Directive (EU) 2019/790 (copyright in the digital single market)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
European Union flag

Directive (EU) 2019/790

Title: Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 17, 2019 on copyright and related rights in the digital single market and amending Directives 96/9 / EC and 2001/29 / EC
Designation:
(not official) 		Copyright Policy
Legal matter: copyright
Basis: TFEU , in particular Articles 53 (1) , 62 and 114
Date of issue: 17th April 2019
Release date: 17th May 2019
Come into effect: June 6, 2019
To be
implemented in national law by: 		June 7, 2021
Reference: OJ L130 of May 17, 2019, pp. 92–125
Full text Consolidated version (not official)
basic version
The regulation must currently be implemented in national law.
Please note the information on the current version of legal acts of the European Union !

Vote in the European Parliament in Strasbourg

The Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the digital single market and amending Directives 96/9 / EC and 2001/29 / EC (common non-official abbreviation DSM or DSM-RL after the English short form Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, ) pursues the goal of adapting the copyright of the European Union to the requirements of the digital society . Despite considerable protests against the draft, the European Parliament approved the draft on March 26, 2019. The legislative process was completed on April 15, 2019 by a qualified majority in the Council of the European Union .

The proposal for the directive was tabled by the Juncker Commission . Initially, the EU digital commissioner Günther Oettinger ( CDU / EPP ) was in charge , before the vice-president of the European Commission and commissioner for the digital single market Andrus Ansip ( RE / ALDE ) and the EU digital commissioner Marija Gabriel ( GERB / EPP ) took over. The rapporteur in the lead legal committee was the German MP Axel Voss ( CDU / EPP ). Julia Reda ( Pirate Party / Greens / EFA ) acted as shadow rapporteur .

Even after several revisions, the draft was considered controversial. This received approval from associations of the creative industries , artist and journalist associations, publishers and collecting societies, while it met with rejection from civil rights organizations, science, network political associations and the branch associations of the information and telecommunications industry . The subject of the controversy was, in particular, efforts to introduce ancillary copyright for press publishers and the implementation of an obligation to license copyrighted content and the associated upload filters .

aims

The current harmonized European copyright law , consisting of various directives , was evaluated variously by the European Commission between 2013 and 2016. The purpose of the evaluation was to "ensure that copyright and related practices continue to serve their purpose in this new digital environment."

Accordingly, the commission set the following goals as guard rails for the copyright reform:

  • Adjustments to the "new realities" are required.
  • Rights holders need to be better protected.
  • A fragmentation of copyright law in the member states must be prevented.

Procedure

History and evaluation of the applicable copyright law

Since December 22, 2002, the current Copyright Directive 2001/29 / EC of May 22, 2001 had to be implemented in national law.

In 2010 the European Commission announced in the context of the Digital Agenda for Europe that the aim was to simplify the "clarification, administration and cross-border licensing of copyrights". In 2011, she also identified the “creation of a comprehensive, integrated internal market for intellectual property rights” as one of the most concrete ways “to unlock the potential of European inventors and creators and to enable them to turn ideas into high quality jobs and economic growth transform. "

At the beginning of 2012, the European Court of Justice ruled that social networks are not obliged to use automated upload filters to check user contributions for copyright infringements. The court justified this on the one hand with the prohibition of a general monitoring obligation. On the other hand, this affects entrepreneurial freedom, since expensive and complicated IT systems are necessary for this. A collecting society had sued the social network Netlog .

Between 2013 and 2016 the Commission carried out an ex-post evaluation of the applicable copyright law. First with an open consultation between December 5, 2013 and March 5, 2014 on general copyright issues. The consultation was reported in July 2014. Then with a further consultation on the topics of platforms , online brokers, data, cloud computing and the participatory economy. The corresponding report was published on May 25, 2016. Finally, between March 23, 2016 and June 15, 2016, a consultation took place on the subjects of "Publishers in the copyright exploitation chain" and " Freedom of panorama ". The report was divided into the areas of publishers in the copyright exploitation chain and freedom of panorama .

In addition, the European Commission commissioned several studies to shed light on the problems of current copyright law. In particular, the remuneration of authors and the legal framework of text and data mining were examined.

Start of the legislative process with votes in the Council of the EU and the EU Parliament

The EU Council of Ministers agreed on 25 May 2018 a draft of the proposed directive. This was first presented to the Council and Parliament in September 2016.

On June 20, 2018, the Justice Committee of the EU Parliament approved the compromise proposals on the draft by the responsible rapporteur, Axel Voss . Article 13 of the draft stipulates that online platforms with user-generated content are obliged to prevent the distribution of unlicensed works through “appropriate and proportionate measures”. On July 5, 2018, the EU Parliament as a whole initially voted against the reform after public protests. In the second session on September 12, 2018, however, following some changes in the text of the law, Parliament voted 438 to 226 with 39 abstentions for the reform.

Voting results according to membership of German and Austrian parties in the European Parliament on September 12, 2018

( For / against copyright reform)

With the adoption of the text, the European Parliament decided to move on to the trialogue .

The negotiations were briefly suspended at the end of January 2019 because eleven of the countries involved, including Germany, did not accept a draft of the Romanian EU Council Presidency. In the German Bundestag on January 31, 2019, a motion calling on the federal government to oppose upload filters in the trialogue was rejected by the votes of the CDU / CSU and SPD. An agreement between Germany and France on the exception for start-ups from Article 13 finally enabled the trialogue to be concluded. The corresponding compromise proposal was pushed through to the press .

On February 20, 2019, the Committee of Permanent Representatives of the Member States approved the compromise of the trialogue. The permanent representatives of the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Poland, Italy and Finland voted against the adoption of the compromise proposal, on the grounds that it did not provide a balance between the protection of rights holders and the interests of EU citizens and businesses. Therefore, there is a risk that “innovations will be hindered instead of encouraged”. The German government obtained a majority for the compromise, although the coalition agreement of the grand coalition provided for a rejection of upload filters.

The Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament confirmed the draft in a special meeting on February 26, 2019.

Decision of the copyright reform in the EU Parliament

On March 26, 2019, the EU Parliament passed the copyright reform of the European Union, which was finally confirmed by the Council of the European Union on April 15, 2019 . The legislative process is thus completed with the consent of both bodies and the corresponding two-year implementation period begins.

The admission of amendments was rejected by 312 votes to 317 (with 24 abstentions). In the minutes, ten MPs subsequently corrected their votes to agree, two to reject and one to abstain. However, since the correction was only made after the vote, this has no legal consequences. The actual resolution had 348 votes in favor, 274 against and 36 abstentions. The draft was thus accepted.

If abstentions and absent MPs are ignored, around 85 percent of the Group of the European People's Party (EPP), 65 percent of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Social Democrats (S&D) and 59 percent of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals will vote without taking into account corrections that have not been evaluated and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) for reform.

The majority on the other hand, without taking abstentions into account, with around 65 percent, the European Conservatives and Reformers (ECR), a conservative and EU-critical, in parts right-wing populist group, with around 91 percent, the members of the group The Greens / European Free Alliance , around 88 Percent of the Confederal Group of the European United Left / Nordic Green Left (Gue / NGL), a group of various left, socialist and communist parties and around 82 percent of the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy Group (EFDD), an amalgamation of the parties of the EU -skeptical and right-wing populist spectrum.

