Image

10th Birthday

Recommendation

Implementation

img rotate

10

Years

In 2011, when COMMUNIA was founded, we issued 14 policy recommendations. These became the foundation guiding our advocacy in the last decade.


On the occasion of our 10th anniversary, we have reviewed these recommendations. Some of them have been implemented - fully or partially. Yet many remain unfulfilled, meaning that laws don’t properly support the public domain and secure user rights.


Most importantly, most of the recommendations are still relevant, after a decade - and continue to define our work on public domain advocacy.

The term of copyright protection should be reduced. The excessive length of copyright protection combined with an absence of formalities is highly detrimental to the accessibility of our shared knowledge and culture.


Recommendation 1 has not been implemented and we are constantly seeing attempts to extend the existing terms of copyright protection. Therefore the recommendation is still highly relevant.

icon

Learn more

Learn more

#1
Image

Recommendation

The term of copyright protection should be reduced. The excessive length of copyright protection combined with an absence of formalities is highly detrimental to the accessibility of our shared knowledge and culture. There is no evidence that copyright protection that extends decades beyond the life of the author encourages the production of copyright protected works. Instead the requirement to obtain permission for works by authors that have long died are one of the biggest obstacles for providing universal access to our shared culture and knowledge. Given the above the term of copyright protection for new works (that is works created after the term reduction) should be reduced.


Implementation

Recommendation 1 has not been implemented and we are constantly seeing attempts to extend the existing terms of copyright protection. Therefore the recommendation is still highly relevant.



The proposed term extension of copyright protection for performers and sound recordings will harm the public domain and must not be implemented.

Recommendation 2 has not been implemented, since the proposed term extension was adopted in 2011. Furthermore, we are constantly seeing attempts to create new neighboring rights and to extend the terms of protection for the existing ones.

icon

Learn more

Learn more

#2
Image

Recommendation

The proposed term extension of copyright protection for performers and sound recordings will harm the public domain and must not be implemented. The Commission and Member States should carefully review expert opinions on this topic, as detailed at the end of this recommendation. Term extension will not create additional incentives to create but will make access to large parts of our audiovisual heritage more difficult than it already is. Instead of pursuing this special interest driven legislation, the divergence in the length of protection allotted to performers and authors should be taken as an opportunity to reevaluate the effectiveness of the current term of protection. Such a reevaluation must take into account the COMMUNIA policy recommendations #1 and #8.

Implementation

Recommendation 2 has not been implemented, since the proposed term extension was adopted by Directive 2011/77/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 amending Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights. Furthermore, we are constantly seeing attempts to create new neighboring rights and to extend the terms of protection for the existing ones. The Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive created a new neighboring right for press publishers (Article 15) and the European Parliament is currently discussing whether to request the Commission a legislative proposal to create a new layer of protection for live sports events.

Harmonize Exceptions and Limitations of the Copyright Directive among the Member States and open up the exhaustive list so that the user prerogatives can be adapted to the ongoing technological transformations.


Recommendation 3 is partially implemented. There is a new set of mandatory exceptions within the EU legal framework, but further developments are needed to reach a higher level of harmonization and to provide this framework with the flexibility needed to adapt to technological changes. For these reasons, we consider this recommendation to be still very much relevant.

icon

Learn more

Learn more

#3
Image

Recommendation

Harmonize Exceptions and Limitations of the Copyright Directive among the Member States and open up the exhaustive list so that the user prerogatives can be adapted to the ongoing technological transformations. The limited list of Exceptions and Limitations established by the copyright directive limits the possibilities to adjust the copyright system to the rapid pace of technological innovation that shapes how we interact with copyright protected works. This not only limits the abilities of citizens to gain access to our shared culture and knowledge but also imposes restrictions on innovative business models and as a result economic growth. In the absence of an open ended exception such as a fair use clause it is imperative that exceptions and limitations can be adjusted to the needs of society at large, and for innovative economic actors in particular.

