IGEL - RSS-Feed http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/feed de Vorschlag aus Großbritannien: Facebook und Google als Verlage behandeln http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-10-18/vorschlag-aus-gro-britannien-facebook-und-google-als-verlage-behandeln <p> Vergangene Woche wurden Überlegungen aus Großbritannien zur Regulierung von sozialen Medien bekannt. Man denke darüber nach, Google, Facebook und Co. als Verlage einzustufen, um sie so strengeren Kontrollfpflichten zu unterwerfen. Im Interview mit dem Deutschlandfunk Kultur machte Dr. Till Kreutzer deutlich, dass er dies für den ganz falschen Schritt hält. <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-10-18/vorschlag-aus-gro-britannien-facebook-und-google-als-verlage-behandeln" title="Den Rest von Vorschlag aus Großbritannien: Facebook und Google als Verlage behandeln lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> Deutschlandfunk Kultur Dr. Till Kreutzer OfCom Facebook Google Regulierung Soziale Netzwerke Creative Commons Wed, 18 Oct 2017 09:56:21 +0000 Tom Hirche 2381 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info European Parliament's study suggests abandonment of link tax http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-10-13/european-parliaments-study-suggests-abandonment-of-link-tax <p><body> <p> Now that is some good news! An independent study reviewing the publisher's right a.k.a. link tax that had been requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) has just been published this week. It confirms once and for all what we and others were saying for quite some time now: the link tax will be harmful and should therefore be abandoned right away.</p> <p> The authors of the study are Professor Lionel Bently, Professor Martin Kretschmer, Tobias Dudenbostel, María del Carmen Calatrava Moreno and Alfred Radauer. For their review, these experts focused on the academic criticism that has already been brought up in previous reports, especially in relation to the two similar laws in Germany and Spain. Furthermore, they conducted interviews with journalists and editorial leads of different online news publishers from these countries. However, some publishers are said to have refused to be interviewed due to "<em>differences of view between the online editions of the quality press and their mother publications</em>" (p. 29) in at least some cases.</p> <h3> Interviewees strongly against link tax</h3> <p> This strongly reminds us of Günther Oettinger's call on publishers to <a href="http://ancillarycopyright.eu/news/2016-09-28/oettinger-put-your-online-editors-silence">put their online editors to silence</a>. That is why MEP Julia Reda (Greens/EFA) <a href="https://juliareda.eu/2017/10/publishers-oppose-link-tax/">considers</a> the refusal a possible "<em>evidence of intense internal pressure within certain publishing houses to avoid engaging critically with this issue</em>". She also feels that "<em>if all online editors had felt at liberty to speak, the results of the study could have ended up even more damning than they already did</em>". We can only agree because the ones that answered to the questions basically ripped apart the idea of a publisher's right.</p> <p> The Director of Communication from a major Spanish publisher for example said: "<em>The Spanish law on intellectual property for press publishers has not changed the situation for journalists at all. In my opinion, the challenges that digital press is facing should be regulated by the market itself rather than by legislators. [...] Protective laws for press publishers might not be necessary.</em>" (p. 33)</p> <p> An editor-in-chief states: "<em>Paying for links is as absurd as paying for citations in the academic world would be. Citation is a well-established and common practice since centuries both in journalism and in academia. Of course, citations need to properly reference the author and the work. In online journalism, citations are not mere references to additional or more complete information, they also bring benefits for the cited organization or person. Therefore, it is ridiculous to ask for extra money for the person who cites.</em>" (p. 34)</p> <p> There are more such quotes that go along similar lines. The national laws were "<em>a mistake</em>" (p. 32), "<em>a monopoly-maintaining-device for Google</em>" (p. 36) and all in all "<em>non-sensical</em>" (p. 34).