Voting results according to membership of political groups in the European Parliament on March 26, 2019

( For / against copyright reform)

Voting results according to membership of German and Austrian parties in the European Parliament on March 26, 2019

( For / against copyright reform)

Conclusion of the legislative process by the Council of the European Union

On April 2, 2019, it became known that the decisive vote on the copyright reform in the Council of the European Union was scheduled for April 15, 2019, and that the agriculture ministers of the EU states will vote for their governments on the last decision in the legislative process. As a result, two motions were tabled in the German Bundestag for April 4, 2019 with the aim of getting Germany to reject the copyright reform. With a majority of the CDU / CSU and SPD parliamentary groups, both motions were referred to committees, while the entire opposition voted for an immediate vote. On April 10, 2019, the Union and the Social Democrats in the Legal Affairs Committee of the Bundestag prevented a vote on the following day, meaning that no decision was possible before the decision in the EU Council. Justice Minister Katarina Barley recommended that the other members of Merkel IV's cabinet vote in favor of the copyright reform and add a note to the minutes. However, numerous experts pointed out that such a protocol declaration was not legally binding and therefore could not prevent upload filters . On April 15, 2019, the grand coalition agreed on an amendment to Barley's draft minutes note and voted to approve the Copyright Policy. In the final text of the protocol statement, it says on Article 17 and upload filters:

"The Federal Government [...] assumes that this dialogue is based on the spirit of guaranteeing appropriate remuneration for creative people, preventing" upload filters "as far as possible, ensuring freedom of expression and protecting user rights. The Federal Government assumes that in this dialogue a uniform implementation across the Union will be agreed, because a fragmentary implementation in 27 national variants would not be compatible with the principles of a European digital single market. "

Country Share in
EU
population 		poll
Belgium 1.37% abstention
Bulgaria 1.37% Yes
Denmark 1.13% Yes
Germany 16.12% Yes
Estonia 0.26% abstention
Finland 1.07% No
France 13.10% Yes
Greece 2.09% Yes
United Kingdom 12.90% Yes
Ireland 0.94% Yes
Italy 11.92% No
Croatia 0.80% Yes
Latvia 0.38% Yes
Lithuania 0.55% Yes
Luxembourg 0.12% No
Malta 0.09% Yes
Netherlands 3.37% No
Austria 1.71% Yes
Poland 7.40% No
Portugal 2.00% Yes
Romania 3.80% Yes
Sweden 1.98% No
Slovakia 1.06% Yes
Slovenia 0.40% abstention
Spain 9.09% Yes
Czech Republic 2.04% Yes
Hungary 1.91% Yes
Cyprus 0.17% Yes
Agreed: 19 (67.85%) 71.25% Yes
Contain: 3 (10.71%) 2.88% abstention
Rejected: 6 (21.42%) 25.86% No

The decision required the approval of 55% of the member states, which together make up 65% of the total population ( Art. 238 TFEU ). Since 19 out of 28 Member States, 67.85% of the Member States, which make up 71.25% of the total population of the Union, gave their consent, the decision was made.

Poland's action for annulment

On May 24, 2019, the Polish government filed an action for annulment of the adopted directive with the ECJ . The Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki announced via Twitter that the directive is a disproportionate measure, promotes censorship and endangers freedom of expression.

Content

Text and data evaluation

Article 3 introduces a new barrier to copyright . Duplications of and extracts from works to which research organizations have legal access are permitted for text and data mining purposes .

Ancillary copyright for press publishers

Article 15 ( ex Article 11 of the proposal) is intended to introduce a so-called ancillary copyright for press publishers for the purpose of “protecting press publications with regard to digital uses” . The remuneration to the publishers was sometimes misunderstood as "link tax"; in fact, however, it is not a state charge ( tax ).

The text of the law reads:

Article 15 Protection of press publications with regard to online use

1. The Member States shall lay down provisions with which press publishers established in a Member State shall have the rights referred to in Article 2 and Article 3 (2) of Directive 2001/29 / EC to the online use of their press publications by providers of information society services. The rights provided in sub-paragraph 1 do not apply to the private or non-commercial use of press publications by individual users. The protection granted in accordance with the first subparagraph does not apply to the setting of hyperlinks. The rights provided in the first subparagraph do not apply to the use of individual words or very short extracts from a press release.

(2) The rights provided for in paragraph 1 do not affect the rights of authors and other rights holders to the works and other subject matter contained in a press publication as defined in Union law and do not affect these rights in any way. The rights provided for in paragraph 1 may not be asserted to the detriment of these authors and other rights holders and, in particular, may not deprive them of the right to exploit their works and other subject matter regardless of the press publication in which they are contained. If a work or other subject of protection is contained in a press release on the basis of a non-exclusive license, the rights provided for in paragraph 1 may not be asserted for the purpose of prohibiting use by other authorized users. The rights provided for in paragraph 1 may not be asserted for the purpose of prohibiting the use of works or other subject matter whose term of protection has expired.

(3) Articles 5 to 8 of Directive 2001/29 / EC, Directive 2012/28 / EU and Directive (EU) 2017/1564 of the European Parliament and of the Council (19) apply mutatis mutandis to those in paragraph 1 of this Article provided rights apply.

(4) The rights provided for in paragraph 1 expire two years after the publication of the press release. This period is calculated from January 1st of the year following the date of publication of the press release. Paragraph 1 does not apply to press releases that are first published before June 6, 2019.

5. Member States shall provide that authors of works contained in a press publication receive an appropriate share of the income that press publishers receive from the use of their press publications by providers of information society services.

Compensation claims from publishers

The aim of the article is to allow the publishers to participate in the statutory remuneration claims - the so-called flat fee . This participation, which, depending on the country and type of work, was up to 50%, was declared illegal by the ECJ in 2015 , as this compensation for private copies is only intended for the authors. Since then, this remuneration of the collecting societies has belonged exclusively to the authors.

Licensing requirement and upload filter

Article 17 ( ex Article 13 of the proposal) of the Directive aims to regulate the use of copyrighted content by “service providers for sharing online content”. As such, "provider of an information society service whose main purpose [...] is to store a large amount of copyrighted works uploaded by its users and to make them accessible to the public, this provider organizing this content and providing it to the public Promotes profit making ”. These service providers should be fully liable for copyright violations of their users, unless they (a) make every effort to negotiate licenses with the rights holders concerned, (b) use proportionate (technical) measures to prevent these violations (for example so-called " upload filters ") and (c) remove the affected work if a violation is known and prevent it from being uploaded again. For young service providers (under three years of age) with little turnover and few users, less strict rules should apply.

The text of the law reads:

Article 17

Use of protected content by service providers for sharing online content

[...]

(4) If permission is not granted, the service provider is responsible for sharing online content for unauthorized acts of public reproduction, including making available to the public, copyrighted works or other subject matter, unless the provider provides these services evidence that he

a)

has made every effort to obtain permission; and

b)

has made every effort to ensure that certain works and other subject matter on which the rightholders have provided relevant and necessary information to the providers of these services are not available, in accordance with high industry standards for professional diligence; and in any case

c)

has acted immediately after receiving a sufficiently justified notice from the rights holder to block access to the corresponding works or other subject matter or to remove the corresponding works or other subject matter from its website, and has made every effort, in accordance with letter b, the to prevent future uploads of these works or other subject matter.

[...]

So far, the ECJ concluded from a synopsis of Directives 2000/31 / EC , 2001/29 / EC and 2001/29 / EC , “that they [the directives] oppose the order of a national court to a hosting provider, a system of filtering […] To identify files containing […] works in which the applicant claims to have intellectual property rights, in order to prevent the said works from being made available to the public in violation of copyright law . "

Public discussion

Supporters of efforts to reform copyright law in the digital single market include workers 'and employers' associations in the creative and cultural industries , as well as professional associations of artists and journalists.