Implementation

Recommendation 3 is partially implemented. There are new mandatory exceptions for EU Member States regarding uses of orphan works (Article 6 of the Orphan Works Directive), uses for the benefit of persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled (Article 3 of Directive (EU) 2017/1564 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 September 2017), text and data mining (Article 3 and Article 4 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive), digital and cross-border teaching activities (Article 5 of the same directive), preservation of cultural heritage (Article 6 of the same directive), uses of out-of-commerce works (Article 8 of the same directive), and quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody or pastiche on certain online content-sharing platforms (Article 17 of the same directive). In addition, the Court of Justice of the European Union has indicated that the exceptions and limitations of the Copyright Directive that are aimed to observe fundamental freedoms might be mandatory for Member States (cf. the judgments of 29 July 2019 Funke Medien, C-469/17, para. 58; Pelham, C-476/17, para. 60; and Spiegel Online, C‐516/17, para. 43). However, further developments are needed to reach a higher level of harmonization among Member States and to provide this legal framework with the flexibility needed to adapt to technological changes. For these reasons, we consider this recommendation to be still very much relevant.



As a prerequisite for unlocking the cultural, educational and economic potential of the public domain, identification of works being in the public domain should be made easier and less resource consuming by simplifying and harmonizing rules of copyright duration and territoriality.

Recommendation 4 has not been implemented. The rules for establishing the duration of the term of protection of individual works remain fragmented and highly complex, and therefore the recommendation is still relevant.

icon

Learn more

Learn more

#4
Image

Recommendation

As a prerequisite for unlocking the cultural, educational and economic potential of the public domain, identification of works being in the public domain should be made easier and less resource consuming by simplifying and harmonizing rules of copyright duration and territoriality. The rules for establishing the duration of the term of protection of individual works have become so complex that it is almost impossible to establish with certainty whether a work is protected by copyright (including all neighboring rights) or whether it is in the public domain. This complexity of the system makes it very difficult to automatically calculate the status of a work. Two factors have contributed to this situation: the divergence of legislation between the different member states and a large number of (national) exception clauses. This situation can only be remedied by intervention on the European level, preferably by simplifying the rules and harmonizing them across Europe. The work on public domain calculators has highlighted the incredible complexity of copyright term rules which makes it very difficult to determine the copyright status of individual works. This means that one of the biggest obstacles to positively identifying public domain works (and thus unlocking their cultural, educational and economic potential) lies in the cumbersome process of determining the term of copyright protection.

Implementation

Recommendation 4 has not been implemented. The rules for establishing the duration of the term of protection of individual works remain fragmented and highly complex, and therefore the recommendation is still relevant.

Digital reproductions of works that are in the Public Domain must also belong to the Public Domain. Use of works in the public domain should not be limited by any means, either legal or technical.

Recommendation 5 is fully implemented. The EU legislator has addressed this issue in 2019 in the form of Article 14 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive, which states that non original reproductions of works or visual arts in the public domain cannot be protected by copyright or related rights.

icon

Learn more

Learn more

#5
Image

Recommendation

Digital reproductions of works that are in the Public Domain must also belong to the Public Domain. Use of works in the public domain should not be limited by any means, either legal or technical. The internet enables the widespread re use of digital reproductions of works of authorship whose copyright protection has expired. The Public Domain status of these works means that there is no owner of the works who can impose restrictions on their reuse. At the same time the owners of the physical works (such as heritage institutions) often feel that they are entitled to control over digital reproductions as well and that they can impose restrictions on their reuse. However digitization of Public Domain works does not create new rights over it: works that are in the Public Domain in analogue form continue to be in the Public Domain once they have been digitized.

Implementation

Recommendation 5 is fully implemented. The EU legislator has addressed this issue in 2019 in the form of Article 14 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive, which states that non original reproductions of works or visual arts in the public domain cannot be protected by copyright or related rights. This is an important step forward and reconfirms that principle that no entity should be able to claim exclusive control over works that are in the public domain and that such works must be available for all to use and build upon.

Any false or misleading attempt to misappropriate Public Domain material must be declared unlawful. False or misleading attempts to claim exclusivity over Public Domain material must be sanctioned.

