Dear All,
some summary after the vote:
Article 3 TDM - the Compromise (CA 4) was adopted. We opposed it because it was quite limiting as to who can benefit from the exception, but still a bit better than the original
Article 4 education exception (CA 6) was adopted. It is good as it was better than the original with the licensing provisions and accepting CHIs as educational establishments for the purpose of the exception (they would be able to benefit from it)
Article 5 with digitising public domain for preservation purposes (CA 7) was adopted.
UGC and FoP - both CAs (56 and 58) failed, so there will be no such exceptions in this opinion if the EP uses it in the trilogue
Article 11 link tax - CA 12 was adopted by a narrow margin 13:12 after CA 12bis which we favoured had been rejected. It still zeroes in on remuneration for digital use of publications as in the original, but it explicitly excludes acts of individual users and acts of hyperlinking while bringing the expiration date of the right from 20 to 5 years. So a bit better from the EC version but it is still a form of a tax.
Article 13 content filtering - CA 14 was adopted 15:10 and as a consequence the better version being alt CA 14bis was not considered at all. In addition an amendment was adopted that obliges Member States to introduce licenses for automated image referencing.
IMCO 56 was rejected and AM 672 adopted, we wanted both to be rejected (se email from yesterday).
- The mandate to start negotiations will be challenged in
plenary. Likely on 4 July. It is a simple accept/reject vote among all
MEPs. So everyone can be contacted.
- If the mandate is
rejected, there will be a vote on the substance of the text in plenary
in September. Meaning new changes to the text will be proposed and voted
on.
- If the mandate is accepted, September/November will
see the trilogue start - so the EP and Council will be working out a
final text.
- This would likely lead to final accept/reject vote in plenary in December/January.
All in all we feel it was a success for Voss especially with the large margin for Article 13. We will obtain a list of who voted how later from Julia Reda’s office - I think they will share it publicly in fact. We are very aware that the fight goes on and we are very grateful for the joint efforts prior to the vote. This work is not wasted and in fact now they annoyed a lot of people :)
My best regards from Brussels,
Anna
51 Rue du Trône
BE-1050 Brussels
Wiadomość napisana przez Anna Mazgal <
anna@wikimedia.be> w dniu 20.06.2018, o godz. 07:32:
Dear All,
since we got hold of the voting list for the copyright vote, we prepared recommendations that I sent to over 20 MEPs in JURI that we hope will vote against the most damaging proposals (including article 13) and in favour of the good ideas on exceptions.
We only give recommendations on articles: 3, 4, 5, 11, and 13 as well as the exceptions: Freedom of Panorama (CAs 56 and 57) as well as User extracts from pre-existing works and other subject matter in content uploaded or made available by users (Cas 58 and 59) - so called User Generated Content exception. For the remaining articles and corresponding amendments we provide no specific recommendation as to the vote. In summary, we present the following recommendations:On article 3 we recommend voting against CA 4 (and corresponding CAs in recitals), instead we indicate specific amendments filed by members of JURI that in our opinion define text and data mining exception better.
On article 4 we recommend voting in favor of CA 6 (and corresponding CAs 23 to CA 26)
On article 5 we recommend voting in favor of CA 7 (and corresponding CAs 27 to CA 30)
On new exceptions (FoP, UGC) we recommend voting in favor of CA 56 (and CA 57) as well as CA 58 (and CA 59)
On article 11 we recommend voting against CA 12 (and corresponding CAs) and in favor of CA 12bis (and corresponding CA 20bis and CA 41bis) that are the alternative Compromise Amendments
On article 13 we recommend voting against CA 14 (and corresponding CAs) and in favor of CA 14bis (and corresponding CA 47bis to CA 50bis) that are the alternative Compromise Amendments. In case CA 14 is adopted, we believe the negative consequence can be somehow mitigated by voting in favor of CA 2.
Both IMCO 56 and AM 672 provide that the access gotten under one exception may not be used to exercise rights gotten under another exception - we find this approach harmful to the rights of users and legitimate uses of lawfully accessed content. We recommended voting against IMCO 56 and AM 672 as indicated in the document.
Let’s hope that the vote will be at least partially along our line on the topic.
Best wishes,
Anna
51 Rue du Trône
BE-1050 Brussels