A Europe-wide initiative made up of 260 publishers, newspapers, news agencies , broadcasters , production companies and media professionals called for support for the reform. The reform is essential for the survival of many artists and authors and thus ensures a “rich and diverse Internet”. They accuse the “big internet platforms” of a campaign with “extraordinary effort”.

The service union Ver.di spoke out in favor of the new copyright law and saw in the "Directive on copyright is an important step for creative people and their associations in Europe". In February 2019, the German cultural and creative industry issued a joint appeal “YES to the EU Copyright Directive”: It asks EU parliamentarians to approve the final draft for a new European copyright law. We represent several hundred thousand artists, creatives, journalists and thousands of companies in Germany: Every day, our members and partners are passionate about designing, developing, inventing, producing and publishing creative content in one of the most diverse cultural and media landscapes in the World. To keep it that way, we need up-to-date copyright law. We appeal to all members of the European Parliament: agree to the directive and pave the way for fair dealings between platforms, creatives, rights holders and users . This appeal was signed by many other organizations, the German Association of Artists , the Association of German Trade Unions (DGB), the Federal Association of Visual Artists , the Union of German Jazz Musicians , the German Association of Journalists , the PEN Center Germany and the Association of German Magazine Publishers (VDZ).

Publishers' associations, the Börsenverein des Deutschen Buchhandels and collecting societies are also among the proponents.

Spiegel Online columnist Sascha Lobo criticized the reform forcing creative people to become dependent on large recycling structures. Only these are able to negotiate flat-rate licenses.

The criticism of the draft reform is sparked in particular by the de facto likely need for upload filters (Article 13) and the explicitly requested ancillary copyright for press publishers (Article 11).

In July 2018, a broad alliance with more than 145 European organizations and institutions called on MEPs to vote in plenary against the reform in its current version.

In response to the numerous critical voices, Voss claimed that it was a "staged campaign" that originated from the "major online platforms" and had the aim of "saying goodbye to copyright law". The Federal Association of the Music Industry also spoke out in favor of the planned reforms and criticized a "threatened building [...] that has nothing to do with reality".

Article 11

A study commissioned by the EU Commission, but not officially published, came to the conclusion that press publishers benefit from news aggregators.

In 2014, Der Spiegel reported on the consequences of the introduction of ancillary copyrights in Spain: Google News has discontinued the service here, which has led to a 10-15% decline in advertising income on the linked press portals. Ancillary copyright law in Germany has so far brought publishers costs that are several times higher than the license payments received. In addition, as Die Zeit reports, many media monitoring services have had to close or their very existence is at risk.

Article 13

In the spring of 2018, numerous associations, particularly those relating to network policy, expressed their criticism of individual aspects of the project in its form at the time, especially the possible implementation of upload filters. The IT association Bitkom criticized that with this reform the EU would “cross the line between control and censorship ”.

In an open letter in June 2018, well-known Internet pioneers - including Tim Berners Lee , Vint Cerf and Jimmy Wales - spoke out against the implementation of the licensing requirement through upload filters as a "tool for monitoring and user control" and called for it to be removed from the draft law.

A group of academic intellectual property scholars from 25 research institutions and more than 200 scholars from several Member States also expressed criticism of Articles 11 and 13 of the copyright reform. The scientists wrote two open letters in February 2017 and April 2018. In addition, the same group published a paper on misinformation in the debate surrounding the articles from June 2018 and most recently a call for votes against the articles, signed by some scientists involved, before the vote in the European Parliament on March 24, 2019. The main points of criticism against the draft of Article 11 for a new ancillary copyright law were that it prevented the spread of news, hindered online licensing and had a negative economic impact on journalistic authors. The interests of established press publishers had been given preference over innovative quality journalism. The criticism of the draft Article 13 also took up the risks for freedom of expression and information associated with upload filters and also criticized the fact that the shared responsibility of platforms and users created by the copyright reform in conflict with the E-Commerce Directive (2000 / 31 / EG). The authors also expressed further criticism of the regulation on data mining, which is too limited to promote innovation.

The network political associations of the parties CDU, CSU, SPD and FDP also spoke out against upload filters in July 2018; they referred to the coalition agreement between CDU / CSU and SPD, which rejected upload filters as disproportionate.

Jürgen Taeger , holder of the chair for civil law, commercial and business law at the Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg , assessed in an interview published by the university the draft guideline, which is still in the trialogue, as an obligation to check uploaded content for the platforms in advance. This "ultimately amounts to having to use upload filter software." The intended exemptions are formulated so vaguely in their requirements that they are difficult to handle in practice and lead to great legal uncertainty.

According to media lawyers Christian Solmecke and Anne-Christine Herr, the compromise negotiated on Article 13 (4) of the proposal is an implicit obligation to use upload filters, there is no other option. In addition, the planned directive does not specifically specify the rights holders with which the platforms must agree licenses. Although Article 9a [out of date] offered the possibility of fictitious membership in a collecting society , this was never intended as a way of enforcing Article 13. Furthermore, the ECJ's “Soulier & Doke” decision raises the question of whether a corresponding regulation would be in conformity with other European law. Also, only a few companies are technically and financially able to program such filter systems themselves; it would only be possible to use systems such as Content ID from large American companies. The US civil rights organization Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) also stated that only the largest technology companies based in the US could afford the expensive filters.

The rapporteur Axel Voss sees the obligation to let "online platforms that make profit through the use of copyrighted works [...] take responsibility for the uploaded content" no filtering: "That has nothing to do with 'filters'" . The chairwoman of the European Parliament's cultural committee, Helga Trüpel ( Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen / Greens / EFA ), also defends the reform: “It's about those who have benefited a lot from third-party content [...] and for their great content sharing -Platforms [so far] have not obtained the appropriate licenses, they should be made to license ”and further“ therefore I cannot share this type of argumentation - one should no longer upload, everything should now be filtered - not share. "

Although the coalition agreement between the CDU / CSU and the SPD is expressly against upload filters, the federal cabinet decided unanimously in February 2019 that Germany would approve this directive in the Council of the European Union . If one of the coalition partners had lodged an objection, the federal government would have had to abstain. The lead Federal Minister Katarina Barley ( SPD ) then defended the decision.

The Wikimedia Foundation advocated the enforcement of copyright without an upload filter and instead advocated other ways and more education. Wikimedia Germany protested against the abundant changes made by the EU and described the actions as "unprecedented last-minute changes". Pages like Wikipedia , which live from the free dissemination of knowledge, are severely affected by upload filters, because they make it difficult to cite sources and a lot of important information disappears.

In February 2019, the Federal Data Protection Commissioner Ulrich Kelber ( SPD ) warned of the possible consequences of the reform in a press release. Even if the draft law does not explicitly mention upload filters, the practical application would amount to this. He also expressed concerns about data protection law as a result of the development effort that could not be made for smaller service providers. This would create "an oligopoly of fewer providers of filter technology through which more or less the entire Internet traffic of relevant platforms and services then runs". The Hessian data protection officer and musician Michael Ronellenfitsch , on the other hand, defended the EU copyright reform and complained about the “mentality of wanting to use everything for free”.

This Article 13 of the first proposal figures in the proposal for a vote as Article 17 .

