The Commission has consulted on the copyright law implications
of digitising books on a mass scale and has said that libraries and
universities are at odds with publishers and authors over how
digitisation should be carried out.
The Commission has expressed concern recently that its culture
digitisation project, Europeana, might be overtaken by a foreign
commercial project, most probably by the Google Books scheme.
Google's book digitisation scheme is in the latter stages of
negotiation with rights holders on copyright issues.
Reporting the results of its consultation, the Commission said
that there was a gulf between the interests of libraries and
publishers.
"Broadly speaking two divergent views emerged. Libraries,
archives and universities favour the 'public interest' by
advocating a more permissive copyright system," said the Commission
report. "Publishers, collecting societies and other right holders
argue that the best way to improve the dissemination of knowledge
and provide users with increased and effective access to works is
through licensing agreements."
The Commission said that the main problem facing libraries and
universities was the cost of obtaining specific consent for every
one of the hundreds of millions of works they will want to
digitise. A more cost-efficient method was needed, it said.
The Commission said it would examine the introduction of
collective licensing to solve this problem, but would also consider
legislating to exempt library activity from copyright law
altogether. "The Commission will consider whether there is a need
for further initiatives as part of the new strategy including the
possible creation of a statutory exception for such digitisation
efforts," it said.
"Libraries and academics state that certain exceptions are more
important for the knowledge economy than others," said its report
on the consultation. "They favour a mandatory set of core 'public
interest' exceptions to facilitate 'access to knowledge'. They also
expect that these exceptions are not rendered moot by technological
protection measures (TPM). The confines of copyright should instead
be defined by the legislator," said the report.
"Publishers, collecting societies and other right holders
consider that an equally satisfactory result can be achieved by
contracts, often tailor-made to cater to new technologies.
Publishers state that mandatory exceptions could undermine economic
rewards and encourage so-called 'free-riding'," it said.
Google is also locked in a legal battle over its digitisation
project. It reached agreement with authors and publishers groups,
though, in a deal which still requires US court approval before
becoming fully active.
Information Society Commissioner Viviane Reding admitted that
the EU was effectively in a race against Google.
"Important digitisation efforts have already started all around
the globe. Europe should seize this opportunity to take the lead,
and to ensure that books digitisation takes place on the basis of
European copyright law, and in full respect of Europe's cultural
diversity," she said. "If we act swiftly, pro-competitive European
solutions on books digitisation may well be sooner operational than
the solutions presently envisaged under the Google Books Settlement
in the United States."
Book digitisation projects face the problem of what to do about
'orphan works', books that are still copyright-protected but whose
copyright-owner cannot be found.
The Commission said that it would need to research this issue
further to find a solution. It said that an exception to copyright
law was also one option for orphan works.
"Possible approaches include, inter alia, a legally binding
stand-alone instrument on the clearance and mutual recognition of
orphan works, an exception to the 2001 Directive, or guidance on
cross-border mutual recognition of orphan works," it said.
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
