Clarifying Safe Harbour Provision Applicability

 

 

The proposed Copyright Directive and the version proposed by Rapporteur Voss and the Council set out to provide a much-needed interpretation of the current acquis, as it should apply to the copyright relevant acts of Online Content Sharing Service Providers (OCSSP). Because this issue has proven to be unclear to national courts*, and cases across Europe have had varying and contradicting outcomes, the new law sets out to straighten the record on the matter. 

 

Rapporteur Voss' proposals, for example, do this by clarifying that OCSSP communicate to the public and by providing clear standards with which to evaluate the "active role" of OCSSPs to disqualify them from safe harbour provisions under Article 14 of the 2000/31/EC E-Commerce Directive (ECD) in line with CJEU rulings.

 

 

The Commission clarifies that the ECD safe harbour provisions do not apply to UUC services that play an active role

 

These services are deemed to play an active role when for instance they promote or optimise the presentation of copyright protected works made available by the platform, regardless of the means used. Indeed, today's main access routes to creative content, such as YouTube, SoundCloud or Vimeo, in many instances argue that they are not involved in any way in the provision of content on their platform because it is done by the algorithms that they have created.

 

 

  

  • For a further in-depth analysis of relevant CJEU cases and of the compatibility with the acquis communautaire, read more here.

----------

*For instance, in the GEMA vs YouTube cases the German court said there was no act of communication to the public by the service, yet due to YouTube’s current situation in the market where it competed with services like Spotify, it had to have an effective stay-down obligation. Italian courts in cases against RTI and Break Media also asked for strict stay-down measures. In France, the courts in cases against Dailymotion considered the service a hosting provider subject to notice and take down only; although in some of the cases they considered the relevance of communication to the public by the service and full liability in some others (e.g. Google Videos). In the UK, the courts that decided on some of the website blocking cases against user-uploaded content websites established that the concerned services undertake a communication to the public and could not benefit from safe harbour.