keyboard_tab Diritto d'autore 2019/0790 EN

(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.

(6) The exceptions and limitations provided for in this Directive seek to achieve a fair balance between the rights and interests of authors and other rightholders, on the one hand, and of users on the other.

  They can be applied only in certain special cases that do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the works or other subject matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholders.

(7) The protection of technological measures established in Directive 2001/29/EC remains essential to ensure the protection and the effective exercise of the rights granted to authors and to other rightholders under Union law.

  Such protection should be maintained while ensuring that the use of technological measures does not prevent the enjoyment of the exceptions and limitations provided for in this Directive.

  Rightholders should have the opportunity to ensure that through voluntary measures. They should remain free to choose the appropriate means of enabling the beneficiaries of the exceptions and limitations provided for in this Directive to benefit from them.

  In the absence of voluntary measures, Member States should take appropriate measures in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Directive 2001/29/EC, including where works and other subject matter are made available to the public through on-demand services.

(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.

(13) Cultural heritage institutions should be understood as covering publicly accessible libraries and museums regardless of the type of works or other subject matter that they hold in their permanent collections, as well as archives, film or audio heritage institutions. They should also be understood to include, inter alia, national libraries and national archives, and, as far as their archives and publicly accessible libraries are concerned, educational establishments, research_organisations and public sector broadcasting organisations.

(16) In view of a potentially high number of access requests to, and downloads of, their works or other subject matter, rightholders should be allowed to apply measures when there is a risk that the security and integrity of their systems or databases could be jeopardised.

  Such measures could, for example, be used to ensure that only persons having lawful access to their data can access them, including through IP address validation or user authentication.

  Those measures should remain proportionate to the risks involved, and should not exceed what is necessary to pursue the objective of ensuring the security and integrity of the system and should not undermine the effective application of the exception.

(18) In addition to their significance in the context of scientific research, text_and_data_mining techniques are widely used both by private and public entities to analyse large amounts of data in different areas of life and for various purposes, including for government services, complex business decisions and the development of new applications or technologies. Rightholders should remain able to license the uses of their works or other subject matter falling outside the scope of the mandatory exception provided for in this Directive for text_and_data_mining for the purposes of scientific research and of the existing exceptions and limitations provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC.

  At the same time, consideration should be given to the fact that users of text_and_data_mining could be faced with legal uncertainty as to whether reproductions and extractions made for the purposes of text_and_data_mining can be carried out on lawfully accessed works or other subject matter, in particular when the reproductions or extractions made for the purposes of the technical process do not fulfil all the conditions of the existing exception for temporary acts of reproduction provided for in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC.

  In order to provide for more legal certainty in such cases and to encourage innovation also in the private sector, this Directive should provide, under certain conditions, for an exception or limitation for reproductions and extractions of works or other subject matter, for the purposes of text_and_data_mining, and allow the copies made to be retained for as long as is necessary for those text_and_data_mining purposes.

(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.

(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.

(27) Member States should, therefore, be required to provide for an exception to permit cultural_heritage_institutions to reproduce works and other subject matter permanently in their collections for preservation purposes, for example to address technological obsolescence or the degradation of original supports or to insure such works and other subject matter.

  Such an exception should allow the making of copies by the appropriate preservation tool, means or technology, in any format or medium, in the required number, at any point in the life of a work or other subject matter and to the extent required for preservation purposes. Acts of reproduction undertaken by cultural_heritage_institutions for purposes other than the preservation of works and other subject matter in their permanent collections should remain subject to the authorisation of rightholders, unless permitted by other exceptions or limitations provided for in Union law.

(29) For the purposes of this Directive, works and other subject matter should be considered to be permanently in the collection of a cultural_heritage_institution when copies of such works or other subject matter are owned or permanently held by that institution, for example as a result of a transfer of ownership or a licence agreement, legal deposit obligations or permanent custody arrangements.

(30) Cultural heritage institutions should benefit from a clear framework for the digitisation and dissemination, including across borders, of works or other subject matter that are considered to be out of commerce for the purposes of this Directive.

  However, the particular characteristics of the collections of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter, together with the amount of works and other subject matter involved in mass digitisation projects, mean that obtaining the prior authorisation of the individual rightholders can be very difficult.

  This can be due, for example, to the age of the works or other subject matter, their limited commercial value or the fact that they were never intended for commercial use or that they have never been exploited commercially.

  It is therefore necessary to provide for measures to facilitate certain uses of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter that are permanently in the collections of cultural_heritage_institutions.