</p> <h3> Appraisal of the received answers</h3> <p> The authors have doubts whether the proposed link tax will reach the goal of securing a sustainable press: "<em>however successful, a right targeted at aggregators is not likely to achieve much. It is certainly not necessary for publishing entities to enter deals to supply news to social media platforms</em>". (p. 37) They also confirm that a definition of press publishers that includes academic journals "<em>could have serious negative implications for open access policies</em>". (p. 38) Moreover, they see no need for extending the publisher's right to cover print as well as digital uses and "<em>would caution strongly against any such extension</em>". (p. 39)</p> <p> The study also tackles the often-heard statement that hyperlinking will in no way be effected by the link tax––and busts it as a lie. It is shown that there already are cases in which the link will not be safe and that their nummber could become larger due to the fast-moving jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in this context. So far, "<em>none of the Committees have found the ideal solution to the conundrum</em>". (p. 41)</p> <h3> There is only one solution</h3> <p> All of their research has led the authors to the conclusion "<em>that the <strong>press publishers’ right be abandoned</strong> and <strong>replaced with a presumption</strong> that press publishers are entitled to copyright/use rights in the contents of their publications</em>". (p. 8) This is what former MEP and JURI-rapporteur Therese Comodini Cachia (EPP) <a href="http://ancillarycopyright.eu/news/2017-03-20/official-version-comodini-report-published">had already proposed</a> but what was then <a href="http://ancillarycopyright.eu/news/2017-07-09/parliaments-largest-group-fully-endorse-commissions-proposal-link-tax">thrown out</a> by her successor MEP Axel Voss (EPP). We (<a href="http://ancillarycopyright.eu/news/2016-11-23/how-solve-only-specific-problem-press-publishers-copyright-without-ancillary-copyright">still</a>) agree that a presumption of representation will be the best solution for helping the publishers fight (alleged) online piracy while not harming the freedom of information.</p> <h3> MEPs need to hear of the this!</h3> <p> The JURI happens to be in charge of the Copyright Directive in the European Parliament. For this very reason, it is of highest importance that every member of the Committee learns of the study's findings before they will vote on their final opinion. However, according to the current schedule the study will most likely be presented right after the vote, as Julia Reda <a href="https://juliareda.eu/2017/10/publishers-oppose-link-tax/">points out</a> on her blog. More shockingly, she also writes that "<em>the secretariat was unwilling to confirm whether this study – which was requested by the commitee in order to inform its work – will be presented to MEPs at all!</em>" We strongly hope that she and her political group will prevent another example of <a href="https://juliareda.eu/2017/09/secret-copyright-infringement-study/">intentionally ignored evidence</a>.</p> <p></p></body></p> European Parliament JURI hyperlink presumption research study Creative Commons Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:41:24 +0000 Tom Hirche 2383 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info Oettinger: "Mir liegt das Leistungsschutzrecht sehr am Herzen" http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-09-20/oettinger-mir-liegt-das-leistungsschutzrecht-sehr-am-herzen <p> Anfang dieser Woche fand in Stuttgart der Jahreskongress des Bundesverbands Deutscher Zeitungsverleger (BDZV) statt. Unmittelbar davor hatten die &quot;Stuttgarter Nachrichten&quot; ein Interview mit EU-Kommissar Günther Oettinger veröffentlicht, das bei vielen Verlegern für Freudentränen gesorgt haben wird. Denn der Politiker hat sich mal wieder für ein europäisches Verlegerrecht stark gemacht – undifferenziert und uninformiert wie eh und je. <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-09-20/oettinger-mir-liegt-das-leistungsschutzrecht-sehr-am-herzen" title="Den Rest von Oettinger: &quot;Mir liegt das Leistungsschutzrecht sehr am Herzen&quot; lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> Günther Oettinger Entwurf EU-Kommission Europa Lobby Richtlinie Verleger Creative Commons Tue, 19 Sep 2017 22:22:06 +0000 Tom Hirche 2379 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info The neighboring right for press publishers is a thread to Open Content and Open Access http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-09-06/the-neighboring-right-for-press-publishers-is-a-thread-to-open-content-and-open-access <p><body> <p> Back in July, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) of the EU parliament <a href="http://ancillarycopyright.eu/news/2017-07-21/itre-deceives-itself-attacking-research-and-open-access">suggested a few changes</a> to the Commission's initial proposal for a new publisher's right. One of them is to remove the explicit exception for academic and scientific publications as found in recital 33 of the <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0593&amp;from=DE">draft directive.</a> This combined with the already extensive COM proposal would result in a tremendous threat to Open Content and Open Access publishing.