tl;dr
Copyright trilogues have been revolving around text and data mining,
safeguarding the public domain and fair remuneration, leaving the more
contentious articles 11 and 13 largely unackled. The Public Sector
Information Directive dealing with open data has or will shortly receive a
green light by both legislative bodies, making it very likely it will be
adopted early 2019.
This and past reports:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor
===
EU Copyright Reform
---
Trilogues, technical meetings and working group meetings are continuing to
string together while first signs of attrition are showing among
negotiators. [1] No significant progress has been made on Articles 11 and
13 [2], putting a bold question mark behind the Austrian Presidency’s
intention to wrap up the talks by the end of the year. Most of us here in
Brussels are convinced it will be the Romanian Presidency, starting 1
January, that will have the honours.
---
Contentwise, a lot of the attention is currently on the text and data mining
exception (TDM). The original proposal was limited only to research
organisations. The Parliament is proposing a second, optional, article that
would allow Member States to introduce broader exceptions. Somewhat
astonishingly, the Commission liked the idea, but now demands the second
exception to be mandatory, in order to keep this area of law harmonised.
The Council is sceptical, but could get on board, if it gets something in
return. Our job is to make sure this something isn’t the public domain
article.
---
Our safeguarding the public domain article is currently being hotly
discussed. The Parliament wants it, but the Council is not at all
convinced. Some countries (easy to point the finger to France, but there
are others) are staunchly against it. The European Commission has now
drafted compromise text which keeps the principle, but doesn’t mention the
public domain in the article (instead opting for “when the term of
protection of a work (...) has expired”). The Council had argued that we
cannot mention the public domain without defining it, but it is against a
definition.
===
Copyright on African Cultural Heritage
---
An interesting use case for the public domain safeguard principle could be
observed these days around the discussions to return art that was
disappropriated (or stolen, depending on the case and your views) during
colonial times to African countries. [3] France and Belgium have indicated
that they will return such objects. The French President has commissioned a
report published recently on how the restitutions should work. [4] This is
relevant to us, because the report mentions several times the photographic
and cinematographic heritage and states that: “Within the framework of the
project of restitutions, these digitized objects must be made part of a
radical practice of sharing, including how one rethinks the politics of
image rights use.(p. 68)”. More details on IP Kat: [5]
===
Terrorism Regulation
As the process in the European Parliament is stalling due to the competence
dispute between Internal Market Committee and Civil Liberties on which one
should lead on the dossier, it becomes clear that the regulation in the
proposed shape would do more harm than good. Removal orders issued by a
competent authority (it is up to a Member State to decide what that would
be) cannot be contested (other than if they meet the formal requirements).
Referrals are decided upon by a platform based on their terms of service,
which gives those services unprecedented power to curb freedom of speech at
a request of authorities. And did we mention proactive measures, the new
cool buzz phrase for content filtering? All that amounts to quite a gag on
content, which relationship with terrorism is ill-defined. In the meantime,
the report by the Parliament's Committee on Terrorism will be voted in
plenary in the December session. As it contains an explicit support for the
proactive measures, it will be an important guideline for the direction of
negotiations.
===
Public Sector Information Directive
---
The Directive that commands public bodies to release data and documents
under re-usable licenses will be voted on in the lead parliamentary
committee (Industry, Research, Energy) on Monday. [6] For a change, there
is no major fighting, very few ideological red lines and no animosity. The
compromise amendments have been suggested and almost all political groups
support almost all compromises. On top of that the general direction is
positive: publicly funded research and public undertakings will be included
in the scope and the situations in which public bodies can deny the release
of data or demand reimbursements for it will be further limited.
The only open question is about the exact definition of “open”. A clear cut
open definition has not been included, the parliament is instead opting for
pointing to EU documents and decisions, where such a definition can be
found. The Council in its General Approach has a definition that is
positive [7], but can be improved upon. This, it seems, will be the main
focus of the trilogues in January.
===
Events
---
Brussels: We are hosting our first “Monsters of Law Brussels” event with
guest speaker Eleonora Rosati on the national implementation of copyright
exceptions foreseen in EU law. [8]
---
Portugal: An event on copyright reform organised by Portuguese groups WMPT,
D3 and ANSOL in the national library. [9]
===
[
1]https://twitter.com/mir_hrstka/status/1065890814038028288
[2]
https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Non-paper-on-Articles-11-an…
[3]
https://www.courrierinternational.com/article/la-belgique-doit-elle-restitu…
[
4]http://restitutionreport2018.com/sarr_savoy_en.pdf
[5]
http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2018/11/give-africa-its-cultural-heritage-back…
[6]
https://oeilm.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil-mobile/fiche-procedure/2018/01…
[7]https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-13418-2018-INIT/en/pdf
[8]https://monstersoflaw.brussels/
[
9]https://twitter.com/direitosdig/status/1067845261282574336