What is Article 13? The EU’s copyright directive explained
The European Union is trying to pass a hotly debated law on copyright. The European Copyright Directive has been years in the making, and on Tuesday, March 26, the European Parliament is due to vote on the final version of it. It will now be up to the EU’s member states sql dba developer resume profile columbus, ohio we get it done to enact Article 13 and the Copyright Directive. Each country within the EU will be able to interpret the law and how it should be implemented in its own ways. Therefore one country may decide that “upload filters” should be implemented using one tool, while another may understand the law in a different. This is simply a suggestion, with all the foundations of a law, for the governments residing in the EU.
Each state may also interpret and implement the directive differently. While one country may require a specific tool or upload filter, another may not. This isn’t the first European legislation to controversially pass through parliament in recent years. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into effect across Europe on May 25, 2018 and had far-reaching consequences. The internet is a networked collection of computers and servers around the world sharing data and information across the globe. The openness of the internet created explosive growth that saw the once niche service become one of the world’s most critical communication tools.
Big changes are coming to online copyright across the European Union. After years of debate and negotiations, politicians have passed sweeping changes following a final vote in the European Parliament. This would be a requirement for all sites accessible within these countries, like GDPR. Unlike GDPR, this is not in the best interest of users, but rather large corporations with vast amounts of copyright material. Essentially, it will make sites responsible for everything that gets uploaded.
However, member states have up to two years to ratify the directive into law. So it may be a few years yet before the consequences of the legislation are truly known. The European Parliament approved the draft Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market in September 2018. After negotiations, a final proposal was presented to the parliament. While discussions had been taking place since 2012, the election of Jean-Claude Juncker to the presidency of the European Commission saw a renewed interest in reforming copyright law. Juncker’s goal was to implement a Digital Single Market across Europe, in a similar way to the existing physical single market, to enhance the EU’s economic performance.
What is Article 13? The EU’s copyright directive explained
To a computer, all of the images probably look reasonably similar, therefore it might just block all of them. coronavirus spread slowed by vaccines study suggests Now that the EU has agreed on a final text for the directive, the European Parliament will vote on the legislation. If it passes, it’ll come into force in each EU country over the next two years. It’d also prevent social platforms from showing any kind of “snippet” of news stories, making it ultimately harder to share and link to content. There are fears it could outlaw news aggregators as we know them or even prevent any sites other than giants like Google, which could afford a license, from linking to articles at all. “Article 13 takes an unprecedented step towards the transformation of the internet from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users,” they said.
The safest way might be for sites to enter into (or strengthen existing) blanket licensing deals with, say, major music labels. Crucially, it might not just apply to original work – BBC Radio 1 reported on the potential for new artists to not be discovered if their cover versions of other songs aren’t able to be uploaded. The proposed law will face a final vote in the European Parliament in the next few weeks. If it passes, it will be implemented by national governments over the next two years.
How will it change things?
Reddit, YouTube (who already complies to an extent), other Google services, and really any mainstream service we have today will need to comply with this law. And, knowing the current FCC, the US may actually adopt this as law too since it has a positive effect on business here. As Shriane points out, the directive restates that copyrighted content is able to be used for the purposes of criticism, parody and pastiche. Communication services are also marked as being exempt, but while it’s one thing sending a copyrighted video to someone on WhatsApp, it’s another to send it to all your followers on Twitter. Memes have been a particular topic of debate but apparently, they will be allowed to survive (providing they’re funny).
- To a computer, all of the images probably look reasonably similar, therefore it might just block all of them.
- It said it would be “too risky” to let anybody in the EU upload anything at all.
- But critics say developing and implementing this type of filter would be too expensive for small companies or start-ups.
- If you own a website or a forum in which people can post text, images or video clips, you will be responsible for ensuring no unlicensed material appears.
- It’s been 18 years since the EU last looked at copyright and, of course, things have changed remarkably in that time.