(31) All Member States should have legal mechanisms in place allowing licences issued by relevant and sufficiently representative collective management organisations to cultural_heritage_institutions, for certain uses of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter, to also apply to the rights of rightholders that have not mandated a representative collective management organisation in that regard.

  It should be possible, pursuant to this Directive, for such licences to cover all Member States.

(32) The provisions on collective licensing of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter introduced by this Directive might not provide a solution for all cases in which cultural_heritage_institutions encounter difficulties in obtaining all the necessary authorisations from rightholders for the use of such out-of-commerce works or other subject matter.

  That could be the case for example, where there is no practice of collective management of rights for a certain type of work or other subject matter or where the relevant collective management organisation is not sufficiently representative for the category of the rightholders and of the rights concerned.

  In such particular instances, it should be possible for cultural_heritage_institutions to make out-of-commerce works or other subject matter that are permanently in their collection available online in all Member States under a harmonised exception or limitation to copyright and related rights. It is important that uses under such exception or limitation only take place when certain conditions, in particular as regards the availability of licensing solutions, are fulfilled.

  A lack of agreement on the conditions of the licence should not be interpreted as a lack of availability of licensing solutions.

(33) Member States should, within the framework provided for in this Directive, have flexibility in choosing the specific type of licensing mechanism, such as extended collective licensing or presumptions of representation, that they put in place for the use of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter by cultural_heritage_institutions, in accordance with their legal traditions, practices or circumstances. Member States should also have flexibility in determining what the requirements for collective management organisations to be sufficiently representative are, as long as that determination is based on a significant number of rightholders in the relevant type of works or other subject matter having given a mandate allowing the licensing of the relevant type of use.

  Member States should be free to establish specific rules applicable to cases in which more than one collective management organisation is representative for the relevant works or other subject matter, requiring for example joint licences or an agreement between the relevant organisations.

(35) Appropriate safeguards should be available for all rightholders, who should be given the opportunity of excluding the application of the licensing mechanisms and of the exception or limitation, introduced by this Directive for the use of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter, in relation to all their works or other subject matter, in relation to all licences or all uses under the exception or limitation, in relation to particular works or other subject matter, or in relation to particular licences or uses under the exception or limitation, at any time before or during the term of the licence or before or during the use under the exception or limitation.

  Conditions governing those licensing mechanisms should not affect their practical relevance for cultural_heritage_institutions. It is important that, where a rightholder excludes the application of such mechanisms or of such exception or limitation to one or more works or other subject matter, any ongoing uses are terminated within a reasonable period, and, where they take place under a collective licence, that the collective management organisation once informed ceases to issue licences covering the uses concerned.

  Such exclusion by rightholders should not affect their claims to remuneration for the actual use of the work or other subject matter under the licence.

(36) This Directive does not affect the ability of Member States to decide who is to have legal responsibility as regards the compliance of the licensing of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter, and of their use, with the conditions set out in this Directive, and as regards the compliance of the parties concerned with the terms of those licences.

(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.

(38) When determining whether works or other subject matter are out of commerce, a reasonable effort should be required to assess their availability to the public in the customary channels of commerce, taking into account the characteristics of the particular work or other subject matter or of the particular set of works or other subject matter.

  Member States should be free to determine the allocation of responsibilities for making that reasonable effort.

  The reasonable effort should not have to involve repeated action over time but it should nevertheless involve taking account of any easily accessible evidence of upcoming availability of works or other subject matter in the customary channels of commerce.

  A work-by-work assessment should only be required where that is considered reasonable in view of the availability of relevant information, the likelihood of commercial availability and the expected transaction cost.

  Verification of availability of a work or other subject matter should normally take place in the Member State where the cultural_heritage_institution is established, unless verification across borders is considered reasonable, for example in cases where there is easily available information that a literary work was first published in a given language version in another Member State.

  In many cases, the out-of-commerce status of a set of works or other subject matter could be determined through a proportionate mechanism, such as sampling.

  The limited availability of a work or other subject matter, such as its availability in second-hand shops, or the theoretical possibility that a licence for a work or other subject matter could be obtained should not be considered as availability to the public in the customary channels of commerce.

(39) For reasons of international comity, the licensing mechanism and the exception or limitation provided for in this Directive for the digitisation and dissemination of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter should not apply to sets of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter where there is evidence available to presume that they predominantly consist of works or other subject matter of third countries, unless the collective management organisation concerned is sufficiently representative for that third country, for example via a representation agreement.

  That assessment could be based on the evidence available following the making of the reasonable effort to determine whether the works or other subject matter are out of commerce, without the need to search for further evidence.