</p> <p> <strong>A thicket of rights</strong></p> <p> Open Content and Open Access publishing are on the rise. Every day, thousands of authors, musicians, academics, artists, scientists etc. license their works under public licenses like <a href="https://creativecommons.org/">Creative Commons</a>. Hereby they voluntarily enable a free use of their music, articles, photos and other content. This trend leads to an ever-growing commons of knowledge that is publicly available for everybody. The very foundation of this development is that the authors are able to decide on their own about the conditions for the use of their works.</p> <p> This initial situation would change if the EU enacted a publisher's right. This right, no matter if you call it an ancillary right or a neighboring right, adds an additional layer of rights on the content that copyright already protects. The publishers publishes an academic's text and – ta-da! – is awarded an own, generally independent, protection right. So, now the text is double-protected: One right belongs to the author and the other to the publisher. Since the text and its publication are indistinguishable from a legal perspective suddenly two layers of rights for the same subject matter accrue that have two different right holders. It is obvious that these rights will interfere. And this is going to be a huge problem.</p> <p> <strong>Effects on Open Access</strong></p> <p> At this time, nobody can predict what effects the publisher's right would have on the copyright/author's right in detail. Even less clear is how an introduction of such a right would affect Open Content and Open Access licensing. Obviously nobody has spent much thinking on this specific issue.</p> <p> <b>No Open Content license in the world considers an ancillary copyright for press publishers</b></p> <p> One obvious side-effect would be the legal uncertainty that will arise about the question whether or not publisher's rights are covered by established licenses like Creative Commons (CC). Imagine this constellation: An author has published his academic paper in an Open Access repository after first publication in a scientific journal. Both parties agreed on the second publication. Suddenly the new retro-active neighboring right for academic and press publishers comes into force. The effect is that the publisher receives his own exclusive right in the paper. A right that never existed before. </p> <p> Here are some of the questions that would arise: Can the Open Access publication of this paper still be used under the Open Content license? Has the publisher a right to stop its use? Can his rights be considered as implied licensed although the right did not even exist when the publisher made his publishing decision? </p> <p> Nobody can answer these questions which are essential for the legality and effectiveness of Open license decisions. No existent Open Content license considers publisher's rights explicitly and it is very doubtful that they fit seamlessly into the current licensing schemes. Until the licenses are not revised (which can take years) there will be plenty of legal uncertainty.</p> <p> <b>Collision of the author's and the publisher's rights</b></p> <p> The unclear relationship between a publisher's right and the author's right would cause much more detriments. If every sentence, headline, paragraph is protected by a publisher's right how can I – as an author – write and publish with legal certainty? How can I know whether this or that phrase is not already protected?</p> <p> Open publications would be particularly threatened by such insanely extensive protection. Being freely available on the Internet they are totally exposed to law enforcement. One can easily imagine the rise of business models for copyright (or rather publisher's right) trolls who screen web publications for alleged infringements and sue authors and other publishers.</p> <p> <b>The prerogative rule (Art. 11 para 2)</b></p> <p> The EU wants to prevent interferences between the author's and the publisher's right in favor of the author by providing a clause you could call a “prerogative rule”. Simply put it shall mean: If an author's and a publisher's right interfere, the author's right trumps the publisher's right. </p> <p> You will find the wording in the <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=17200">commission's proposal</a> in Art. 11 para 2: </p> <blockquote><p> <em>“The [publisher's right] shall leave intact and shall in no way affect any rights provided for in Union law to authors and other rightholders, in respect of the works and other subject-matter incorporated in a press publication. Such rights may not be invoked against those authors and other rightholders and, in particular, may not deprive them of their right to exploit their works and other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated.”