Explore our products and services
“The parliament’s approach is unrealistic in many cases because copyright owners often disagree over who owns what rights,” she wrote. “If the owners cannot agree, it is impossible to expect the open platforms that host this content to make the correct rights decisions.” YouTube is by far the most vocal critic of Article 13, with the firm making a big effort to promote opposition to the directive among its creators and users. A popup on the YouTube website and app directs users to a page with the title “#saveyourinternet” which includes a video from YouTube explaining the firm’s objections to the directive. In the computer graphics for java programmers a book by leen ammeraal and kang zhang video, Matt Koval, a content strategist at YouTube argues that – in its current form – Article 13 “threatens hundreds of thousands of creators, artists and others employed in the creative economy.”
Tech Explained
Advocates of copyright regulation say that it encourages innovation as creators know they will be financially rewarded for their work. On the other hand, critics have expressed their disdain for digital copyright laws due to the cost of enforcement, privatization of knowledge, and the ambiguity over what the term author really means. The first, mentioned in the open letter from internet heavyweights say the move would put unfair costs on smaller internet platforms. Big American tech companies like YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, Tumblr, and Twitter will be able to afford automatic filtering technology. Users say the rules risk killing off vibrant internet culture, such as memes, which often repurpose unlicensed material. And the legal status of streamers, who post videos of themselves playing video games online, is in question.
Who is for and against the Directive?
This is the rule that says you can reuse copyrighted material in parodies, research sites like Wikipedia (if attributed properly) and adaptations such as memes. YouTube already has its Content ID system, which can detect copyright-protected music and videos and block them. But critics say developing and implementing this type of filter would be too expensive for small companies or start-ups. Article 13 is the part of the new EU Copyright Directive, external that covers how “online content sharing services” should deal with copyright-protected content, such as television programmes and movies. The EU says it wants to make “copyright rules fit for the digital era”, but not everyone agrees with the proposed changes. The internet is not located in one country, and digital services and data flow seamlessly across borders.
But that introduces several other challenges for sites that rely on user-generated content (UGC). Many in the entertainment industry support Article 13, as it will hold websites accountable if they fail to license material or take it down. German MEP Julia Reda suggested services would have to “buy licences for anything that users may possibly upload”, external and called it an “impossible feat”. While those are the negatives, there’s every chance that internet users might not notice these changes at all. The internet may not have as much content generated from within Europe, however, so if you’re a fan of British humor or Europe’s take on popular memes, your experience of being online may be the poorer for it.
It could also mean the end of some of your favorite news aggregation tools and apps. When you click on a link, you may have little clue ahead of time what lies beyond. The objections to Article 11 are less vocal, but they’re out there nonetheless. It’s unclear what exactly would have to be licensed (snippets? headlines? links themselves?) so the jury is out on how much of an impact it might have. In a letter addressed to the president of the EP, Antonio Tajani, around 70 internet luminaries, including Vint Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee, expressed their concern that the provision could cause “substantial harm” to the internet.
The rule would apply to if someone downloaded Beyoncé’s new music video from YouTube then reuploaded it onto their personal channel. YouTube would have to implement technology to recognise the content as copyrighted material and alert Beyoncé’s management. That management would then be able to order YouTube to take down or modify the video at their discretion.
They could only do that by directly monitoring all content uploaded to their sites. Some view this as censorship and say it stifles internet freedom of speech. Each territory is governed by its own copyright laws, so unless the directive causes the big internet companies to make some huge, fundamental changes, you might not be directly affected. Music and video producers have lobbied hard to see the new changes passed.
How much of an article has to be shared before a platform has to pay the publisher? Boiled down, all this article is saying is that any websites that host large amounts of user-generated content (think YouTube, Twitter and Facebook) are responsible for taking down that content if it infringes on copyright. It’s become known by the most controversial segment, Article 13, which critics claim will have a detrimental impact on creators online. YouTube, and YouTubers, have become the most vocal opponents of the proposal.