  A work-by-work assessment of the origin of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter should only be required insofar as it is also required for making the reasonable effort to determine whether they are commercially available.

(40) Contracting cultural_heritage_institutions and collective management organisations should remain free to agree on the territorial scope of licences, including the option of covering all Member States, the licence fee and the uses allowed.

  Uses covered by such licences should not be for profit-making purposes, including where copies are distributed by the cultural_heritage_institution, such as in the case of promotional material about an exhibition.

  At the same time, given that the digitisation of the collections of cultural_heritage_institutions can entail significant investments, any licences granted under the mechanism provided for in this Directive should not prevent cultural_heritage_institutions from covering the costs of the licence and the costs of digitising and disseminating the works or other subject matter covered by the licence.

(41) Information regarding the ongoing and future use of out-of-commerce works and other subject matter by cultural_heritage_institutions on the basis of this Directive and the arrangements in place for all rightholders to exclude the application of licences or of the exception or limitation to their works or other subject matter should be adequately publicised both before and during the use under a licence or under the exception or limitation, as appropriate.

  Such publicising is particularly important when uses take place across borders in the internal market.

  It is therefore appropriate to provide for the creation of a single publicly accessible online portal for the Union in order to make such information available to the public for a reasonable period of time before the use takes place.

  Such portal should make it easier for rightholders to exclude the application of licences or of the exception or limitation to their works or other subject matter.

  Under Regulation (EU) No 386/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (11), the European Union Intellectual Property Office is entrusted with certain tasks and activities, financed by making use of its own budgetary means and aimed at facilitating and supporting the activities of national authorities, the private sector and Union institutions in the fight against, including the prevention of, infringement of intellectual property rights. It is therefore appropriate to rely on that Office to establish and manage the portal making such information available.

(42) In order to ensure that the licensing mechanisms established by this Directive for out-of-commerce works or other subject matter are relevant and function properly, that rightholders are adequately protected, that licences are properly publicised and that legal certainty is provided with regard to the representativeness of collective management organisations and the categorisation of works, Member States should foster sector-specific stakeholder dialogue.

(43) The measures provided for in this Directive to facilitate the collective licensing of rights in out-of-commerce works or other subject matter that are permanently in the collections of cultural_heritage_institutions should be without prejudice to the use of such works or other subject matter under exceptions or limitations provided for in Union law, or under other licences with an extended effect, where such licensing is not based on the out-of-commerce status of the covered works or other subject matter.

  Those measures should also be without prejudice to national mechanisms for the use of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter based on licences between collective management organisations and users other than cultural_heritage_institutions.

(44) Mechanisms of collective licensing with an extended effect allow a collective management organisation to offer licences as a collective licensing body on behalf of rightholders, irrespective of whether they have authorised the organisation to do so. Systems built on mechanisms such as extended collective licensing, legal mandates or presumptions of representation, are a well-established practice in several Member States and can be used in different areas. A functioning copyright framework that works for all parties requires the availability of proportionate, legal mechanisms for the licensing of works or other subject matter.

  Member States should, therefore, be able to rely on solutions allowing collective management organisations to offer licences covering a potentially large number of works or other subject matter for certain types of use, and to distribute the revenue resulting from such licences to rightholders, in accordance with Directive 2014/26/EU.

(45) Given the nature of some uses, together with the usually large amount of works or other subject matter involved, the transaction cost of individual rights clearance with every rightholder concerned is prohibitively high.

  As a result, it is unlikely that, without effective collective licensing mechanisms, all the transactions in the areas concerned that are required to enable the use of such works or other subject matter would take place.

  Extended collective licensing by collective management organisations and similar mechanisms can make it possible to conclude agreements in those areas where collective licensing based on an authorisation by rightholders does not provide an exhaustive solution for covering all works or other subject matter to be used.

  Such mechanisms complement collective management of rights based on individual authorisation by rightholders, by providing full legal certainty to users in certain cases. At the same time, they provide an opportunity to rightholders to benefit from the legitimate use of their works.

(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).

(47) It is important that mechanisms of collective licensing with an extended effect are only applied in well-defined areas of use, in which obtaining authorisation from rightholders on an individual basis is typically onerous and impractical to a degree that makes the required licensing transaction, namely one involving a licence that covers all rightholders concerned, unlikely to occur due to the nature of the use or of the types of works or other subject matter concerned.

  Such mechanisms should be based on objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria as regards the treatment of rightholders, including rightholders who are not members of the collective management organisation.