</em></p> </blockquote> <p> This prerogative rule in the legal text is backed up by recital 35 that reads:</p> <blockquote><p> <em>"The protection granted to publishers of press publications under this Directive should not affect the rights of the authors and other rightholders in the works and other subject-matter incorporated therein, including as regards the extent to which authors and other rightholders can exploit their works or other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated. Therefore, publishers of press publications should not be able to invoke the protection granted to them against authors and other rightholders. This is without prejudice to contractual arrangements concluded between the publishers of press publications, on the one side, and authors and other rightholders, on the other side."</em></p> </blockquote> <p> This rather odd solution – as simple and straightforward it might seem at first glance – needs further analysis. Already a second brief glance reveals its major flaw: According to the last sentence, the prerogative rule can be overruled by contract. This decision will lead in a very large number of cases to the effect that the principle of the author's prerogative is turned upside down. Far most authors who contract with a publisher cannot determine the contractual rules for the licensing, publication and remuneration. Just think about free journalists, photographers or translators. They sign what they are given by the publisher. And the publishers will overrule the prerogative on a general basis in their standard author contracts.</p> <p> This leaves those cases where non-professionals and the rare professional authors publish exclusively themselves. Here, normally no publisher is involved (so no publisher's right exists) or the author is also the publisher and both rights are in the same hands.</p> <p> But there are still numerous cases of (simultaneous or non-simultaneous) double publications, like in the above mentioned Open Access scenario. Here, the prerogative rule has to prove its worth. The problem is, however: It leaves all relevant questions open. It is utterly unclear what legal effect the rule is supposed to have on particular constellations. That is a real problem. Fact is that all publications consist of, mostly copyright protected, content that was created by authors. Every time something gets published by a third party (which meets the broad definition of a news, academic or other publisher) this fundamental conflict between the copyright and the publisher's right will occur.</p> <p> Let's make a publisher's right quiz on the basis of the Commission's proposal including the ITRE amendment, shall we? Answer the following questions and you will be awarded the title “copyright wizard”. Take it as a basic assumption that the author has not already waived his prerogative by signing a standard publishing agreement of the publisher.</p> <ul> <li> Does the prerogative rule give the author a right to veto exploitation decisions of the publisher? What if the author's contribution is only one among those of many other authors (like other articles on a news site)?</li> <li> Can the author prevent the publisher from suing an aggregator for using snippets of her texts? </li> <li> Does the publisher generally need the consent for any use/exploitation/enforcement of his neighboring right? </li> <li> Does the author need to be consulted in acts of enforcing the publisher's right, e.g. in court proceedings when a potential conflict of interests arises?</li> <li> How and who can define what relevant conflicts of author's and publisher's rights are? In other words: Where does the prerogative rule kick in? </li> <li> What if the publisher ignores the author's prerogative? Are there legal remedies that the author can invoke to stop the publisher? Where are they regulated? What are they like?</li> <li> Can a user of an Open Content that was published later on by a publisher invoke the prerogative rule as a defence when the publisher wants to stop her re-use of the work? </li> <li> Can the author of the Open Content hinder the publisher to sue his Open Content users? Is there a right to defend them and where is it regulated?</li> </ul> <p> I could phrase myriads of other questions I have no answers to. I would not earn the title apparently and I doubt that there is anybody who could. The resulting legal uncertainty would affect first and foremost the authors. Until every relevant question is solved (if ever) it would take decades full of lawsuits and court decisions.</p> <p> Open Access and Open Content publishing would be affected in particular because they are practiced in the majority of cases by legal laypersons who cannot and will not consult lawyers. Overcomplicated legal systems are poison to such methods of publishing. One could ask: Might this be the very reason, academic publishers ask for a publisher's right in the first place?