EBLIDA and copyright Challenges on libraries Klaus-Peter Böttger, Stadtbibliothek Essen ©Harald...

EBLIDA and copyright

Challenges on libraries

Klaus-Peter Böttger, Stadtbibliothek Essen ©Harald Müller, mpil Goethe-Institut Istanbul 31.03.2010

Klaus-Peter Böttger, Stadtbibliothek Essen Goethe-Institut Istanbul 31.03.2010

„From Brussels with love“

The mission of the Expert Group on Information Law

(EGIL) is to: Maintain a good awareness of legal issues that

affect the provision and circulation of information, especially where libraries and archives are concerned

Address the European institutions by making suggestions regarding laws, or changes to laws that would improve the legal position of libraries and archives

Cooperate and work with other organizations and institutions for these purposes.


Copyright activities in Europe


1. Green paper on copyright in the knowledge economy

2. Manuel Medina Ortega Report on copyright

3. Proposals to extend the term of copyright protection for sound

recordings

4. Google Book US Settlement Agreement information hearing,

Brussels

5. Orphan works

6. Copyright infringement

7. ACTA

Copyright challenges in Europe


1. Green paper on copyright in the knowledge economy

2. Manuel Medina Ortega Report on copyright

3. Proposals to extend the term of copyright protection for sound

recordings

4. Google Book US Settlement Agreement information hearing,

Brussels

5. Orphan works

6. Copyright infringement

7. ACTA


Evaluation of Directive 2001/29/EC of 22

May 2001on copyright in the

information society

25 questions


Libraries are sometimes directly mentioned Sometimes questions are putative innocent, only

for experts understandable Choice & formulation of questions defines a

topic Responsible: Not EU Commission, but DG

internal market and services, unit D1 = Tilman Lüder

Samples:


(1) Should there be encouragement or guidelines for contractual arrangements between right holders and users for the implementation of copyright exceptions?

(4) Should certain categories of exceptions be made mandatory to ensure more legal certainty and better protection of beneficiaries of exceptions?

(6) Should the exception for libraries and archives remain unchanged because publishers themselves will develop online access to their catalogues?

(9) Should the law be clarified with respect to whether the scanning of works held in libraries for the purpose of making their content searchable on the Internet goes beyond the scope of current exceptions to copyright?

(10) Is a further Community statutory instrument required to deal with the problem of orphan works, which goes beyond the Commission Recommendation 2006/585/EC of 24 August 2006?

More samples:


(19) Should the scientific and research community enter into licensing schemes with publishers in order to increase access to works for teaching or research purposes? Are there examples of successful licensing schemes enabling online use of works for teaching or research purposes?

(20) Should the teaching and research exception be clarified so as to accommodate modern forms of distance learning?

(21) Should there be a clarification that the teaching and research exception covers not only material used in class-rooms or educational facilities, but also use of works at home for study?

(22) Should there be mandatory minimum rules as to the length of the excerpts from works which can be reproduced or made available for teaching and research purposes?


Green paper

several preliminary versions media industry influence on questions which EU clerk wrote the text? contacting the person by EBLIDA-EGIL insider information most helpfull for answering the questions fine tuning with national library organisations answer: www.eblida.org/uploads/eblida/10/1228208920.pdf


Major defects ofDirective 2001/29/EC

absolute monopoly power of the right holder

list of exceptions is exhaustive

only one of 21 exceptions is obligatory

exceptions are not all implemented in Member States,

and if implemented they are implemented differently

= no copyright harmonization in Europe

Ortega report


Manuel Medina Ortega (EP Socialist Group) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/archive/term6/view.do?language=EN&id=1337

Member European Parliament

31.01.2007 / 13.07.2009 : Committee on Legal Affairs

rapporteur for copyright

meeting 8./9. Sept. 2008

Mr. Ortega and copyright


16. Oct. 2008: meeting EBLIDA with Mr. Ortega 14. Jan. 2009: Ortega report published Draft report on the Commission report on the application

of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (2008/2121(INI))

Directive 2001/29/EC is “satisfying” ignores “orphan works” objects “limitations”

EBLIDA letter to all EP members 28. Jan. 2009


We ask you to reject the submission.