  In particular, the mere fact that the rightholders affected are not nationals or residents of, or established in, the Member State of the user who is seeking a licence, should not be in itself a reason to consider the clearance of rights to be so onerous and impractical as to justify the use of such mechanisms. It is equally important that the licensed use neither affect adversely the economic value of the relevant rights nor deprive rightholders of significant commercial benefits.

(48) Member States should ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the legitimate interests of rightholders that have not mandated the organisation offering the licence and that those safeguards apply in a non-discriminatory manner.

  Specifically, in order to justify the extended effect of the mechanisms, such an organisation should be, on the basis of authorisations from rightholders, sufficiently representative of the types of works or other subject matter and of the rights which are the subject of the licence.

  Member States should determine the requirements to be satisfied for those organisations to be considered sufficiently representative, taking into account the category of rights managed by the organisation, the ability of the organisation to manage the rights effectively, the creative sector in which it operates, and whether the organisation covers a significant number of rightholders in the relevant type of works or other subject matter who have given a mandate allowing the licensing of the relevant type of use, in accordance with Directive 2014/26/EU.

  To provide legal certainty and ensure that there is confidence in the mechanisms, Member States should be allowed to decide who is to have legal responsibility as regards uses authorised by the licence agreement.

  Equal treatment should be guaranteed to all rightholders whose works are exploited under the licence, including in particular as regards access to information on the licensing and the distribution of remuneration.

  Publicity measures should be effective throughout the duration of the licence and should not involve imposing a disproportionate administrative burden on users, collective management organisations or rightholders, and without the need to inform each rightholder individually.

(56) For the purposes of this Directive, it is necessary to define the concept of ‘ press_publication’ so that it only covers journalistic publications, published in any media, including on paper, in the context of an economic activity that constitutes a provision of services under Union law.

  The press_publications that should be covered include, for instance, daily newspapers, weekly or monthly magazines of general or special interest, including subscription-based magazines, and news websites. Press publications contain mostly literary works, but increasingly include other types of works and other subject matter, in particular photographs and videos. Periodical publications published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, should not be covered by the protection granted to press_publications under this Directive.

  Neither should that protection apply to websites, such as blogs, that provide information as part of an activity that is not carried out under the initiative, editorial responsibility and control of a service provider, such as a news publisher.

(59) The protection granted to publishers of press_publications under this Directive should not affect the rights of the authors and other rightholders in the works and other subject matter incorporated therein, including as regards the extent to which authors and other rightholders can exploit their works or other subject matter independently from the press_publication in which they are incorporated.

  Publishers of press_publications should, therefore, not be able to invoke the protection granted to them under this Directive against authors and other rightholders or against other authorised users of the same works or other subject matter.

  That should be without prejudice to contractual arrangements concluded between the publishers of press_publications, on the one hand, and authors and other rightholders, on the other.

  Authors whose works are incorporated in a press_publication should be entitled to an appropriate share of the revenues that press publishers receive for the use of their press_publications by information_society_service providers. That should be without prejudice to national laws on ownership or exercise of rights in the context of employment contracts, provided that such laws are in compliance with Union law.

(61) In recent years, the functioning of the online content market has gained in complexity.

  Online content-sharing services providing access to a large amount of copyright-protected content uploaded by their users have become a main source of access to content online.

  Online services are a means of providing wider access to cultural and creative works and offer great opportunities for cultural and creative industries to develop new business models. However, although they enable diversity and ease of access to content, they also generate challenges when copyright-protected content is uploaded without prior authorisation from rightholders. Legal uncertainty exists as to whether the providers of such services engage in copyright-relevant acts, and need to obtain authorisation from rightholders for content uploaded by their users who do not hold the relevant rights in the uploaded content, without prejudice to the application of exceptions and limitations provided for in Union law.

  That uncertainty affects the ability of rightholders to determine whether, and under which conditions, their works and other subject matter are used, as well as their ability to obtain appropriate remuneration for such use.

  It is therefore important to foster the development of the licensing market between rightholders and online_content-sharing_service_providers. Those licensing agreements should be fair and keep a reasonable balance between both parties. Rightholders should receive appropriate remuneration for the use of their works or other subject matter.

  However, as contractual freedom should not be affected by those provisions, rightholders should not be obliged to give an authorisation or to conclude licensing agreements.

(62) Certain information_society_services, as part of their normal use, are designed to give access to the public to copyright-protected content or other subject matter uploaded by their users. The definition of an online_content-sharing_service_provider laid down in this Directive should target only online services that play an important role on the online content market by competing with other online content services, such as online audio and video streaming services, for the same audiences. The services covered by this Directive are services, the main or one of the main purposes of which is to store and enable users to upload and share a large amount of copyright-protected content with the purpose of obtaining profit therefrom, either directly or indirectly, by organising it and promoting it in order to attract a larger audience, including by categorising it and using targeted promotion within it.