</p> <p> <b>Eroding the public domain</b></p> <p> Even if the prerogative rule would effectively protect the authors vis-à-vis the publishers, it would not protect the interest of the general public. </p> <p> The publisher's right will in any case undermine the public domain, which is particularly important for Open Access and Open Content publishing like e.g. at the <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">Project Gutenberg</a> or the <a href="http://www.archive.org">Internet Archive</a>. That aspect might not be overly important for mere news content but it certainly is for scientific works. </p> <p> Works that are already in the public domain have no rights owner who could pull the prerogative rule in his favor. Meaning: If someone publishes a work that was already in the public domain he will be rewarded with a new monopoly right for the next 20 years. This problem is already caused by the German “Lichtbildschutzrecht” (the right in simple photographs) as the <a href="https://www.artforum.com/news/id=64011">Wikipedia had to learn </a>painfully just recently.</p> <p> Just imagine what harm would be caused to the public domain if any (re-)publication of works – academic publications in particular – that are out-of-copyright could be re-protected and therefore appropriated for 20 years. The restriction of the term of protection under copyright would become obsolete. </p> <p> Here's how I exemplified this effect on Anne Frank's diary <a href="http://ancillarycopyright.eu/news/2016-06-15/beware-neighbouring-right-publishers-ancillary-copyright-steroids-potential-consequences-general-nei">before</a>:</p> <blockquote><p> <em>“It is hotly debated whether and where it [Anne Frank’s diary] becomes public domain (i.e. copyright-free) this year [2016]. If book publishers had neighboring rights, free re-publications of the diary would most likely be impossible forever. […]. If publisher's rights were granted for 50 years after the publication, a 1999 edition of Anne Frank’s diary would block re-publications until 2050. If another publisher makes a new edition in 2020, this right would expire in 2070. And so on.</em></p> <p> <em>The example shows a number of significant issues: Who owns the publisher’s right in Anne Frank’s diary? The first publisher and/or any later publisher? Would any later publisher need to get a license from the first publisher? What would the right exactly protect? The layout of the book, the text itself, the edited version, all of these things…?”</em></p> </blockquote> <p></p></body></p> European Commission ITRE committee creative commons draft directive Open Access Open Content proposal Creative Commons Wed, 06 Sep 2017 12:37:04 +0000 Till Kreutzer 2380 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info Vortrag: Text- und Data-Mining und Verleger-Leistungsschutzrecht – Wie die EU europäische Innovationen gefährdet http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-09-06/vortrag-text-und-data-mining-und-verleger-leistungsschutzrecht-wie-die-eu-europ-ische-innovationen-g <p> Datenanalysen haben gewaltiges Potenzial für die Forschung und innovative Wirtschaftszweige. Erst sie ermöglichen es, die Potenziale der Informationsgesellschaft in reales und nutzbares Wissen umzuwandeln. <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-09-06/vortrag-text-und-data-mining-und-verleger-leistungsschutzrecht-wie-die-eu-europ-ische-innovationen-g" title="Den Rest von Vortrag: Text- und Data-Mining und Verleger-Leistungsschutzrecht – Wie die EU europäische Innovationen gefährdet lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> Dr. Till Kreutzer Ubermetrics Binnenmarkt Europäische Union Richtlinie TDM Text und Data Mining Creative Commons Wed, 06 Sep 2017 09:38:15 +0000 Till Kreutzer 2376 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info Estonia's proposal is good and bad at the same time http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-08-31/estonias-proposal-is-good-and-bad-at-the-same-time <p> Summer break is over. Statewatch has <a href="http://www.statewatch.org/news/2017/aug/eu-council-copyright-directive-estonian-compromises-11783-17.pdf">leaked</a>&nbsp;a compromise proposal from the Estonian Presidency of the Council of the European Union to the EU Commission's initial&nbsp;<a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52016PC0593">proposal for a directive on copyright in the Digital Single Market</a>. When it comes to Article 11 containing the ancillary copyright for press publishers, the Presidency does not come up with only one but with two completely different proposals. <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-08-31/estonias-proposal-is-good-and-bad-at-the-same-time" title="Den Rest von Estonia&#039;s