Skip to content
Briffa SolicitorsBriffa Solicitors
Briffa Solicitors
Intellectual Property Law
+44 (0)20 7288 6003info@briffa.com
  • What We Do
    • Practice Areas
      • Commercial and Corporate Law
      • Confidential Information
      • Copyright
      • Database Rights
      • Data Protection
      • Design Rights
      • Image Rights
      • IP Disputes
      • IP Contracts and Licences
      • Patents and Inventions
      • Trade Marks
    • Case Studies
    • Industry Specialisms
      • Baby and Child – Briffa Solicitors
      • Fashion Industry – Briffa Solicitors
      • Food and Drink Industry – Briffa Solicitors
      • Graphic Design and Branding Agencies
      • Health and Wellbeing – Briffa Solicitors
      • Music
      • Product Design
      • Technology
  • International
    • EU
    • Further afield
  • Team
  • Reviews
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Videos
  • Book a Meeting
Search site
FacebookLinkedinTwitter
  • What We Do
    • Practice Areas
      • Commercial and Corporate Law
      • Confidential Information
      • Copyright
      • Database Rights
      • Data Protection
      • Design Rights
      • Image Rights
      • IP Disputes
      • IP Contracts and Licences
      • Patents and Inventions
      • Trade Marks
    • Case Studies
    • Industry Specialisms
      • Baby and Child – Briffa Solicitors
      • Fashion Industry – Briffa Solicitors
      • Food and Drink Industry – Briffa Solicitors
      • Graphic Design and Branding Agencies
      • Health and Wellbeing – Briffa Solicitors
      • Music
      • Product Design
      • Technology
  • International
    • EU
    • Further afield
  • Team
  • Reviews
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Videos
  • Book a Meeting
blogger at desk

With 318 votes to 278 in the European Parliament, the so-called ‘Copyright Directive’ has been rejected. The opposition of the directive breathe a sigh of relief as the potentially wide-reaching impact of the reforms has been stayed until MEPs have debated the topic further.

The objectives of the new legislation were to harmonize copyright protection in the EU and to adapt the law to the digital market and the aim was to find the right balance between protecting IP rights on the internet and ensuring freedom of expression and information of users.

However two provisions in particular, raised concerns. Article 11, also called “Link Tax”, would have forced companies like Google or Facebook to get a license from publishers in order to show snippets of news articles. This provision would restrict the use of hyperlinks since users need to read about the link before clicking. Limiting snippets in turn limits the ability to link sources and news articles, consequently making information much harder to spread and access.

Whereas internet platforms had no general obligation to monitor content uploaded by users so far, Article 13 would have required companies to prevent copyright infringement by setting up filters – a provision which primarily affects sharing platforms. It aimed to reduce the “value gap” between the money user-uploaded platforms make out of copyrighted works and the actual revenue returned to the creators. Although Article 13 could have been extremely profitable to artists themselves, smaller platforms may not be able to afford filter mechanisms, for which Youtube spends £53m annually. On a lighter-hearted, but no less important note, this article could impact other aspects of the internet such as memes and remixes, effectively ‘censoring’ any shared content and not allowing for any parodies or variations on images which aren’t intended to copy the source.

It is clear from the limitation of information and the risk of excessive censorship, that the directive had various flaws which need to be tackled in the debates held in September.

Briffa’s Comment:

The European commission is trying to tackle the highly topical and complicated debate of internet regulation. Copyright law needs to be adapted to the digital market but the risk is to see the internet turned into “a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users” as Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia founder, said.

If the EU copyright reform is adopted without adequate change, the consequences won’t be the same for everyone:

  • Copyright holders, especially in the music industry, will be more fairly remunerated for the content uploaded on platforms such as YouTube thanks to filter mechanisms.
  • Small publishers and start-ups are likely to suffer from the investments they will have to make either to set up filter mechanisms or to pay licences to show snippets.
  • Internet users will be exposed to surveillance technologies and their freedom of speech and access to information will be limited.
Share this post

Post navigation

PreviousPrevious post:Good for the sole?NextNext post:Let’s hope this one sticks!

Related posts

A B C Book
C is for Copyright Infringement
5th December 2019
Bake off
The Great British Bake Off Parody Conundrum
13th November 2019
Blockchain
Audius – good or bad for the music industry?
18th October 2019
Dark horse
Katy Perry fanning the Flame
11th October 2019
furniture
A step forward for copyright protection
9th October 2019
Images of cameras
The risks of using images taken from the internet in your marketing materials
19th September 2019
Main service pages
  • Baby and Child
  • Beyond the EU
  • Briffa’s Complaints Handling Procedure
  • Case Studies
  • Case Study – Creative thinking on trade mark matters
  • Case Study – Design Infringement
  • Case Study – Employee Breach of Restrictive Covenants
  • Case Study – Games Development – Publishing Deal
  • Data Protection
  • Fashion Industry
  • Food and Drink Industry
  • Graphic Design and Branding Agencies
  • Health and Wellbeing
  • Music
  • Privacy Policy
  • Product Design
  • Reviews
  • Technology
  • Video
  • Brand Clearance and Protection
  • Commercial and Corporate Law
  • Confidential Information
  • Copyright
  • Database Rights
  • Design Rights
  • Industry Specialisms
  • IP Contracts and Licences
  • IP Disputes
  • Patents and Inventions
  • Practice Areas
  • Trade Marks
  • Brexit and your Intellectual Property
  • Cease and Desist Letters
  • Ceyda Sam- Solicitor
  • Hasnath Ahmed – Solicitor
  • Image Rights
  • Joshuanne Amachie
  • Noyemie Sahakian – Solicitor
  • Ramsay Monime – Senior Associate
  • Samuel O’Toole
  • Tom Synott – Solicitor
  • Copyright Infringement by An Employee
  • IP Solicitors for Games Developers
  • DesignProtect Insurance
  • Furniture Design IP Dispute Case Study
  • IP for Fashion Designers
  • E-commerce
  • Entertainment and Media Law
  • Intellectual Property Audits
  • International Intellectual Property Rights
Categories
Subscribe
CONTACT US
  • Main Office
    Business Design Centre, 52 Upper Street, Islington, London N1 0QH, UK
  • Telephone : (44) 020 7288 6003, Email : info@briffa.com
  • Office in Europe
    Grand Central, 157 Archbishop Street, Valletta, VLT 1440, Malta
  • Email : info@briffa.com
Recent Posts
  • C is for Copyright Infringement 5th December 2019
  • Brand protection… the big questions answered 5th December 2019
  • New ammunition against trade mark squatters in China? 29th November 2019
Briffa tweets
  • Danish court rules artist's work cannot be cut up to make watches https://t.co/zoqGnQtYvU2 days ago
  • Jay-Z is in the news again – this time for issuing proceedings against children’s author Jessica Chiha, who wrote “… https://t.co/IFL0CDHq603 days ago
  • Spent months developing the prefect brand name? Bought a domain name or registered a company name featuring brand?… https://t.co/vrxUSji8md3 days ago
Briffa is the trading name of Briffa Legal Limited: a company registered in England and Wales (No. 07655999) and authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (No. 561243). © Briffa