the expiry of the rights that Union copyright law provides in relation to that work.
In the field of visual arts, the circulation of faithful reproductions of works in the public domain contributes to the access to and promotion of culture, and the access to cultural heritage.
In the digital environment, the protection of such reproductions through copyright or related rights is inconsistent with the expiry of the copyright protection of works. In addition, differences between the national copyright laws governing the protection of such reproductions give rise to legal uncertainty and affect the cross-border dissemination of works of visual arts in the public domain.
Certain reproductions of works of visual arts in the public domain should, therefore, not be protected by copyright or related rights. All of that should not prevent cultural_heritage_institutions from selling reproductions, such as postcards.
- = -
(54) A free and pluralist press is essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens' access to information.
It provides a fundamental contribution to public debate and the proper functioning of a democratic society.
The wide availability of press_publications online has given rise to the emergence of new online services, such as news aggregators or media monitoring services, for which the reuse of press_publications constitutes an important part of their business models and a source of revenue.
Publishers of press_publications are facing problems in licensing the online use of their publications to the providers of those kinds of services, making it more difficult for them to recoup their investments. In the absence of recognition of publishers of press_publications as rightholders, the licensing and enforcement of rights in press_publications regarding online uses by information_society_service providers in the digital environment are often complex and inefficient.
- = -