proposal is good and bad at the same time lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> Estonian Presidency directive presumption proposal Creative Commons Thu, 31 Aug 2017 17:01:46 +0000 Tom Hirche 2378 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info Publishers will hardly get any money, if anything http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-08-30/publishers-will-hardly-get-any-money-if-anything <p> The publishers pushing for their new right a.k.a. the link tax want to be paid first and foremost by providers of news aggregators and search engines. They demand a fee for the provider's service of linking to their publications and bringing them visitors hence money. Despite the unmatched absurdity of this idea, what numbers are we actually talking about? <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-08-30/publishers-will-hardly-get-any-money-if-anything" title="Den Rest von Publishers will hardly get any money, if anything lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> Google Nate Hoffelder Thomas Baekdal calculation income money revenue Creative Commons Wed, 30 Aug 2017 12:03:41 +0000 Tom Hirche 2375 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info ITRE deceives itself by attacking research and open access http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-07-21/itre-deceives-itself-by-attacking-research-and-open-access <p> Already three out of five EP Committees have voted on their opinion on the Commission's Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. So far it seems we are heading into a future where a European wide publisher's right will be present. One particular Committee even tries to directly attack open access publishing. <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-07-21/itre-deceives-itself-by-attacking-research-and-open-access" title="Den Rest von ITRE deceives itself by attacking research and open access lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> ITRE copyright Europe European Parliament Open Access Creative Commons Fri, 21 Jul 2017 15:14:57 +0000 Tom Hirche 2374 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info Two more EP Committies gang up against free linking http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-07-12/two-more-ep-committies-gang-up-against-free-linking <p> After the&nbsp;European Parliament's Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) voted on its opinion on the new Copyright Directive a month ago, it were the Committees for Culture and Education (CULT - <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&amp;reference=PE-595.591&amp;format=PDF&amp;language=EN&amp;secondRef=02">opinion</a>) and for Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE - <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML%2bCOMPARL%2bPE-592.363%2b03%2bDOC%2bPDF%2bV0%2f%2fEN">opinion</a>) that both had their turns yesterday. The result: the suggestion of an even worse ancillary copyright for press publishers. <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-07-12/two-more-ep-committies-gang-up-against-free-linking" title="Den Rest von Two more EP Committies gang up against free linking lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> CULT ITRE committee copyright Europe European Parliament proposal Reform Creative Commons Wed, 12 Jul 2017 09:42:14 +0000 Tom Hirche 2373 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info Parliament's largest group to fully endorse Commission's proposal for a link tax http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-07-09/parliaments-largest-group-to-fully-endorse-commissions-proposal-for-a-link-tax <p> The European Commission's proposal for an ancillary copyright for press publishers has received a tremendous amount of criticism from many MEPs of all groups of the European Parliament. But now the largest group, the European People's Party (EPP), has adopted a joint position that fully supports the Commission's line while ignoring the European people's voices and all academic advice. <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-07-09/parliaments-largest-group-to-fully-endorse-commissions-proposal-for-a-link-tax" title="Den Rest von Parliament&#039;s largest group to fully endorse Commission&#039;s proposal for a link tax lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> Axel Voss EPP European Commission European Parliament proposal Reform statement Creative Commons Sun, 09 Jul 2017 15:47:54 +0000 Tom Hirche 2372 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info Google's design changes might soon end all lawsuits http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-07-03/googles-design-changes-might-soon-end-all-lawsuits <p> German courts have to deal with a variety of lawsuits that involve the German ancillary copyright for press publishers. But Google's design changes