EADP response to the Consultation on the review of EU legislation on copyright and related rights
EADP comments
Founded in 1966, the EADP (European Association of Directory and database Publishers) is a European Association of both large telephone directory publishers as well as business-to-business directory publishers producing directories tailored to individual professions. It has 187 members in 37 countries worldwide, including companies based in 24 EU Member States as well as in the Eastern European countries (Romania and Russia). Directory publishers generate an estimated turnover of 11 billion euro in Europe, employ roughly 37 000 people and are in day-to-day commercial contact with more than four million advertisers. Our member companies provide both paper and on-line
directories.
EADP welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the consultation on the review of EU legislation on copyright and related rights
General View
The Commission Staff Working paper conveys the intention to harmonise the copyright directives so as to create a more coherent and simplified copyright regime. EADP considers the aim very positive. However, we would like to express cautiousness about modifying the balance, which was reached during the copyright negotiations between rights holders and users. EADP considers that the protection of copyright in the field of databases is very specific in the sense that it creates the unique “sui generis” right only for database protection. Thus, aligning the exceptions with other copyright legislation has to be very carefully examined as it might weaken considerably the protection created by the database
directive.
Specific comments
P 5 2.1.1 reproduction right: the intention to align art 5 (a) of the Database Directive with art 5.1 of the Copyright directive. According to the Commission Staff working paper it would not change the scope of the Database Directive however one should be extremely careful with that. Directory publishers are relying very much on the “sui generis right” for the protection of their directories (especially online). If a too broad definition of the exception to the reproduction right is adopted, it might considerably undermine the value of the databases used for directories because everybody will be able to access part of these databases through the “caching exception “ of art 5.1.
P5 2.1.2 distribution right: aligning the definition of the distribution right to include “any form of distribution to the public, by sale or otherwise” could be dangerous to directory publishers who license their products to libraries. Concerning rental rights and the exception for libraries, any review of the rental rights should be carefully assessed so as to make sure that the fair balance between rights holders and users is not threatened.
P 8 = in our view it is logical to assess on a case-by-case basis the need for an extension of the exceptions to the other directives.
However, applying art 5.1 to databases could be questionable for directory publishers for the reason cited above on distribution right. Another problem concerns the definition of the “lawful user” which may be used if the “sui generis” right is amended with an exception such as 5.1: who could qualify as a lawful user? Is somebody consulting a directory in a library or through the Internet considered to be a lawful user? There may be questions of return on investment and fair remuneration.
P 14 2.2.4.2 exception for libraries: EADP is of the view that there is no need for an extension of the exception so far. As we believe that the right balance was achieved already during the negotiations on this directive.
2.2.4.3 alignment of the exceptions: exceptions shall not be aligned for the moment because the sui generis right is specific and has to be viewed as a unique right created for the specific purpose of protection for databases.
|