Campaigns against reform

Demonstration against Art. 13 on March 23, 2019 on the Frankfurt Römer
40,000 demonstrate against the copyright reform with Article 13 in Munich on March 23, 2019
Demonstrators against the copyright reform on February 23, 2019 in Cologne

In a non-official online petition on change.org , which opposes Articles 11, 12 and 13, MEPs are asked to remove the upload filters from the planned reform. On February 18, 2019, the petition, which had been signed about 4.7 million times by then, was handed over by the initiators to Justice Minister Katarina Barley (SPD). On March 13, 2019, YouTubers from several European countries handed over the petition to EU parliamentarians Brando Benifei and Daniele Viotti with 4.9 million signatures . The 5 million mark was exceeded on March 21, 2019.

After numerous e-mails of protest to EU MPs, the EU Commission has expressed itself in an article withdrawn within two days, The Copyright Directive: How the Mob Was Requested to Save the Dragon and Kill the Knight , and thus the critics as “Mob " designated.

Numerous influencers on social media and video platforms such as YouTube and Instagram published critical articles about Article 13. Some operators of internet forums also took part in campaigns against the reform. Among other things, the hashtag #SaveYourInternet was used here. When many CDU MPs, including Axel Voss, spoke out in favor of Article 13 on the day of the trialogue negotiations, the hashtag #niewiederCDU made it to number 1 of the Twitter trends in Germany.

There were already demonstrations in Berlin and Cologne on March 2, 2019, each with around three thousand participants. After it became public that the EPP Group wanted to reschedule the voting meeting before the planned large demonstrations on March 23, there were loud protests from the opponents of the draft. SaveTheInternet then called for rush demonstrations on March 5, 2019 in seven German cities, including in Berlin in front of the CDU headquarters and three more for March 6, 2019 and March 9, 2019. Several people took part in the demonstration in Berlin a thousand people. SaveTheInternet registered 21 demonstrations across Europe for March 23, 2019, 17 of them in Germany. Between 100,000 and 150,000 people demonstrated in Germany, in Munich alone there were 40,000 participants. In this context, the chairman of the CDU / CSU group in the European Parliament, Daniel Caspary , caused massive public criticism , who claimed that "American corporations" were "trying to prevent laws with massive use of disinformation and bought demonstrators". Even members of the CDU described these statements as "insane" and "catastrophic". Previously, critics accused the proponents of reform of not taking them seriously and mistaking them for bots . This was taken up accordingly by participants in the second demonstration in Cologne.

Screenshot from wikipedia.de of Wikimedia Germany from March 21, 2019

On March 21st in the German Wikipedia edition as well as in the Danish, Czech and Slovak versions, and on March 25th in the Italian edition, all articles were completely blacked out for 24 hours. This protest action was supported by OpenStreetMap . A banner was linked to a website on which OpenStreetMap Germany informed about the problems in connection with the OpenStreetMap processing and called for participation in the protests.

implementation

The member states have until June 7, 2021 to implement the adopted directive into national law. The German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection published a first draft discussion in January 2020. Accordingly, the use of external images - for z. B. Thumbnails in a search result list or a link - from 128 × 128 pixels a license from the author is required. This regulation is not intended to apply to private users. Furthermore, headings, video and music cuts should be able to be used for up to three seconds without an additional license.

In the second draft discussion on June 24, 2020, the use of upload filters was specified. According to the Federal Minister of Justice Christine Lambrecht (SPD), these are to be made “largely superfluous” on the one hand, but on the other hand, rigid minimum limits for the non-commercial use of works are intended to enable uploads to be “automatically checked”. The trivial limits should be "up to 20 seconds per film or motion picture", "up to 20 seconds per audio track", "up to 1000 characters per text" and photos or graphics "with a data volume of up to 250 kilobytes " lie. The authors should be entitled to remuneration from the platform operators for the use of their works within the de minimis limits. Users should also be able to use “pre-flagging” uploads to indicate that their contributions are legal uploads, and a new restriction is to be introduced for the creation of caricatures, parodies and pastiches . In addition, platform operators should increasingly seek blanket licenses from collecting societies .

