A woman shouting into a man's ear-trumpet

Article 17 Stakeholder dialogue: COMMUNIA input paper

Given the ongoing health emergency, the European Commission’s stakeholder dialogue on the implementation of Article 17 of the Copyright Directive is currently suspended. The 7th meeting of the stakeholder dialogue, which was originally scheduled for Monday of this week and where the Commission was expected to “share initial views on the content of the guidelines”, has been cancelled and it is currently unclear how and when the stakeholder dialogue will be resumed. In the meanwhile, the European Commission is continuing its work on the guidelines.

While we are waiting for news on the future of the stakeholder dialogue we have produced an input paper for the Commission (pdf) that summarises our observations from the stakeholder dialogue so far and formulates a number of principles that the Commission should take into account when drafting its guidelines. In line with our initial principles, the input paper focuses on licensing, transparency and procedural safeguards for users’ rights. The paper builds on the model that we had presented during the last meeting of the stakeholder dialogue

Specifically, we are asking the Commission to include the following in the Article 17 implementation guidelines: 

  • Recommend to national lawmakers to fully explore all legal mechanisms (including collective licensing with extended effect, mandatory collective management schemes and other non-voluntary licensing schemes) for granting OCSSPs authorisation to have in their platforms copyright-protected works and other subject matter uploaded by their users.
  • Require that all ownership claims made in the context of the measures required by Article 17 must be made fully transparent to allow public scrutiny and prevent unjustified removals or blocking by rightholders claiming ownership of works that they do not own.
  • Require that OCSSPs publish statistical information on the number of removal/blocking actions as well as the number of complaints and the resolution of complaints arising as the result of such actions.
  • Requires that in cases other than obvious infringement and in order to prevent automated measures from affecting lawful uses, users must have the ability to override all automated actions before the blocking/removal takes effect.
  • Require that in case of obvious (“prima facie”) infringement uploaded content can be automatically blocked/removed under the condition that uploaders have the ability to easily and effectively challenge such blocks/removals.
  • Require that users must be able to rely on all existing exceptions as grounds for challenging removal/blocking actions and must be able to dispute the ownership claims on which an action is based.

In our input paper we urge the Commission to take these principles into account when drafting its guidelines. The stakeholder dialogue has confirmed the fact that automated content recognition technologies are not capable of recognising lawful uses of copyrighted works, but it is also clear that, given the amounts of content uploaded, platforms will need to use automated content recognition technology to manage their obligations under Article 17.

To reconcile the use of these technologies with the requirement that measures taken by platforms shall in no way affect legitimate uses, it is imperative that users have the ability to prevent lawful uploads from being blocked/removed. To illustrate how this can be ensured in practice our input paper also includes a step-by-step implementation outline based on the principles identified above. You can read the full input paper here.

Featured Blog post:
Our analysis of the 1st draft of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice
Read more
Newer post
Open Letter to WIPO: Intellectual Property and COVID-19
April 3, 2020
Older post
Copyright Directive – Implementation – March news
March 25, 2020