Ec copyright consultation

EU Copyright Consultation:What libraries and their patrons need

Uldis ZarinsNational Library of Latvia

Copyright and beyond: Libraries in the public sphereStrasbourg, 13.07.2014

Public Consultation on the review of the EU copyright rules

• 05.12.2013 - 05.03.2014• More than 9500 replies and 11 000 messages• 84 (possibly more) replies from library sector,

including: – 45 individual libraries (25 research, 17 national,

3 public)– 38 library NGOs (including 14 national associations

and 6 international associations)• 13 replies from Spain, 8 from Belgium (4 from a single

institution), 8 from the UK, 5 from the Netherlands

© LNB

Issues

• Single digital market• Authorisation in digital transmissions• Registration of works and identifiers• Term of copyright• Fair remuneration to authors and performers• Respect for rights• A single EU Copyright Title

Limitations and exceptions

• Libraries and archives– Preservation– Off-premises access– E-lending– Mass digitisation

• Teaching• Research• Disabilities• Text and data mining• User generated content• Private copying and reprography

Preservation

• Q 28 – 31• Have you experienced specific problems when

trying to use an exception to preserve and archive specific works or other subject matter in your collection?

• And the answer is... YES• 81% (62 out of 77 answers)

Problems

• Very narrow implementation of current exception

• TPM• Format shifting• Number of copies• Contractual provisions• Subcontracting and sharing with other libraries• Types of content - audiovisual, born digital• Reproduction for scholarly use

Problems

• Perpetual access to content of databases• Structural digitisation

Cultural heritage institutions already copy to preserve because the risks of NOT copying for preservation far outweigh the risk of abiding by current legislationThere is no evidence that this type of copying has been economically disadvantageous to rightsholders

Off-premises access


trying to negotiate agreements with rights holders that enable you to provide remote access, including across borders, to your collections (or parts thereof) for purposes of research and private study?

• And the answer is... YES

Problems

• Lengthy and complex negotiations with content providers

• Conditions are often unreasonable • Libraries cannot identify or find the rightsholders• Libraries cannot afford licences• Interlibrary loan of licenced content• Use of content in distance learning• Access in research sites/campus

Problems

• Access to content on dedicated terminals doesn't meet the needs and expectations of library users

• It discriminates people with disabilities and those who lack economic means to travel to the library

• There is no sense not to give access to the works not commercially available, especially if they have been acquired or digitized with public money, also doesn't make sense for authors

E-lending


trying to negotiate agreements to enable the electronic lending (e-lending), including across borders, of books or other materials held in your collection?


Problems

• The licences do not meet the needs of libraries (formats, security measures)

• Refusal to sell licences• Removal of content without notice• High prices• Bundling• Cross-border access• Interlibrary lending• Perpetual access

Physical vs. online collections

• Q 38• What differences do you see in the management

of physical and online collections, including providing access to your subscribers?

Answers

• Differences are so fundamental that it does not make sense to compare the two

• Libraries can buy all physical publications, but cannot buy licences to all commercially available content

• Complex and restrictive licensing requirements often create difficulties in managing online collections

• Many of the rights enjoyed by users in the analogue environment have been lost in the digital environment

On-site vs. off-premises services

• Q 39• What difference do you see between libraries’

traditional activities such as on-premises consultation or public lending and activities such as off-premises (online, at a distance) consultation and e-lending?

Answers

• From the end users’ perspective, there is no difference in these activities, aside from the convenience of online tools

• The development of online services doesn’t contradict the physical use of libraries and complement a range of services in developing free access to information

• The libraries have to develop both directions in profiled, specifically user-oriented manners

Mass digitisation

• Q 40 – 41• Would it be necessary in your country to enact

legislation to ensure that the results of the 2011 MoU (i.e. the agreements concluded between libraries and collecting societies) have a cross-border effect so that out of commerce works can be accessed across the EU?


Answers

• This question misses the point. The MoU is much too limited to make an impact on mass digitization

• Practically speaking, the MoU does seem to remain idle words

• A more inclusive approach of mass digitisation and subsequent unlocking is urgently needed

Copyright reform

• Q 7• Do you think that further measures (legislative

or non-legislative, including market-led solutions) are needed at EU level to increase the cross-border availability of content services in the Single Market, while ensuring an adequate level of protection for right holders?



• Q 21• Are there problems arising from the fact that

most limitations and exceptions provided in the EU copyright directives are optional for the Member States?



• Q 26• Does the territoriality of limitations and

exceptions, in your experience, constitute a problem



• Q 22• Should some/all of the exceptions be made

mandatory and, if so, is there a need for a higher level of harmonisation of such exception?



All the current exceptions in the InfoSoc Directive are drafted on the basis that they do not interfere with the normal exploitation of the work and, therefore, do not unreasonably prejudice right holders. This means that making them mandatory in all Member States should have no negative effect on right holders, while in many cases this will substantially benefit citizens and other public policy objectives such as access to knowledge and culture or inclusive education.


• Q 23• Should any new limitations and exceptions be

added to or removed from the existing catalogue?

• And the answer is... No exceptions should be removed, a list of new exceptions should be added

New limitations and exceptions

• The list of exceptions should not be exhaustive• Exceptions should be mandatory• A general ‘fair use’ clause could be considered• Exceptions should uniformly apply to all types of

works, media and rights• Contracts should not be able to override

limitations and exceptions• The exceptions should be actionable positive

rights


• Any use deemed harmless or without economic significance to a work’s rights holders should also be allowed

• Exception for e-lending• Exception for text and data mining• Exception to the right of reproduction for

preservation and mass digitisation


• Exception to the right of transformation for people with disabilities, for preservation (format shifting), for illustration (thumbnails)

• Exception of making available right for orphan works and out-of-commerce works, to allow open access to publicly funded research results

• Education exception allowing remote access to works for research and education and use of works in distance learning and MOOCs

Term of copyright

• Q 20• Are the current terms of copyright protection

still appropriate in the digital environment?• And the answer is... NO• 97% (72 out of 74 answers)• Shortened at least to 50 years after the death of

author• Ideally – 20-25 years from the creation of works,

extendable, based on registration

A single EU Copyright Title

• Q 78• Should the EU pursue the establishment of a

single EU Copyright Title, as a means of establishing a consistent framework for rights and exceptions to copyright across the EU, as well as a single framework for enforcement?


Conclusion

• Libraries believe a balanced copyright reform is necessary

• There is a need for a flexible, open ended exception to better keep pace with evolving technologies and services

• Any exceptions (both existing and proposed) should be mandatory, prevented from override by contract, and facilitate cross border access to and use of works in the public interest

Thank you!

Questions?

Documents

Ec copyright consultation