Recommendation 6 has not been implemented, and it is still highly relevant, particularly on online content sharing platforms, where the use of automated content recognition systems, combined with the lack of public databases of ownership rights, can result in the false blocking of Public Domain material, due to false ownership claims.

icon

Learn more

Learn more

#6
Image

Recommendation

Any false or misleading attempt to misappropriate Public Domain material must be declared unlawful. False or misleading attempts to claim exclusivity over Public Domain material must be sanctioned. In order to preserve the integrity of the Public Domain and protect users of Public Domain material from inaccurate and deceitful representations, any false or misleading attempts to claim exclusivity over Public Domain material must be declared unlawful. There must be a system of legal recourse that allows members of the public to get sanctions imposed on anyone attempting to misappropriate Public Domain works.



Implementation

Recommendation 6 has not been implemented, and it is still highly relevant, particularly on online content sharing platforms, where the use of automated content recognition systems, combined with the lack of public databases of ownership rights, can result in the false blocking of Public Domain material, due to false ownership claims. It is worth noting that, while no progress has been made at the EU level, at the national level at least one Member State has recently enacted legislation containing measures against abuse by alleged rightholders that repeatedly request online content sharing service providers to block works in the public domain (cf. Section 18 of the German Act on the Copyright Liability of Online Content Sharing Service Providers).

The Public Domain needs to be protected from the adverse effects of Technical Protection Measures. Circumvention of TPMs must be allowed when exercising user rights created by Exceptions and Limitations or when using Public Domain works. The deployment of TPMs to hinder or impede privileged uses of a protected work or access to public domain material must be sanctioned.

Recommendation 7 has not been implemented and it is more relevant than ever, taking into account the massive shift of education, research and cultural activities to online and digital formats, following the COVID-19 pandemic. 

icon

Learn more

Learn more

#7
Image

Recommendation

The Public Domain needs to be protected from the adverse effects of Technical Protection Measures. Circumvention of TPMs must be allowed when exercising user rights created by Exceptions and Limitations or when using Public Domain works. The deployment of TPMs to hinder or impede privileged uses of a protected work or access to public domain material must be sanctioned. Technical Protection Measures such as Digital Rights Management systems can have adverse effects on the Public Domain. Access restrictions imposed on works can remain in effect even after a work has passed into the public domain and over time Protections Measures can become orphaned making access to protected works impossible. Most current TPM ‘solutions’ do not take into account user rights created by Exceptions and Limitations thereby limiting their effectiveness and undermining the inherent checks and balances of the copyright system. Given the above, circumvention of TPMs must be allowed when exercising user rights created by Exceptions and Limitations or when using Public Domain works.

Implementation

Recommendation 7 has not been implemented and it is more relevant than ever, taking into account the massive shift of education, research and cultural activities to online and digital formats, following the COVID-19 pandemic. It is worth noting that, while no progress has been made at the EU level, at the national level at least one Member State has changed its law to prohibit the use of Technical Protection Measures in public domain works and to clarify that the legal protection granted to Technical Protection Measures does not cover situations in which, as a result of an omission of conduct by the rightholder, a measure prevents or restricts the enjoyment of a copyright exception (cf. Article 221.º of the Portuguese Code on Author's Rights and Related Rights).

In order to prevent unnecessary and unwanted protection of works of authorship, full copyright protection should only be granted to works that have been registered by their authors. Non registered works should only get moral rights protection.

Recommendation 8 has not been implemented. It seems increasingly clear that, for the copyright system to continue to function, registration of works will become ever more important. This is why this recommendation has become even more relevant over the past decade.

icon

Learn more

Learn more

#8
Image

Recommendation

In order to prevent unnecessary and unwanted protection of works of authorship, full copyright protection should only be granted to works that have been registered by their authors. Non registered works should only get moral rights protection. One of the unintended consequences of the near universal access to electronic publishing platforms is an increase in the amount of works that are awarded copyright protection even though their authors do not require or desire this protection. This extension of protection threatens to undermine the value and effectiveness of protection for works where copyright protection is necessary and desired. Given the above full copyright protection should only be granted to works that have been registered by their authors. Non registered works should only be granted moral rights protection. This recommendation requires the introduction of a registration system. Such a system needs to be accessible and transparent.