Report‘s fate

Committee on Legal Affairs approves 16.02.09 EBLIDA contact with other lobbying groups alternative version Ortega report 23. Feb. 2009: Ortega report had been

withdrawn

from European Parliament agenda Big success of lobbying activties


Term extension

Term of protection:from 50 to 95 years


sound recordings in favour of musicians (studio, concert) supply of twilight years (age of retirement) initiative of music industry BUT: EU study „Recasting of Copyright and Related

Rights for the Knowledge Economy“ came 2006 to contrary results

also: Gowers Report UK 2006

EBLIDA-EGIL letters July 2008


EU commissioners: Ján Figel (Education, Training, Culture & Youth) Neelie Kroes (Competition) Meglena Kuneva (Consumer Protection) Charlie McCreevy (Internal Market and Services) Janez Potocnik (Science and Research) Viviane Reding (InfoSoc)

Arguments against term extension:

Sound recordings in libraries & archives

Cultural heritage, oral history Public domain Orphan works

>>>> Intensive lobbying activities



27. May 2009:

Nordic countries block

term extension

Google Books Library Project


Libraries


Columbia University Cornell University Library Harvard University Princeton University Stanford University University of California University of Michigan New York Public Library

Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Universiteitsbibliotheek Gent Keio University Library Bibliothèque Municipale de Lyon Biblioteca de Catalunya Oxford University Library Universitas Complutense Madrid Bibliothèque Universitaire - Lausanne

All books

Out of copyright books

Google Book Settlement


YES to Google Book Project


IFLA EBLIDA LIBER National lib.ass.

Objections• digital divide

• monopoly of Google

• long term preservation

• data protection

• contracts vs. Statutory exceptions and limitations

Orphan works legal options


1. No action

The assumption is that there are not orphan works. If you continue searching, you will eventually find the right holders.

2. Statutory exception

After a diligent search, if the right holders are not found, it could be possible to use the orphan work, without being exposed to liability. Two cases are possible:

2.1 without compensation. Remuneration is done only if the right holder appears.

2.2 compensation to a collecting society. 3. Extensive collective licenses (Nordic model)

Based on the legal authorisation that the collecting societies have the rights to represent all the right owners. One of the problems is that, if collecting societies, they get paid any way, they do not have a real interest to search for the right owner.

4. Canadian model:

After a diligent search, the government gives a licence.

Orphan worksEBLIDA‘s suggestion


For addition to Article 5 (3) of the copyright Directive, draft for discussion offered to indicate the kind of exception that libraries are looking for:

Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 in the following cases:

(p) uses by publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments, museums or archives of a work whose author cannot be identified or located after reasonable investigation conducted for the purpose by the institution concerned; provided that the author’s moral rights are as far as possible respected and that the use shall cease on the request of a legitimate rightholder should he subsequently become known.

after reasonable investigation

Copyright infringement


Copyright infringement


• illegal downloads (music, films etc.)• plagiarism• illegal publication / making available• legal term: 3rd party infringement

ACTA ???


Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreementis a proposed plurilateral trade agreement for establishing international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement throughout the participating countries

quite secret negotiationsEU Parliament demands restrictionsPublication and transparency of the actual draft

Conclusion


Copyright is a permanent challenge for libraries.

Lobbying is:Important

SuccessfulEBLIDA-EGIL „will return“

Thank you very much for your attention!!!


[email protected]

www.eblida.org; www.eblida.org/index.php?page=egil

.http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/copyrightforlibrarians/

EBLIDA and copyright Challenges on libraries Klaus-Peter Böttger, Stadtbibliothek Essen ©Harald...

Documents

Transcript of EBLIDA and copyright Challenges on libraries Klaus-Peter Böttger, Stadtbibliothek Essen ©Harald...