literature

Web links

Commons : EU Copyright Reform  - Collection of Images, Videos and Audio Files

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Jessica von Blazekovic: Thousands of people protest against copyright reform . In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung . faz.net, February 19, 2019, accessed February 20, 2019 .
  2. ^ EU copyright reform - protests against Article 13. In: deutschlandfunk.de. Retrieved March 3, 2019 .
  3. ↑ a b EU Parliament fully approves the Copyright Directive. Spiegel Online , March 26, 2019, accessed March 26, 2019 .
  4. ↑ Christian Meier: The way is clear for a Europe-wide uniform copyright. In: The world. Axel Springer , June 20, 2018, accessed on February 20, 2019 .
  5. ↑ ZEIT ONLINE: EU copyright reform: EU judicial committee approves controversial compromise . In: The time . February 26, 2019, ISSN  0044-2070 ( zeit.de [accessed March 3, 2019]).
  6. ↑ Communication from the Commission on content in the digital single market. COM (2012) 789 final. (PDF) European Commission , December 18, 2012, accessed on February 20, 2019 : “The digital economy has been an important growth factor in the past two decades and is expected to grow seven times faster than the EU's GDP in the coming years. In the online world there are new ways of offering, creating and distributing content and new ways of adding value. The emergence of new business models that harness the potential of the Internet to deliver content is both a challenge and an opportunity for creative industries, authors and artists as well as other players in the digital economy. With this in mind, one of the Commission's goals is to ensure that copyright and related practices such as licensing continue to serve their purpose in this new digital environment. "
  7. ↑ Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the digital single market. European Commission , September 14, 2016, accessed on February 20, 2019 : “The development of digital technologies has led to changes in the creation, production, distribution and exploitation of works and other subject matter. There are new forms of use as well as new actors and business models. In the digital environment, cross-border use has also increased and new ways of accessing copyrighted content have emerged for consumers. While the objectives and principles already set out in EU copyright law remain valid, certain adjustments to these new realities are required. Measures at EU level are also necessary to prevent fragmentation of the internal market. "
  8. ↑ Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the digital single market. European Commission , September 14, 2016, accessed on March 1, 2019 : “The development of digital technologies [sic] has led to the emergence of new business models and strengthened the role of the Internet as the most important market for the distribution and access to copyrighted content. In this new environment, rightsholders face difficulties in seeking licensing of their rights and remuneration for distributing their works over the Internet. This could jeopardize the development of creativity and the production of creative content in Europe. It must therefore be guaranteed that authors and rights holders receive a fair share of the added value generated by the exploitation of their works and other subject matter. "
  9. ↑ Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the digital single market. European Commission , September 14, 2016, accessed on February 20, 2019 : “Exceptions to copyrights and related rights and restrictions on these rights are harmonized at EU level. Some of these exceptions serve to achieve general government policy goals, e.g. B. in research or education. However, as new types of use have emerged recently, it is not yet certain whether these exemptions are still appropriate to strike a fair balance between the rights and interests of authors and other rightholders on the one hand and those of users on the other Side to worry. In addition, these exceptions only apply at national level and legal certainty in the case of cross-border uses is not guaranteed. "
  10. ↑ Directive 2001/29 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of May 22, 2001 on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. In: EUR-Lex . Publications Office of the European Union , 10 October 2017, retrieved on 20 February 2019 (Article 13 (1)): “Member States shall adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive before 22 December 2002. You will inform the Commission immediately. "
  11. ↑ A Digital Agenda for Europe. COM (2010) 245 final. European Commission , January 11, 2010, p. 10 , accessed on February 22, 2019 : "Key action 1: Simplification of the clarification, administration and cross-border licensing of copyrights: - Improvement of administration, transparency and Europe-wide licensing for (online) rights administration by submitting a proposal for a framework directive on collective management by 2010; - Creation of a legal framework to facilitate the digitization and dissemination of cultural works in Europe through a proposal for a directive on orphan works by 2010, holding a dialogue with stakeholders about further measures on out-of-print works, supplemented by rights information databases; - by 2012: review of the Directive on the re-use of public sector information, in particular its scope and its principles for access and usage charges. "
  12. ↑ A Single Market for Intellectual Property Rights Promoting creativity and innovation to ensure economic growth, quality jobs and quality products and services in Europe. European Commission , May 24, 2011, p. 4 , accessed on February 22, 2019 : “The creation of a comprehensive, integrated internal market for intellectual property rights is one of the most concrete ways of tapping the potential of European inventors and creators and integrating them To be able to transform ideas into high quality jobs and economic growth. "
  13. ↑ ECJ stops upload filters for social networks . In: Süddeutsche Zeitung . February 16, 2012, ISSN  0174-4917 ( sueddeutsche.de [accessed January 4, 2019]).
  14. ↑ Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the digital single market. European Commission , September 14, 2016, accessed on February 22, 2019 : “The Commission carried out a review of the existing copyright law between 2013 and 2016 to“ ensure that copyright and related practices [such as licensing] are also used in this new digital Environment continue to fulfill their purpose ""
  15. ↑ Public consultation to review the rules on EU copyright law. (No longer available online.) European Commission , July 23, 2014, archived from the original on January 9, 2017 ; accessed on February 20, 2019 (German, English, French).
  16. ^ Report on the responses to the Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules. (PDF) Summary report. (No longer available online.) European Commission , July 2014, archived from the original on June 23, 2018 ; accessed on February 20, 2019 (English).
  17. ↑ Responses to the Public Consultation on the regulatory environment for platforms, online intermediaries, data and cloud computing and the collaborative economy. European Commission , February 2, 2016, accessed on February 21, 2019 .
  18. ^ Synopsis Report on the Public Consultation on the Regulatory Environment for Platforms, Online Intermediaries and the Collaborative Economy. (PDF) European Commission , May 25, 2016, accessed on February 20, 2019 .
  19. ↑ Public consultation on the role of publishers in the copyright value chain and on the "panorama exception". European Commission , accessed February 20, 2019 .
  20. ↑ Summary report on the results of the public consultation on the role of publishers in the copyright value chain. (PDF) European Commission , September 14, 2016, accessed on February 21, 2019 .
  21. ↑ Summary report on the results of the public consultation on the “Panoramic Exception”. (PDF) European Commission , September 14, 2016, accessed on February 21, 2019 .
  22. ↑ Jean-Paul Triaille, Séverine Dusollier, Sari Depreeuw, Jean-Benoit Hubin, François Coppens, Amélie de Francquen, De Wolf & Partners: Study on the application of Directive 2001/29 / EC on copyright and related rights in the information society ( the “Infosoc Directive”) . Ed .: European Commission . 2013, ISBN 978-92-79-29918-6 , doi : 10.2780 / 90141 (English, publications.europa.eu [PDF; 5.9 MB ]).
  23. ↑ Sari Depreeuw, Jean-Benoît Hubin, De Wolf & Partners: Study on the making available right and its relationship with the reproduction right in cross-order digital transmissions . Ed .: European Commission . 2014, ISBN 978-92-79-33045-2 , doi : 10.2780 / 20538 (English, publications.europa.eu [PDF; 1.6 MB ; accessed on February 22, 2019]).
  24. ^ Gregor Langus, Damien Neven, Gareth Shier, Charles River Associates: Assessing the economic impacts of adapting certain limitations and exceptions to copyright and related rights in the EU . Ed .: European Commission . 2013, ISBN 978-92-79-29919-3 , doi : 10.2780 / 90295 (English, publications.europa.eu [PDF; 1,4 MB ; accessed on February 21, 2019]).
