Gebruikersrechten door de achterdeur. Nationale implementaties van artikel 17 DSM-richtlijn en de uitspraak van het HvJ EU in de zaak Polen/EU (C-401/19) download

Auteursrecht, iss. : 1, pp: 12-17, 2023

Abstract

Meer dan drie en een half jaar na de aanname van de richtlijn Auteursrecht in de eengemaakte digitale markt (CDSM), en anderhalf jaar na de deadline voor de implementatie, blijft het effect van de meest controversiële bepaling ervan, artikel 17, grotendeels onduidelijk. Voor een buitenstaander is het nog steeds moeilijk om negatieve of positieve gevolgen te zien van de nieuwe aansprakelijkheidsregeling voor aanbieders van onlinediensten voor het delen van inhoud (OCSSPs), anders dan dat de overdreven beweringen dat artikel 17 ‘het einde van het internet zou betekenen of ‘de creatieve industrie zou redden’ onjuist zijn gebleken. In deze bijdrage wordt beschreven wat er met artikel 17 is gebeurd sinds het verstrijken van de implementatiedeadline. Wat weten we over nationale implementaties en de gevolgen daarvan voor platforms en hun gebruikers?

Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Auteursrecht

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Gebruikersrechten door de achterdeur. Nationale implementaties van artikel 17 DSM-richtlijn en de uitspraak van het HvJ EU in de zaak Polen/EU (C-401/19)}, author = {Keller, P.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/nl/publications/gebruikersrechten-door-de-achterdeur-nationale-implementaties-van-artikel-17-dsm-richtlijn-en-de-uitspraak-van-het-hvj-eu-in-de-zaak-polen-eu-c-401-19/auteursrecht_2023_1/}, year = {2023}, date = {2023-02-23}, journal = {Auteursrecht}, issue = {1}, abstract = {Meer dan drie en een half jaar na de aanname van de richtlijn Auteursrecht in de eengemaakte digitale markt (CDSM), en anderhalf jaar na de deadline voor de implementatie, blijft het effect van de meest controversiële bepaling ervan, artikel 17, grotendeels onduidelijk. Voor een buitenstaander is het nog steeds moeilijk om negatieve of positieve gevolgen te zien van de nieuwe aansprakelijkheidsregeling voor aanbieders van onlinediensten voor het delen van inhoud (OCSSPs), anders dan dat de overdreven beweringen dat artikel 17 ‘het einde van het internet zou betekenen of ‘de creatieve industrie zou redden’ onjuist zijn gebleken. In deze bijdrage wordt beschreven wat er met artikel 17 is gebeurd sinds het verstrijken van de implementatiedeadline. Wat weten we over nationale implementaties en de gevolgen daarvan voor platforms en hun gebruikers?}, keywords = {Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Auteursrecht}, }

Algorithmic propagation: do property rights in data increase bias in content moderation? – Part II external link

Margoni, T., Quintais, J. & Schwemer, S.
Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022

Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Artificial intelligence, Auteursrecht, frontpage

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Algorithmic propagation: do property rights in data increase bias in content moderation? – Part II}, author = {Margoni, T. and Quintais, J. and Schwemer, S.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/06/09/algorithmic-propagation-do-property-rights-in-data-increase-bias-in-content-moderation-part-ii/}, year = {0609}, date = {2022-06-09}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Artificial intelligence, Auteursrecht, frontpage}, }

Algorithmic propagation: do property rights in data increase bias in content moderation? Part I external link

Margoni, T., Quintais, J. & Schwemer, S.
Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2022

algoritmes, Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Artificial intelligence, Auteursrecht, Europees recht, frontpage

Bibtex

Article{nokey, title = {Algorithmic propagation: do property rights in data increase bias in content moderation? Part I}, author = {Margoni, T. and Quintais, J. and Schwemer, S.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/06/08/algorithmic-propagation-do-property-rights-in-data-increase-bias-in-content-moderation-part-i/}, year = {0608}, date = {2022-06-08}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {algoritmes, Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Artificial intelligence, Auteursrecht, Europees recht, frontpage}, }

EU copyright law round up – second trimester of 2021 external link

Trapova, A. & Quintais, J.
2021

Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Article 17, Copyright, frontpage

Bibtex

Online publication{Trapova2021, title = {EU copyright law round up – second trimester of 2021}, author = {Trapova, A. and Quintais, J.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/08/16/eu-copyright-law-round-up-second-trimester-of-2021/}, year = {0816}, date = {2021-08-16}, keywords = {Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Article 17, Copyright, frontpage}, }

Commission’s Guidance on Art. 17 CDSM Directive: the authorisation dimension external link