might bringt a sudden end. <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-07-03/googles-design-changes-might-soon-end-all-lawsuits" title="Den Rest von Google&#039;s design changes might soon end all lawsuits lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> Google Google News Snippet Creative Commons Mon, 03 Jul 2017 21:18:38 +0000 Tom Hirche 2371 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info Cheap trick shall make us think the Spanish link tax works http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-07-03/cheap-trick-shall-make-us-think-the-spanish-link-tax-works <p> The Spanish link tax is indeed no success story. All it &quot;achieved&quot; so far is the permanent shutdown of Google News Spain which led to a large drop in publishers' site views while not accumulating a single euro. Although this situation will change with the just closed deal, it first and foremost tries to shamelessly fool us into thinking that the link tax is actually working. <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-07-03/cheap-trick-shall-make-us-think-the-spanish-link-tax-works" title="Den Rest von Cheap trick shall make us think the Spanish link tax works lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> Axel Springer CEDRO Upday collecting society Spain tariff Creative Commons Mon, 03 Jul 2017 20:54:52 +0000 Tom Hirche 2370 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info Ansip only believes in surveys that confirm his view http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-07-02/ansip-only-believes-in-surveys-that-confirm-his-view <p> The European Commission regularly makes use of surveys to gather a wide array of opinions from various stakeholders. But when the result does not meet the preconceived view, its relevance will simply be denied, as it seems. <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-07-02/ansip-only-believes-in-surveys-that-confirm-his-view" title="Den Rest von Ansip only believes in surveys that confirm his view lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> Andrus Ansip BEUC European Commission Nessa Childers copyright European Union public consultation publisher Reform survey Creative Commons Sun, 02 Jul 2017 17:30:24 +0000 Tom Hirche 2369 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info Rogue members try to hijack LIBE Committee http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-06-14/rogue-members-try-to-hijack-libe-committee <p> Almost a month ago, in mid May 2017, the <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&amp;reference=PE-604.830&amp;format=PDF&amp;language=EN&amp;secondRef=01">draft opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE)</a> on the EU-Commission's proposal for a <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-593-EN-F1-1.PDF">new copyright directive</a> has officially been published. As things just turned out, some hardliners suddenly want to amend it so that it will be strongly in favour of an ancillary copyright for press publishers. <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-06-14/rogue-members-try-to-hijack-libe-committee" title="Den Rest von Rogue members try to hijack LIBE Committee lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> Axel Voss Gérard Deprez Jean-Marie Cavada LIBE Louis Michel Michał Boni Committee opinion copyright draft opinion European Parliament Reform Creative Commons Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:29:19 +0000 Tom Hirche 2368 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info IMCO supports link tax – several MEPs did not attend the vote http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-06-08/imco-supports-link-tax-several-meps-did-not-attend-the-vote <p> This morning, the European Parliament's Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) voted on the Copyright in the Digital Single Market directive (<a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2016/0280(COD)&amp;l=en">2016/0280(COD)</a>) as the first of five committees. The outcome is of great significance to the other votes that are yet to come. Unfortunately, the ancillary copyright for press publishers is still very much alive. <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-06-08/imco-supports-link-tax-several-meps-did-not-attend-the-vote" title="Den Rest von IMCO supports link tax – several MEPs did not attend the vote lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> European Parliament IMCO directive draft opinion proposal vote Creative Commons Thu, 08 Jun 2017 19:06:15 +0000 Tom Hirche 2367 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info New paper discusses publisher's right – "unnecessary and dangerous" http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-06-01/new-paper-discusses-publishers-right-unnecessary-and-dangerous <p> With the support of the Computer and Communications