  25. ↑ Julian Boulanger, Alexandre Carbonnel, Raphaël De Coninck, Gregor Langus, Charles River Associates: Assessing the economic impacts of adapting certain limitations and exceptions to copyright and related rights in the EU: Analysis of specific policy options . Ed .: European Commission . 2014, ISBN 978-92-79-33044-5 , doi : 10.2780 / 20222 (English, publications.europa.eu [PDF; 1,3 MB ; accessed on February 21, 2019]).
  26. ↑ Lucie Guibault, Olivia Salamanca, Stef van Gompel: Remuneration of authors and performers for the use of their works and the fixations of their performances . Ed .: European Commission . 2015, ISBN 978-92-79-47162-9 , doi : 10.2759 / 834167 (English, publications.europa.eu [PDF; 5.8 MB ; accessed on February 22, 2019]).
  27. ↑ Lucie Guibault, Olivia Salamanca, IViR .: Remuneration of authors of books and scientific journals, translators, journalists and visual artists for the use of their works . Ed .: European Commission . 2017, ISBN 978-92-79-54129-2 , doi : 10.2759 / 14126 (English, publications.europa.eu [PDF; 4.7 MB ; accessed on February 22, 2019]).
  28. ↑ Jean-Paul Triaille, Jérôme de Meeûs d'Argenteuil, Amélie de Francquen, De Wolf & Partners: Study on the legal framework of text and data mining (TDM) . Ed .: European Commission . 2014, ISBN 978-92-79-31976-1 , doi : 10.2780 / 1475 (English, publications.europa.eu [PDF; 1.5 MB ; accessed on February 22, 2019]).
  29. ^ Copyright rules for the digital environment: Council agrees its position. Press release. Council of the European Union , May 25, 2019, accessed on February 24, 2019 .
  30. ↑ Axel Voss: Report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the digital single market. A8-0245 / 2018. European Parliament , June 29, 2018, accessed on February 24, 2019 (German, Bulgarian, Spanish, Czech, Danish, Estonian, Greek, English, French, Croatian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Maltese, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese , Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Finnish, Swedish): "Date of acceptance: 20.6.2018"
  31. ↑ Axel Voss: Report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the digital single market - Amendment 77. A8-0245 / 2018. European Parliament , June 29, 2018, accessed on February 24, 2019 (German, Bulgarian, Spanish, Czech, Danish, Estonian, Greek, English, French, Croatian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Maltese, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese , Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Finnish, Swedish): “The providers of online content distribution services in accordance with Paragraph -1 shall, in consultation with the rightholders, take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure that license agreements concluded with the rightholders, in which the use of their works or other Subjects of protection with regard to these services are regulated. "
  32. ↑ Minutes of the meeting of the European Parliament on 5 July 2018 - agenda item 6.4 - Decision on the opening of interinstitutional negotiations: Copyright in the digital single market (vote). European Parliament , November 21, 2018, accessed on February 24, 2019 (German, Bulgarian, Spanish, Czech, Danish, Estonian, Greek, English, French, Croatian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Maltese, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese (Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Finnish, Swedish): "DECISION ON OPENING INTERINSTITUTIONAL NEGOTIATIONS: Rejected" Mitschmitt of the plenary session on July 5, 2018. From 2:33. European Parliament , July 5, 2018, accessed on February 24, 2019 (German, Bulgarian, Spanish, Czech, Danish, Estonian, Greek, English, French, Croatian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Maltese, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese , Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Finnish, Swedish).
  33. ↑ Amendments of the European Parliament of 12 September 2018 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the digital single market (COM (2016) 0593 - C8-0383 / 2016 - 2016/0280 (COD)). P8_TA-PROV (2018) 0337. In: Texts adopted (preliminary version). European Parliament , September 12, 2018, accessed on February 24, 2019 (German, Bulgarian, Spanish, Czech, Danish, Estonian, Greek, English, French, Croatian, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Maltese, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese , Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Finnish, Swedish).
  34. ↑ Voting behavior of the German EU parliamentarians on September 12, 2018 on parliamentwatch.de
  35. ↑ Lisa Hegemann: You are no longer allowed to quote this heading in future. In: Zeit Online . September 12, 2018, accessed on February 24, 2019 : “The approved version is now still in the trialogue, so it is being negotiated by the Council of the EU, EU Commission and Parliament. In the spring, the reform must then finally be passed by the EU Parliament "
  36. ^ Samuel Jackisch: Reform of copyright postponed. In: tagesschau.de. January 21, 2019, accessed on February 24, 2019 : “The negotiations planned for today between the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission have been canceled because the attitudes among the member states are too different. The reform is therefore on hold and will probably not be negotiated until after the European elections at the earliest. "
  37. ↑ EU copyright reform - negotiations suspended for the time being. In: deutschlandfunk.de. Retrieved March 3, 2019 .
  38. ↑ Printed matter 19/7469 German Bundestag January 2019.
  39. ^ Eva Fischer: Germany and France agree on reform of copyright law. In: handelsblatt.de. February 6, 2019, accessed February 24, 2019 .
  40. ^ Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Copyright in the Digital Single Market - Update of negotiating mandate. (PDF) Council document: 5893/19. In: politico.eu . February 4, 2019, accessed on February 24, 2019 (English, Article 11).
  41. ↑ Cosmin Boiangiu: Proposal for a Directive of the Europeam Parliament and of the Council on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. (PDF) Notification of COREPER's approval to the Chairman of the JURI Committee, Pavel Svoboda . In: emeeting.europarl.europa.eu. European Parliament , February 20, 2019, accessed on February 24, 2019 . Proposal for a Directive of the Europeam Parliament and of the Council on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. (PDF) Annex to the notification of the approval of COREPER to the chairman of the JURI committee . In: emeeting.europarl.europa.eu. European Parliament , February 20, 2019, accessed on February 24, 2019 .
  42. ↑ Statement of the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Poland, Italy and Finland to point 39 of the CRP I agenda of 20 February 2019 regarding the DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on copyright in the Digital Single Market. (PDF) Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the European Union, Brussels, February 20, 2019, accessed on February 26, 2019 .
  43. ↑ EU copyright, Article 13 and upload filter: Barley defends yes to EU reform , heise.de, February 22, 2019.
  44. ^ Reform of EU copyright law: EP Legal Affairs Committee approves agreement with Council. European Parliament , February 26, 2019, accessed on March 1, 2019 . Committee on Legal Affairs JURI - Committee meeting. European Parliament , February 26, 2019, accessed on March 1, 2019 .
  45. ↑ EU copyright reform finally decided. In: Heise online . dpa , April 15, 2019, accessed on April 15, 2019 .
  46. ↑ Wrongly selected for copyright. Retrieved March 30, 2019 .
  47. ↑ MPs subsequently change voting behavior on copyright. Retrieved March 30, 2019 .
  48. ↑ After the vote, the MPs were able to put a vote change on the record, but this was not counted.
  49. ↑ a b c Voting behavior on March 26, 2019 (from page 52) and corrections (end of page 53)
  50. ↑ Alexander Kant: Article 13: EU Council for Agriculture votes on controversial reform. In: Netzwelt. April 2, 2019, accessed February 2, 2020 .
  51. ^ Motions by the FDP and the Left on the EU's Copyright Directive. German Bundestag, April 2, 2019, accessed on February 2, 2020 .
  52. ↑ Friedhelm Greis: Merkel confirms her approval of upload filters. In: golem.de. April 10, 2019, accessed February 2, 2020 .
  53. ↑ Barley wants to agree to controversial copyright reform. MDR, April 15, 2019, accessed February 2, 2020 .
  54. ↑ Jan Petter: Yes to upload filters! No to upload filters! Why you can write off the SPD before the European elections. In: Bento. April 7, 2019, accessed February 2, 2020 .
  55. ^ Coalition wants to supplement EU copyright reform. Reuters, April 15, 2019, accessed February 2, 2020 .
  56. ↑ Declaration by the Federal Republic of Germany on the Directive on Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Single Market; in particular on Article 17 of the Directive. (PDF; 122 kB) Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, accessed on December 23, 2019 .