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2021

Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Auteursrecht, frontpage

Bibtex

Article{Quintais2021, title = {Commission’s Guidance on Art. 17 CDSM Directive: the authorisation dimension}, author = {Quintais, J.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/06/10/commissions-guidance-on-art-17-cdsm-directive-the-authorisation-dimension/}, year = {0610}, date = {2021-06-10}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Auteursrecht, frontpage}, }

Commission’s Guidance on Art. 17 CDSM Directive: the authorisation dimension external link

Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Article 17, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Copyright, frontpage

Bibtex

Online publication{Quintais2021-Guidance, title = {Commission’s Guidance on Art. 17 CDSM Directive: the authorisation dimension}, author = {Quintais, J.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/06/10/commissions-guidance-on-art-17-cdsm-directive-the-authorisation-dimension/}, year = {0610}, date = {2021-06-10}, keywords = {Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Article 17, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Copyright, frontpage}, }

The Interplay between the Digital Services Act and Sector Regulation: How Special is Copyright? external link

Quintais, J. & Schwemer, S.
European Journal of Risk Regulation, vol. 13, iss. : 2, pp: 191-217, 2022

Abstract

On 15 December 2020, the European Commission published its proposal for a Regulation on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act). It carries out a regulatory overhaul of the 21-year- old horizontal rules on intermediary liability in the Directive and introduces new due diligence obligations for intermediary services. Our analysis illuminates an important point that has so far received little attention: how would the Digital Services Act’s rules interact with existing sector-specific lex specialis rules? In this paper, we look specifically at the intersection of the Digital Services Act with the regime for online content sharing service providers (OCSSPs) set forth in art. 17 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive). At first glance, these regimes do not appear to overlap as the rules on copyright are lex specialis to the Digital Services Act. A closer look shows a more complex and nuanced picture. Our analysis concludes that the DSA will apply to OCSSPs insofar as it contains rules that regulate matters not covered by art. 17 CDSM Directive, as well as specific rules on matters where art. 17 leaves margin of discretion to Member States. This includes, to varying degrees, rules in the DSA relating to the liability of intermediary providers and to due diligence obligations for online platforms of different sizes. Importantly, we consider that such rules apply even where art. 17 CDSM Directive contains specific (but less precise) regulation on the matter. From a normative perspective, this might be a desirable outcome, to the extent that the DSA aims to establish “uniform rules for a safe, predictable and trusted online environment, where fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter are effectively protected”. Based on our analysis, we suggest a number of clarifications that might be help achieve that goal.

Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Content moderation, Copyright, Digital services act, frontpage, Online platforms

Bibtex

Article{Quintais2021e, title = {The Interplay between the Digital Services Act and Sector Regulation: How Special is Copyright?}, author = {Quintais, J. and Schwemer, S.}, url = {https://www.ivir.nl/ejrr_2022/}, doi = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2022.1}, year = {0314}, date = {2022-03-14}, journal = {European Journal of Risk Regulation}, volume = {13}, issue = {2}, pages = {191-217}, abstract = {On 15 December 2020, the European Commission published its proposal for a Regulation on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act). It carries out a regulatory overhaul of the 21-year- old horizontal rules on intermediary liability in the Directive and introduces new due diligence obligations for intermediary services. Our analysis illuminates an important point that has so far received little attention: how would the Digital Services Act’s rules interact with existing sector-specific lex specialis rules? In this paper, we look specifically at the intersection of the Digital Services Act with the regime for online content sharing service providers (OCSSPs) set forth in art. 17 of Directive (EU) 2019/790 on copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM Directive). At first glance, these regimes do not appear to overlap as the rules on copyright are lex specialis to the Digital Services Act. A closer look shows a more complex and nuanced picture. Our analysis concludes that the DSA will apply to OCSSPs insofar as it contains rules that regulate matters not covered by art. 17 CDSM Directive, as well as specific rules on matters where art. 17 leaves margin of discretion to Member States. This includes, to varying degrees, rules in the DSA relating to the liability of intermediary providers and to due diligence obligations for online platforms of different sizes. Importantly, we consider that such rules apply even where art. 17 CDSM Directive contains specific (but less precise) regulation on the matter. From a normative perspective, this might be a desirable outcome, to the extent that the DSA aims to establish “uniform rules for a safe, predictable and trusted online environment, where fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter are effectively protected”. Based on our analysis, we suggest a number of clarifications that might be help achieve that goal.}, keywords = {Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Content moderation, Copyright, Digital services act, frontpage, Online platforms}, }

CIPIL Evening Webinar: ‘Article 17 and the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms’ external link