Implementation

Recommendation 8 has not been implemented. Over the past year the EU legislator has been making a number of baby steps towards systems to register or claim rights. These include the ability for rightholders to opt out for certain permitted uses of their works through the Orphan Works Database and the Out of Commerce Works portal maintained by the EUIPO, the rights reservation clause contained in the text and data mining exception in Article 4 of Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive, and certain elements of Article 17 of the same directive. It seems increasingly clear that, for the copyright system to continue to function, registration of works will become ever more important. This is why this recommendation has become even more relevant over the past decade.

Europe needs an efficient pan European system that guarantees users full access to orphan works. Both mandatory exceptions and extended collective licensing in combination with a guarantee fund should be explored. Any due diligent search requirements should be proportionate to the ability of the users to trace the rights holders.

Recommendation 9 is fully implemented. The provisions on the use of out of commerce works in Articles 8-11 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive provide a comprehensive solution for the problem of orphan works (by definition orphan works are also out of commerce and so these provisions also apply to them).

icon

Learn more

Learn more

#9
Image

Recommendation

Europe needs an efficient pan European system that guarantees users full access to orphan works. Both mandatory exceptions and extended collective licensing in combination with a guarantee fund should be explored. Any due diligent search requirements should be proportionate to the ability of the users to trace the rights holders. The orphan works problem is in urgent need of a solution that unlocks the benefits of access to these works. Across Europe digitization projects are undertaken that produce large quantities of digitized versions of orphan works that are not available to the general public. Neither the authors nor the general public benefit from the orphan work status of these works. Since most mass digitization projects are undertaken by publicly funded memory institutions any ‘solution’ for this problem that includes a diligent search requirement amounts to large scale waste of public resources. Instead of establishing diligent search guidelines, mandatory exceptions and extended collective licensing in combination with a guarantee fund need to be explored to allow for the non commercial dissemination of orphan works.

Implementation

Recommendation 9 is fully implemented. The first attempt of the EU legislator to address this issue, through the Orphan Works Directive, is widely considered to be a failure, since the directive only really works for a small number of cinematographic works. However, the provisions on the use of out of commerce works in Articles 8-11 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive provide a comprehensive solution for the problem of orphan works (by definition orphan works are also out of commerce and so these provisions also apply to them). These new provisions (a combination of mandatory exceptions and extended collective licensing) require a much lower effort on the behalf of cultural heritage institutions and we can expect them to contribute to increased availability of orphan works and other in copyright works held by cultural heritage institutions.

Memory Institutions must be enabled to fulfill their traditional function in the online environment. In order to be able to provide access to knowledge and culture they must benefit from compulsory and harmonized exceptions and limitations that allow them to make their collections available online for non commercial purposes.

Recommendation 10 is partially implemented. With the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive the EU legislator has made some steps towards addressing this recommendation. But cultural heritage institutions still do not have the ability to fully fulfill their public interest missions in the online environment. Therefore, we consider this recommendation to be still very much relevant.

icon

Learn more

Learn more

#10
Image

Recommendation

Memory Institutions must be able to fulfill their duty to provide access to knowledge and culture by benefitting from harmonized exceptions and limitations (copyright, but also other IPR), solutions for orphan works and standardized and harmonized licensing terms. To ensure the functioning of Memory Institutions the term of copyright protection must not be extended. Memory Institutions must keep in mind the long term costs of the lifecycle of cultural content, including sustainability costs and skilled personnel. Public private partnerships must be aimed at opening up the content, public investments must at least ensure access, preferably under an open license or directly into the Public Domain. In order for publicly funded memory institutions to maintain their position in the digital age they need to be enabled to make available their collections online for non commercial purposes. Across Europe these organisations hold an unrivaled wealth of knowledge and information related to our shared knowledge and culture. Preventing these organisations from effectively making their collections available online means delegating them to second class status and devaluing the long term investments embodied by these organisations. Existing exceptions and limitations benefitting memory institutions need to be broadened to allow institutions to make available those works that they hold in their collections for non commercial purposes.