  57. ↑ The population proportions of the individual member states were taken from the rules of procedure of the Council of the European Union: Rules of Procedure , accessed on April 18, 2019.
  58. ^ Poland: lawsuit against EU copyright reform. WDR, May 24, 2019, accessed June 3, 2019 .
  59. ↑ Lisa Hegemann: And what will happen to the Internet now? In: ZEIT ONLINE. ZEIT ONLINE GmbH, December 13, 2018, p. 1 , accessed on March 1, 2019 : "Online services should pay when they distribute clippings from press articles. [...] Critics speak here of a potential "link tax", through which they see the sharing of texts on the Internet at risk - even if the term is misleading because it is not a state tax. "
  60. ↑ DIRECTIVE (EU) 2019/790 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of April 17, 2019 on copyright and related rights in the digital single market and amending Directives 96/9 / EC and 2001/29 / EC. Retrieved November 13, 2019 .
  61. ^ The copyright reform and Article 12 - publishers should make money again. WILDE BEUGER SOLMECKE Rechtsanwälte, March 11, 2019, accessed on March 22, 2019 .
  62. ↑ eur-lex.europa.eu
  63. ↑ ECJ, judgment v. February 16, 2012 , Case C – 360/10, ECLI: EU: C: 2012: 85 :
    “The Directives
    - 2000/31 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 8, 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services , in particular electronic commerce, in the internal market (Directive on electronic commerce),
    - 2001/29 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society and
    - 2004 / 48 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 29, 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights
    are to be interpreted, with an overall view and an interpretation with regard to the requirements resulting from the protection of the applicable fundamental rights, that they comply with the order a national court to a hosting provider oppose a system of filtering
    - which is used by users of its services on its S ervern stored information,
    - which can be applied indiscriminately to all these users,
    - preventive,
    - solely at their own expense and
    - to
    set up indefinitely , with which files can be determined that contain musical, cinematic or audiovisual works to which the applicant has rights of to have claimed intellectual property in order to prevent the said works from being made available to the public in violation of copyright law. "
  64. ↑ Press release of the German Cultural Council: Copyright in the Digital Single Market - Position of the German Cultural Council on the trialogue negotiations on the proposal for a directive on copyright in the digital single market | German Cultural Council. Retrieved March 3, 2019 .
  65. ↑ Press release of the German Music Council: EU copyright law: German Music Council and Regional Music Council of North Rhine-Westphalia welcome agreement between the EU states. Retrieved March 3, 2019 .
  66. ↑ Press release by the media, art and industry section at ver.di: YES to the EU copyright directive. Retrieved March 3, 2019 .
  67. ↑ Press release of the Association of German Scriptwriters: EU copyright law: Something will change in Europe - in favor of those involved in the arts | Association of German Scriptwriters eV (VDD). Retrieved March 3, 2019 .
  68. ↑ BFF press release: The EU has decided on the future of copyright law - clear the way for compliance on the Internet. · News · BFF. Retrieved March 3, 2019 .
  69. ↑ Wording of the appeal: Copyright initiative: »Agree to the guideline!« At buchreport.de. March 1, 2019, accessed March 3, 2019 .
  70. ↑ EU should clear the way. German Journalists Association , February 7, 2019, accessed on March 3, 2019 .
  71. ↑ heise online: 260 organizations support the copyright reform. Retrieved June 19, 2020 .
  72. ↑ Directive on copyright is an important step for creatives and their associations in Europe on the Ver.di website from February 14, 2019.
  73. ↑ Clear the way . In: Börsenblatt for the German book trade . February 25, 2019.
  74. ↑ Documentary Film Working Group , Alliance of German Designers , Federal Association of Visual Artists et al .: YES to the EU Copyright Directive. (PDF) Verwertungsgesellschaft Musikedition , accessed on March 3, 2019 (German, English).
  75. ↑ Sascha Lobo : Let's not fall for this fake reform! In: Spiegel online. March 20, 2019, accessed March 22, 2019 .
  76. ↑ Access Info Europe , Allied for Startups , Civil Liberties Union for Europe , Copyright for Creativity et al .: Call to Members of the European Parliament - Europe's citizens, startups, human rights organizations, publishers, creators, educators, cultural heritage professionals, librarians , and researchers ask for your support. (PDF) In: copybuzz.com. Copyright for Creativity , July 2018, accessed February 24, 2019 .
  77. ↑ heise online: Copyright filter: EU reporter Voss accuses opponents of “fake news”. Retrieved July 3, 2018 .
  78. ^ NN : Online News Aggregation and Neighboring Rights for News Publishers. (PDF) December 20, 2017, accessed on February 24, 2019 (English, Ref. Ares (2017) 6256585): “The available empirical evidence shows that newspapers actually benefit from news aggregation platforms in terms of increased traffic to newspaper websites and more advertising revenue. "
  79. ↑ ore: Google News switched off in Spain: No money for publishers. December 17, 2014, accessed May 7, 2019 .
  80. ↑ Patrick Beuth: Ancillary copyright for press publishers: The government is dragging its balance sheet. June 1, 2018, accessed May 7, 2019 .
  81. ↑ Patrick Beuth: Collateral damage of a nonsensical law. July 20, 2016, accessed May 7, 2019 .
  82. ↑ Bitkom , Federal Association of Consumer Organizations , Wikimedia Germany , Federal Association of German Startups , Federal Association of the Digital Economy , Federal Association of IT Mittelstand , Federal Association of Medium-Sized Enterprises , Chaos Computer Club , D64 - Center for Digital Progress , Working Group against Internet Blocking and Censorship , German Founders Association , Digital Society , eco - Association of the Internet Industry , Youth Press Germany , Open Knowledge Foundation Germany : Prevent European upload filter regulations. (PDF) open letter . February 27, 2018, accessed February 24, 2019 .
  83. ↑ Markus Balser, Karoline Meta Beisel, Jacqueline Lang, Robert Roßmann: The number of doubters is growing. In: www.sueddeutsche.de. March 6, 2019, accessed March 23, 2019 .
  84. ↑ Critics are storming against EU copyright law. In: n-tv NEWS. June 16, 2018, accessed March 17, 2019 .
  85. ↑ Martin Kretschmer, Martin Husovec, Lionel Bently et al .: Copyright Reform: Open Letter from the European Research Center. EU Copyright Reform Proposals Unfit for the Digital Age. (PDF) In: www.create.ac.uk/. February 24, 2017. Retrieved March 29, 2019 .
  86. ↑ Martin Kretschmer, Martin Husovec, Lionel Bently et al .: Copyright Reform: Open Letter # 2 from European Research Centers. The Copyright Directive is failing. (PDF) In: www.create.ac.uk/. April 26, 2018. Retrieved March 29, 2019 .
  87. ↑ Martin Kretschmer, Martin Husovec, Lionel Bently et al .: The Copyright Directive: Academic statement. The Copyright Directive: Misinformation and Independent Inquiry. (PDF) In: www.create.ac.uk/. June 29, 2018. Retrieved March 29, 2019 .
  88. ↑ Dorothee Bär , Thomas Jarzombek , Laura-Kristine Krause , Jörg Müller-Lietzkow , Nico Lumma , Ann-Cathrin Riedel : URGENT - Voting on copyright: prevent upload filters and ancillary copyright. (PDF) In: load-ev.de. LOAD eV , June 29, 2018, accessed on February 24, 2019 .
  89. ^ A new departure for Europe, a new dynamic for Germany, a new cohesion for our country, coalition agreement between CDU, CSU and SPD, 19th legislative period . Berlin March 12, 2018, OCLC 1027776577 , Chapter Offensive for Education, Research and Digitization, Section Digitization, Paragraph Digital Europe, p. 49 , lines 2212ff ( cdu.de [PDF]).
  90. ↑ Jürgen Taeger: The character of the internet would change permanently. Press release. University of Oldenburg, February 19, 2019, accessed on February 24, 2019 (Received by t3n : Comment - EU Copyright Reform: Your Last Chance to Save the Net , March 17, 2019): “These service providers should now be liable for this, if without License copyrighted works to be uploaded by users. In future, you should be obliged to check files before uploading them to see whether they infringe copyrights. This ultimately boils down to having to use upload filter software. Google had already developed such a filter for YouTube with a three-digit million amount. This algorithm will have to be refined, which will again be associated with considerable costs. Google will market this algorithm to other platform operators, although smaller providers will find it difficult to afford the high license costs. I fear that this measure will also help to increase the market power of the large providers. "
