|The Digital Media Project|
|Title||Commented list of questions in GREEN PAPER "Copyright in the Knowledge Economy" by the European Commission||No.||080811chiariglione02|
Commented list of questions in "GREEN PAPER Copyright in the Knowledge
by the European Commission
On 16/07/2008 the European Commission has published a GREEN PAPER "Copyright in the Knowledge Economy" (http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/copyright-infso/greenpaper_en.pdf). the document poses 25 questions and invites stakeholders to respond
Below is the list of questions with some comments (in blue). Please direct your comments to dmp'at'chiariglione'dot'org.
2. GENERAL ISSUES
(1) Should there be encouragement or guidelines for contractual arrangements between right holders and users for the implementation of copyright exceptions
LC – That would be helpful. But i do not think that there would be any progress if end users would be offered 5 slim pages of legalese. What we need is something that may very well written in legal terms but is derived from a machine-readable template that helps user to understand
(2) Should there be encouragement, guidelines or model licenses for contractual arrangements between right holders and users on other aspects not covered by copyright exceptions?
(3) Is an approach based on a list of non-mandatory exceptions adequate in the light of evolving Internet technologies and the prevalent economic and social expectations?
(4) Should certain categories of exceptions be made mandatory to ensure more legal certainty and better protection of beneficiaries of exceptions?
(5) If so, which ones?
3. EXCEPTIONS: SPECIFIC ISSUES
3.1. Exceptions for libraries and archives
(6) Should the exception for libraries and archives remain unchanged because publishers themselves will develop online access to their catalogues?
(7) In order to increase access to works, should publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments, museums and archives enter into licensing schemes with the publishers? Are there examples of successful licensing schemes for online access to library collections?
(8) Should the scope of the exception for publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments, museums and archives be clarified with respect to:
a) Format shifting;
b) The number of copies that can be made under the exception;
c) The scanning of entire collections held by libraries;
(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?
(11) If so, should this be done by amending the 2001 Directive on Copyright in the information society or through a stand-alone instrument?
(12) How should the cross-border aspects of the orphan works issue be tackled to ensure EU-wide recognition of the solutions adopted in different Member States?
3.2. The exception for the benefit of people with a disability
(13) Should people with a disability enter into licensing schemes with the publishers in order to increase their access to works? If so, what types of licensing would be most suitable? Are there already licensing schemes in place to increase access to works for the disabled people?
(14) Should there be mandatory provisions that works are made available to people with a disability in a particular format?
(15) Should there be a clarification that the current exception benefiting people with a disability applies to disabilities other than visual and hearing disabilities?
(16) If so, which other disabilities should be included as relevant for online dissemination of knowledge?
(17) Should national laws clarify that beneficiaries of the exception for people with a disability should not be required to pay remuneration for using a work in order to convert it into an accessible format?
(18) Should Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases have a specific exception in favour of people with a disability that would apply to both original and sui generis databases?
(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?
3.3. Dissemination of works for teaching and 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 classrooms 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?
(23) Should there be a mandatory minimum requirement that the exception covers both teaching and research?
3.4. User-created content
(24) Should there be more precise rules regarding what acts end users can or cannot do when making use of materials protected by copyright?
(25) Should an exception for user-created content be introduced into the Directive?
LC – I do not think we need exceptions. Just take Use Case #1 – Quote TRU of dmp1009 and implement it. I do not say it will be easy. Legislation will be needed (but without resorting to exceptions), but it is all doable