Implementation

Recommendation 10 is partially implemented. With the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive the EU legislator has made some steps towards addressing this recommendation. The new rules for preservation of cultural heritage (Article 6) and making available out of commerce works (in Articles 8-11) provide some room for cultural heritage institutions to make available online parts of their collections. But these new rules do not go far enough; cultural heritage institutions still do not have the ability to fully fulfill their public interest missions in the online environment. The COVID-19 pandemic has painfully shown that digital access to cultural heritage is still limited. Europe needs clear rules allowing libraries to engage in e-lending under the same conditions that apply for lending out physical works and robust exceptions allowing cultural heritage institutions to make all works that they have in their collections available online unless this competes with the ongoing commercial exploitation of these works. For these reasons, we consider this recommendation to be still very much relevant.

Digitization projects that receive public funding must at the minimum ensure that all digitized content is publicly available online. Allowing for the free redistribution of digitized content should be considered since it is beneficial for the sustainability of the access to digitized cultural heritage.

Recommendation 11 is partially implemented. Over the past decade the idea that publicly funded resources need to be available to the public has gained traction not only among policy makers but also within the vast majority of cultural heritage and research institutions. The principle that public money should result in public access has not, however, been universally accepted. Therefore, this recommendation continues to be relevant.

icon

Learn more

Learn more

#11
Image

Recommendation

Digitization projects that receive public funding must at the minimum ensure that all digitized content is publicly available online. Allowing for the free redistribution of digitized content should be considered since it is beneficial for the sustainability of the access to digitized cultural heritage. When public funding is used for digitization projects it needs to be assured that the public benefits from these efforts. At the minimum this means that digital versions need to be available online for consultation by the public that has paid for the digitization effort. Public funding bodies should prioritize digitization projects that will increase the amount of our shared culture that is available to the public. Memory institutions that receive public funding should consider making available digitized collections with as little restrictions as possible. Free availability of collections that includes the free redistribution and reuse of the digital artifacts will result in wider availability and reduce the risks inherent to centralized storage.

Implementation

Recommendation 11 is partially implemented. There has been considerable progress in this field. Over the past decade the idea that publicly funded resources need to be available to the public has gained traction not only among policy makers but also within the vast majority of cultural heritage and research institutions. Since the Commission Recommendation of 27 October 2011 on the digitisation and online accessibility of cultural material and digital preservation, the cultural heritage sector has embraced more and more the value of free and open access to its collections. This principle is further supported by the new Public Domain Clause in Article 14 of CDSM Directive, and the provisions of the Open Data Directive. Similarly, initiatives from public research funders have led to the increasing adoption of open access policies within the academic research sector. The principle that public money should result in public access has not been universally accepted yet and so this recommendation continues to be relevant.

Access to copyright protected works for education and research purposes must be facilitated by strengthening existing exceptions and limitations and broadening them to cover uses outside of formal educational institutions. All publicly funded research output and educational resources must be made available as open access materials.

Recommendation 12 is partially implemented. There are new mandatory exceptions in the EU for research and education, but they do not cover all relevant activities and the education exception is only for the benefit of formal educational institutions. Furthermore, while initiatives from public research funders have led to the increasing adoption of open access policies within the academic research sector, no progress has been made on the issue of access to publicly funded educational materials. For these reasons, this recommendation is still relevant.

icon

Learn more

Learn more

#12
Image

Recommendation

Access to copyright protected works for education and research purposes must be facilitated by strengthening existing exceptions and limitations and broadening them to cover uses outside of formal educational institutions. All publicly funded research output and educational resources must be made available as open access materials. The current exceptions and limitations intended to promote education and research activities assume that such activities are carried out within dedicated educational or research institutions. Pervasive access to the Internet and policy objectives like lifelong learning mean that growing parts of learning and research are taking place outside of such institutions. The exceptions and limitations intended to promote education and research need to take this reality into account and need to be broadened to facilitate all educational and research activities regardless of their institutional settings. In addition all publicly funded educational materials as well as publicly funded research output should be available without restrictions on its reuse. What has been paid for by the public must be available to the public.