Abstract

This presentation addresses the hottest topic in EU copyright law and policy: Article 17 of the new Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM) Directive (2019/790). The CDSM Directive is the culmination of a controversial political and legislative process at EU level. None of its provisions has caused greater debate than Article 17, which introduces a new liability regime for "online content-sharing service providers". These include most user-generated content platforms hosting copyright-protected content accessed daily by millions of individuals in the EU and across the globe. Even before the CDSM Directive is implemented into national law, the issues surrounding Article 17 have already spilled out to the policy and judicial arenas. At the policy level, the debates taking place in a number of Commission-led Stakeholder Dialogues have laid bare many of the unresolved challenges ahead for national legislators and courts. At the judicial level, the Polish government has filed an action for annulment with the CJEU under Article 263 TFEU, focusing on the most problematic aspects of Article 17. This presentation will first place Article 17 into its broader EU policy context of the discussion on the responsibilities of online platforms – from the agenda on "Tackling Illegal Content Online" to the Digital Services Act – and the narrow copyright context regarding the liability of intermediary platforms for third-party content they host. This will be followed by an explanation of the complex mechanics of Article 17 and an identification of some of its fundamental problems. Finally, some tentative proposals will be advanced for how to begin to address such problems, focusing on the core issues of licensing mechanisms and fundamental rights safeguards.

Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Auteursrecht, eu-recht, frontpage, Platforms

Bibtex

Online publication{Quintais2020d, title = {CIPIL Evening Webinar: ‘Article 17 and the New EU Rules on Content-Sharing Platforms’}, author = {Quintais, J.}, url = {https://youtu.be/f1tGV_IdueQ }, year = {1117}, date = {2020-11-17}, abstract = {This presentation addresses the hottest topic in EU copyright law and policy: Article 17 of the new Copyright in the Digital Single Market (CDSM) Directive (2019/790). The CDSM Directive is the culmination of a controversial political and legislative process at EU level. None of its provisions has caused greater debate than Article 17, which introduces a new liability regime for "online content-sharing service providers". These include most user-generated content platforms hosting copyright-protected content accessed daily by millions of individuals in the EU and across the globe. Even before the CDSM Directive is implemented into national law, the issues surrounding Article 17 have already spilled out to the policy and judicial arenas. At the policy level, the debates taking place in a number of Commission-led Stakeholder Dialogues have laid bare many of the unresolved challenges ahead for national legislators and courts. At the judicial level, the Polish government has filed an action for annulment with the CJEU under Article 263 TFEU, focusing on the most problematic aspects of Article 17. This presentation will first place Article 17 into its broader EU policy context of the discussion on the responsibilities of online platforms – from the agenda on "Tackling Illegal Content Online" to the Digital Services Act – and the narrow copyright context regarding the liability of intermediary platforms for third-party content they host. This will be followed by an explanation of the complex mechanics of Article 17 and an identification of some of its fundamental problems. Finally, some tentative proposals will be advanced for how to begin to address such problems, focusing on the core issues of licensing mechanisms and fundamental rights safeguards.}, keywords = {Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Auteursrecht, eu-recht, frontpage, Platforms}, }

CJEU hearing in the Polish challenge to Article 17: Not even the supporters of the provision agree on how it should work external link

Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020

Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Auteursrecht, filtering, frontpage

Bibtex

Article{Keller2020d, title = {CJEU hearing in the Polish challenge to Article 17: Not even the supporters of the provision agree on how it should work}, author = {Keller, P.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/11/11/cjeu-hearing-in-the-polish-challenge-to-article-17-not-even-the-supporters-of-the-provision-agree-on-how-it-should-work/}, year = {1111}, date = {2020-11-11}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Auteursrecht, filtering, frontpage}, }

Article 17 of the Copyright Directive: Why the German implementation proposal is compatible with EU law – Part 2 external link

Husovec, M. & Quintais, J.
Kluwer Copyright Blog, 2020

Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Auteursrecht, duitsland, frontpage, implementatie

Bibtex

Article{Husovec2020b, title = {Article 17 of the Copyright Directive: Why the German implementation proposal is compatible with EU law – Part 2}, author = {Husovec, M. and Quintais, J.}, url = {http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/08/28/article-17-of-the-copyright-directive-why-the-german-implementation-proposal-is-compatible-with-eu-law-part-2/?doing_wp_cron=1598609159.3323481082916259765625}, year = {0828}, date = {2020-08-28}, journal = {Kluwer Copyright Blog}, keywords = {Art. 17 CDSM Directive, Auteursrecht, duitsland, frontpage, implementatie}, }