Industry Association (<a href="https://www.ccianet.org/">CCIA</a>), the&nbsp;European Policy Centre (<a href="http://www.epc.eu/">EPC</a>) has published a new <a href="http://www.epc.eu/documents/uploads/pub_7712_rewardingqualityjournalismordistortingthedsm.pdf">discussion paper</a> titled &quot;Rewarding quality journalism or distorting the Digital Single Market? The case for and against neighbouring rights for press publishers&quot;. It is divided into an economy analysis (part I) and a legal analysis (part II). <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-06-01/new-paper-discusses-publishers-right-unnecessary-and-dangerous" title="Den Rest von New paper discusses publisher&#039;s right – &quot;unnecessary and dangerous&quot; lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> CCIA copyright paper Reform Creative Commons Thu, 01 Jun 2017 15:25:12 +0000 Tom Hirche 2366 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info The "Alternative Compromise" could hardly be worse http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-05-31/the-alternative-compromise-could-hardly-be-worse <p> In her just published&nbsp;<a href="https://juliareda.eu/2017/05/alternative-compromise/">blog post</a>, MEP Julia Reda (Greens/EFA) draws attention to the alarming developments within the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (<a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/imco/home.html">IMCO</a>) Committee. Instead of joining the committee's internal negotiations, Belgian MEP Pascal Arimont (EPP) is currently gathering support for his own &quot;<a href="https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/arimont-alternative-compromises.pdf">Alternative Compromise Amendment on Publisher’s Right</a>&quot; which is the worst we have seen so far in this debate. <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-05-31/the-alternative-compromise-could-hardly-be-worse" title="Den Rest von The &quot;Alternative Compromise&quot; could hardly be worse lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> European Parliament IMCO Pascal Arimont copyright Europe Reform Creative Commons Wed, 31 May 2017 18:20:22 +0000 Tom Hirche 2365 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info Welcome Copybuzz! http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-05-10/welcome-copybuzz <p> If you feel confused and/or want to know what is going on with copyright these and the coming days, there is a new website just for you: <a href="http://copybuzz.com/">CopyBuzz</a>!&nbsp;It was launched at this year's <a href="https://re-publica.com/en/17/session/copybuzz-how-copyright-breaking-internet">re:publica</a> and is supported by the <a href="http://copyright4creativity.eu/">Copyright for Creativity</a> (C4C), the&nbsp;coalition that seeks an informed debate on how copyright can more effectively promote innovation, access, and creativity. <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-05-10/welcome-copybuzz" title="Den Rest von Welcome Copybuzz! lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> C4C copyright launch website Creative Commons Wed, 10 May 2017 08:03:10 +0000 Tom Hirche 2364 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info EuGH wird über deutsches Leistungsschutzrecht entscheiden http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-05-10/eugh-wird-ber-deutsches-leistungsschutzrecht-entscheiden <p> Die rechtliche Auseinandersetzung zwischen Google und der VG Media wird um ein neues Kapitel ergänzt, bevor das aktuelle abgeschlossen wird. Zunächst wird der Europäische Gerichtshof (EuGH) entscheiden müssen, ob das deutsche Leistungsschutzrecht überhaupt anwendbar ist. <span class="read-more"><a href="/news/2017-05-10/eugh-wird-ber-deutsches-leistungsschutzrecht-entscheiden" title="Den Rest von EuGH wird über deutsches Leistungsschutzrecht entscheiden lesen.">Weiter</a></span></p> Google Landgericht Berlin VG Wort Gesetz Notifizierung Snippets Creative Commons Wed, 10 May 2017 03:09:23 +0000 Tom Hirche 2360 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info Streitgespräch auf der re:publica http://leistungsschutzrecht.info/news/2017-05-09/streitgespr-ch-auf-der-re-publica <p> Am heutigen Dienstag diskutieren auf der Bühne 5 der re:publica Dr. Till Kreutzer und Prof. Dr. Thomas Höppner über das Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger. Ohne Moderation wird es dabei zu einem offenen Schlagabtausch der Argumente kommen – wobei für uns jetzt schon feststeht, wer überzeugender sein wird. Dennoch sind wir gespannt, was Professor Höppner, einer der (sehr wenigen) Befürworter eines solchen Leistungsschutzrechtes, vortragen wird. Schaut es euch am besten live an!</p> Dr. Till Kreutzer Prof. Dr. Thomas Höppner Diskussion Veranstaltung Creative Commons Tue, 09 May 2017 13:49:46 +0000 Tom Hirche 2359 at http://leistungsschutzrecht.info