Implementation

Recommendation 12 is partially implemented. There are new mandatory exceptions for EU Member States regarding text and data mining (Article 3 and Article 4 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive) and digital and cross-border teaching activities (Article 5 of the same directive). Under these new exceptions, text and data mining activities are facilitated regardless of their institutional setting. Yet, the harmonization of the education exception is only for the benefit of formal educational institutions. There are also a variety of educational and research uses that do not fall under the scope of these new mandatory exceptions. On the issue of access to publicly funded research output, initiatives from public research funders have led to the increasing adoption of open access policies within the academic research sector. For example, under Horizon 2020, each beneficiary must ensure open access to all peer-reviewed scientific publications relating to its results. No progress has been made, however, on the issue of access to publicly funded educational materials. For these reasons, this recommendation is still relevant.

The PSI Directive needs to be broadened, by increasing its scope to include publicly funded memory organisations – such as museums or galleries – and strengthened by mandating that Public Sector Information will be made freely available for all to use and re-use without restriction.

Recommendation 13 is partially implemented. The PSI Directive was extended to libraries, museums and archives. However, other publicly funded cultural institutions such as orchestras, operas, ballets and theaters, along with their archives, are still not covered. Furthermore, the principle that publicly funded documents should be available to the public without any restrictions has not been introduced. Therefore, the recommendation continues to be relevant.

icon

Learn more

Learn more

#13
Image

Recommendation

The PSI Directive needs to be broadened, by increasing its scope to include publicly funded memory organisations – such as museums or galleries – and strengthened by mandating that Public Sector Information will be made freely available for all to use and re-use without restriction. Currently publicly funded memory organisations fall outside the scope of the PSI directive. In order to strengthen the position of these organisations they should be brought within the scope of the directive. The directive also needs to be strengthened by mandating that Public Sector Information will be made freely available for all to use and re use without restrictions. What has been paid for by the public must be available to the public regardless of the nature of the intended uses.

Implementation

Recommendation 13 is partially implemented. In 2013 the scope of the concept of PSI was extended to libraries, including university libraries, museums and archives. However, other publicly funded cultural institutions such as orchestras, operas, ballets and theaters, along with their archives, are still outside the scope of the PSI. Pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Open Data Directive, it has been confirmed in principle that in the case of documents in which libraries, including university libraries, museums and archives hold intellectual property rights, Member States shall ensure that those documents shall be re-usable for commercial or non-commercial purposes. At the same time, the Directive does not apply to documents held by libraries, including university libraries, museums and archives, but for which the intellectual property rights have not expired and for which a third party was the initial owner of the intellectual property rights. It is also unclear whether this rule also applies to situations where third parties were the original owners of such rights, but for example transferred them to a cultural heritage institution. Moreover, pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Open Data Directive, libraries, museums and archives may charge for sharing materials. This means that in the case of these institutions, the principle that re-use is free of charge has been excluded. Thus, the directive is inconsistent with the recommendation, as it does not introduce the principle that documents that have been paid for from public funds should be available to the public without any restrictions (both financial and related to intellectual property rights).

In order to support the emerging culture of sharing copyright protected works alternative reward systems and cultural flat rate models should be explored.