  91. ↑ Christian Solmecke , Anne-Christine Herr: Better no compromise than a bad one. In: Legal Tribune Online . March 6, 2019, accessed on March 6, 2019 : “If the rights holders are not willing to allow their works to be used on the Internet, the platforms concerned must make“ best efforts ”to generally prevent the upload of such content. For this, the rights holders would have to make their works available for comparison. The word "upload filter" is not in the legal text. However, there is no other way to prevent illegal uploads. "
  92. ↑ ECJ, judgment of November 16, 2016 , case C ‑ 301/15. ECLI: EU: C: 2016: 878
  93. ↑ Christian Solmecke , Anne-Christine Herr: Better no compromise than a bad one. In: Legal Tribune Online . March 6, 2019, accessed on March 6, 2019 : “The problem that not all authors have commissioned the respective collecting societies to exercise their rights can be circumvented with the new Article 9a. According to this, member states should be allowed to pretend that all rights holders are first represented by a collecting society, as long as they do not contradict this. Such systems are already common in Scandinavia, for example, but are endangered by a recent ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) (ruling of November 16, 2016, case C-301/15 - Soulier & Doke).
    According to MEP and pirate politician Julia Reda, Article 9a has never been discussed as a means of enforcing Article 13. It is also unlikely that Germany will make use of this option. "
  94. ↑ Christian Solmecke , Anne-Christine Herr: Better no compromise than a bad one. In: Legal Tribune Online . March 6, 2019, accessed on March 6, 2019 : “Even more serious, however, are the disadvantages of the upload filter. The only system that comes close to working at the moment is "Content ID". Google had it developed for $ 100 million to recognize music on YouTube. "
  95. ↑ Stefan Krempl: EU-Copyright-Reform: "The Internet in Europe is broken down". In: www.heise.de. February 14, 2019, accessed March 23, 2019 .
  96. ↑ Axel Voss: Agreement on copyright. In: axel-voss-europa.de. February 14, 2019, accessed on February 24, 2019 : “Platforms are now being held more liable. “Online platforms that make profit through the use of copyrighted works should be responsible for the content uploaded. In future, the platforms will be liable for copyright infringements that take place on their pages. This has nothing to do with 'filters', as is propagated by some supporters of lawless spaces on the Internet, "explains Voss."
  97. ↑ Sascha Lobo: Angela Merkel's digital policy: jokes about own failure . Interview with Helga Trüpel , from 7:27 am. In: Spiegel Online , SoundCloud (Ed.): The SPIEGEL ONLINE debate podcast . February 24, 2019 ( soundcloud.com ).
  98. ↑ tagesspiegel.de
  99. ↑ heise online: Wikimedia: EU copyright reform inhibits the free dissemination of knowledge. Retrieved March 17, 2018 .
  100. ↑ Barbara Wimmer: Without an upload filter, no Wikipedia? EU negotiates copyright reform . ( futurezone.de [accessed on March 17, 2018]).
  101. ↑ Jasmin Körber: EU copyright reform: Wikipedia creators criticize planned upload filters. (No longer available online.) In: BR.de. Bayrischer Rundfunk, January 12, 2018, archived from the original on June 21, 2018 ; accessed on March 17, 2018 .
  102. ↑ Reform of the copyright law also harbors data protection risks. In: bfdi.bund.de. Federal Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information , February 26, 2019, accessed on February 27, 2019 : “Ultimately, this would create an oligopoly of fewer providers of filter technology, through which more or less all of the Internet traffic of relevant platforms and services would then run. The extensive information they then receive about all users is illustrated, among other things, by the current reporting on the data transfer from health apps to Facebook. "
  103. ↑ Pitt von Bebenburg: Robbery of intellectual work . In: Frankfurter Rundschau . March 22, 2019.
  104. ↑ Friedhelm Greis: Upload filter: Almost 5 million signatures against copyright reform. February 18, 2019, accessed February 28, 2019 .
  105. ^ Ansgar Lahmann (change.org eV): 5 million signatures, Wikipedia blackout and Europe-wide demonstrations on Saturday. In: PT magazine . OPS Netzwerk GmbH, March 21, 2019, accessed on March 22, 2019 .
  106. ↑ a b EU copyright reform: Wikipedia is offline. "Five million support a petition" section. In: Zeit Online. March 21, 2019, accessed March 22, 2019 .
  107. ↑ The Copyright Directive: how the mob was told to save the dragon and slay the knight ( Memento from February 15, 2019 in the Internet Archive )
  108. ↑ Friedhelm Greis: Upload filter: EU Commission describes reform critics as "mob". Golem Media GmbH, February 16, 2019, accessed on March 9, 2019 .
  109. ^ Stefan Krempl: EU-Copyright-Reform: The "Mob" raises its head against upload filters. In: Heise online . February 18, 2019, accessed February 26, 2019 .
  110. ↑ a b red / dpa / noa: Deletion rumors about Youtube: This is behind the hysteria in the network. November 8, 2018, accessed March 20, 2019 .
  111. ↑ Carina Schmihing: Youtuber: How PietSmiet, RobBubble and Co. defend themselves against Article 13. In: New Westphalian. Newspaper publisher Neue Westfälische, February 23, 2019, accessed on March 3, 2019 .
  112. ↑ Friedhelm Greis: Uploadfilter: Reform threatens forums and teaching material offers on the Internet. March 10, 2019, accessed March 20, 2019 .
  113. ↑ Panagiotis Kolokythas: Article 13: The end of Youtube & Co ... does not threaten. In: PC world. November 9, 2018, accessed May 7, 2019 .
  114. ↑ Markus Böhm: Dispute over EU copyright law: YouTubers want to take to the streets against Article 13 . In: Spiegel Online . February 14, 2019 ( spiegel.de [accessed March 4, 2019]).
  115. ^ Demonstration against EU copyright reform. Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, March 2, 2019, accessed on March 5, 2019 : "Around 3,500 people demonstrated in Berlin against the planned EU copyright reform."
  116. ^ A b Julian Ork: Demonstration against EU copyright reform. Handelsblatt, March 2, 2019, accessed on March 5, 2019 : "We are the bots," it echoes again and again in front of the Axel Springer headquarters in Berlin. "
  117. ↑ a b Torsten Kleinz: "This bot goes to vote" - 3000 demonstrate in Cologne against copyright reform. In: Heise Online . February 23, 2019, accessed February 27, 2018 .
  118. ^ Stefan Krempl: Upload filter and Article 13: EU legal politicians advocate copyright reform. In: Heise Online . February 26, 2019, accessed February 27, 2019 .
  119. ↑ Stefan Krempl: Protests against upload filters: Union wants to prefer voting on EU copyright. In: heise online. Heise Medien, March 4, 2019, accessed on March 5, 2019 .
  120. ↑ tagesspiegel.de
  121. ↑ Demos. In: Savetheinternet.info. Retrieved March 5, 2019 .
  122. ↑ SaveTheInternet
  123. ↑ Pirate Party signs demo call against upload filter on SaveTheInternet. Pirate Party Germany, February 26, 2019, accessed on March 1, 2019 .
  124. ↑ Patrick Beuth: Demo against copyright reform: warming up for the next Acta moment. Spiegel Online, March 3, 2019, accessed March 5, 2019 .
  125. ↑ EU copyright reform: tens of thousands call for Article 13 - tagesschau.de. Retrieved March 23, 2019 .
  126. ↑ a b golem.de
  127. ↑ sueddeutsche.de
  128. ↑ netzpolitik.org
  129. ↑ zdf.de
  130. ^ Benjamin Emonts: Why Wikipedia goes offline . In: sueddeutsche.de . 2019, ISSN  0174-4917 ( sueddeutsche.de [accessed on March 20, 2019]).
  131. ↑ Christina Nordvang Jensen: Dansk Wikipedia lukker ned i et døgn i protest mod omstridt copyright-lov. Danmarks Radio , March 21, 2019, accessed on March 22, 2019 (Danish).
  132. ↑ Daniela Lazarová: Czech Wikipedia to shut down on Thursday over EU copyright reform. Radio Praha , March 18, 2019, accessed on March 22, 2019 (English).
  133. ↑ Czech Radio, Radio Prague: Protest: Czech Wikipedia switched off. March 21, 2019, accessed March 22, 2019 .
  134. ^ Prepare for the shutdown of Slovak Wikipedia. SME , March 20, 2019, accessed March 22, 2019 .
  135. ↑ Copyright, oscurato Wikipedia in Italia. ANSA , March 25, 2019, accessed March 25, 2019 (Italian).
  136. ↑ Oliver Bünte: Actions against EU copyright reform: (Not only) German-language Wikipedia protests. Heise online , March 21, 2019, accessed on March 22, 2019 .
  137. ↑ The EU copyright directive harms OpenStreetMap. In: OpenStreetMap Germany. March 7, 2019, accessed March 22, 2019 .
  138. ^ Friedhelm Greis: EU copyright reform comes into force. In: golem.de. June 6, 2019, accessed February 2, 2020 .
  139. ^ Helen Bielawa: Copyright reform: draft provides for narrow exceptions. In: t3n. January 20, 2020, accessed February 2, 2020 .
  140. ↑ Second law to adapt copyright law to the requirements of the digital single market. Discussion draft. In: BMJV.de. Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection , June 24, 2020, accessed on July 17, 2020 .
  141. ↑ Stefan Krempl: Article 17: Ministry of Justice wants to make upload filters largely superfluous. In: Heise online . June 24, 2020, accessed July 12, 2020 .