  Such services should not include services that have a main purpose other than that of enabling users to upload and share a large amount of copyright-protected content with the purpose of obtaining profit from that activity.

  The latter services include, for instance, electronic communication services within the meaning of Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council (14), as well as providers of business-to-business cloud services and cloud services, which allow users to upload content for their own use, such as cyberlockers, or online marketplaces the main activity of which is online retail, and not giving access to copyright-protected content.

(64) It is appropriate to clarify in this Directive that online_content-sharing_service_providers perform an act of communication to the public or of making available to the public when they give the public access to copyright-protected works or other protected subject matter uploaded by their users. Consequently, online_content-sharing_service_providers should obtain an authorisation, including via a licensing agreement, from the relevant rightholders. This does not affect the concept of communication to the public or of making available to the public elsewhere under Union law, nor does it affect the possible application of Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/29/EC to other service providers using copyright-protected content.

(66) Taking into account the fact that online_content-sharing_service_providers give access to content which is not uploaded by them but by their users, it is appropriate to provide for a specific liability mechanism for the purposes of this Directive for cases in which no authorisation has been granted.

  That should be without prejudice to remedies under national law for cases other than liability for copyright infringements and to national courts or administrative authorities being able to issue injunctions in compliance with Union law.

  In particular, the specific regime applicable to new online_content-sharing_service_providers with an annual turnover below EUR 10 million, of which the average number of monthly unique visitors in the Union does not exceed 5 million, should not affect the availability of remedies under Union and national law.

  Where no authorisation has been granted to service providers, they should make their best efforts in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence to avoid the availability on their services of unauthorised works and other subject matter, as identified by the relevant rightholders. For that purpose, rightholders should provide the service providers with relevant and necessary information taking into account, among other factors, the size of rightholders and the type of their works and other subject matter.

  The steps taken by online_content-sharing_service_providers in cooperation with rightholders should not lead to the prevention of the availability of non-infringing content, including works or other protected subject matter the use of which is covered by a licensing agreement, or an exception or limitation to copyright and related rights. Steps taken by such service providers should, therefore, not affect users who are using the online content-sharing services in order to lawfully upload and access information on such services.

(68) Online content-sharing service providers should be transparent with rightholders with regard to the steps taken in the context of cooperation.

  As various actions could be undertaken by online_content-sharing_service_providers, they should provide rightholders, at the request of rightholders, with adequate information on the type of actions undertaken and the way in which they are undertaken.

  Such information should be sufficiently specific to provide enough transparency to rightholders, without affecting business secrets of online_content-sharing_service_providers. Service providers should, however, not be required to provide rightholders with detailed and individualised information for each work or other subject matter identified.

  That should be without prejudice to contractual arrangements, which could contain more specific provisions on the information to be provided where agreements are concluded between service providers and rightholders.

(69) Where online_content-sharing_service_providers obtain authorisations, including through licensing agreements, for the use on their service of content uploaded by the users of the service, those authorisations should also cover the copyright relevant acts in respect of uploads by users within the scope of the authorisation granted to the service providers, but only in cases where those users act for non-commercial purposes, such as sharing their content without any profit-making purpose, or where the revenue generated by their uploads is not significant in relation to the copyright relevant acts of the users covered by such authorisations. Where rightholders have explicitly authorised users to upload and make available works or other subject matter on an online content-sharing service, the act of communication to the public of the service provider is authorised within the scope of the authorisation granted by the rightholder.

  However, there should be no presumption in favour of online_content-sharing_service_providers that their users have cleared all relevant rights.

(73) The remuneration of authors and performers should be appropriate and proportionate to the actual or potential economic value of the licensed or transferred rights, taking into account the author's or performer's contribution to the overall work or other subject matter and all other circumstances of the case, such as market practices or the actual exploitation of the work.

  A lump sum payment can also constitute proportionate remuneration but it should not be the rule.

  Member States should have the freedom to define specific cases for the application of lump sums, taking into account the specificities of each sector.

  Member States should be free to implement the principle of appropriate and proportionate remuneration through different existing or newly introduced mechanisms, which could include collective bargaining and other mechanisms, provided that such mechanisms are in conformity with applicable Union law.

(82) Nothing in this Directive should be interpreted as preventing holders of exclusive rights under Union copyright law from authorising the use of their works or other subject matter for free, including through non-exclusive free licences for the benefit of any users.