Recommendation 14 has not been implemented. Since we have issued this recommendation we have seen massive changes in the way cultural expression and exchange are taking place online. The current model is highly unsatisfactory and is in need of being replaced by a system that ensures a fairer distribution of the economic benefits of cultural expression and exchange online. In this light this recommendation is still extremely relevant, although any real solution likely requires intervention way beyond copyright alone.

icon

Learn more

Learn more

#14
Image

Recommendation

In order to support the emerging culture of sharing copyright protected works alternative reward systems and cultural flat rate models should be explored. The current debate about copyright is dominated by a narrow focus on the business models of the entertainment industry. As part of this discussion rights holders advocate more extensive copyright protection and more stringent enforcement in order to ensure the survival of business models based on selling access to copies of protected works. While there is no evidence that extended copyright protection and/or stronger enforcement will allow these business models to continue to exist, there is clear evidence that any extension of copyright protection will harm our ability to access our shared knowledge and culture. Instead of focusing on an extension of copyright protection and enforcement alternative rewards systems and cultural flat rate models should be explored. These systems are in line with the emerging of a culture of sharing that attempts to maximize access to and interaction with cultural works.

Implementation

Recommendation 14 has not been implemented. Since we have issued this recommendation we have seen massive changes in the way cultural expression and exchange are taking place online. On the one side we have seen the emergence of subscription services for music, video and other forms of cultural expression that have created new sources of revenue for creators. We have also seen the emergence of new creator cultures that rely on advertising driven platforms to distribute and sometimes monetize their creations. Copyright plays an important role in these business models but the division between creators and users is increasingly becoming blurred. Economically the current model benefits the dominant platforms, global entertainment conglomerates and a small number of stars that command huge audiences while many creators continue to struggle. This status quo is highly unsatisfactory and is in need of being replaced by a system that ensures a fairer distribution of the economic benefits of cultural expression and exchange online. In this light this recommendation is still extremely relevant although any real solution likely requires intervention way beyond copyright alone.


#1
The term of copyright protection should be reduced.
#1
The term of copyright protection should be reduced.
#2
The proposed term extension of copyright protection for performers and sound recordings must not be implemented.
#2
The proposed term extension of copyright protection for performers and sound recordings must not be implemented.
#3
Harmonize Exceptions and Limitations of the Copyright Directive among the Member States.
#3
Harmonize Exceptions and Limitations of the Copyright Directive among the Member States.
#4
Rules of copyright duration and territoriality should be harmonized.
#4
Rules of copyright duration and territoriality should be harmonized.
#5
Digital reproductions of public domain works must also belong to the Public Domain.
#5
Digital reproductions of public domain works must also belong to the Public Domain.
#6
Any false or misleading attempt to misappropriate Public Domain material must be declared unlawful.
#6
Any false or misleading attempt to misappropriate Public Domain material must be declared unlawful.
#7
The Public Domain needs to be protected from the effects of Technical Protection Measures.
#7
The Public Domain needs to be protected from the effects of Technical Protection Measures.
#8
Full copyright protection should only be granted to registered works.
#8
Full copyright protection should only be granted to registered works.
#9
Europe needs an efficient pan European system that guarantees users full access to orphan works.
#9
Europe needs an efficient pan European system that guarantees users full access to orphan works.
#10
Memory Institutions must be enabled to fulfill their traditional function in the online environment.
#10
Memory Institutions must be enabled to fulfill their traditional function in the online environment.
#11
Publicly funded digitization projects must ensure that all digitized content is publicly available online.
#11
Publicly funded digitization projects must ensure that all digitized content is publicly available online.
#12
Access to copyrighed works for education and research purposes must be facilitated.
#12
Access to copyrighed works for education and research purposes must be facilitated.
#13
The PSI Directive needs to be broadened.
#13
The PSI Directive needs to be broadened.
#14
Alternative reward systems and cultural flat rate models should be explored.
#14
Alternative reward systems and cultural flat rate models should be explored.

As we embark on our second decade, it is time for us to set ourselves renewed policy objectives to preserve the public domain and increase access to and re-use of culture and knowledge. Over the next months we will convene key stakeholders to define a new set of policy objectives, which will guide our work in the coming decade.

img rotate

10

Years

This site is hosted by Communia, the International Association On the Digital Public Domain. We release all our documents, reports, infographics and researches under the Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication (CC0). Unless otherwise stated, images are released under CC0 as well. Please feel free to download and reuse.