Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Legal Challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution: Copyright in the Digital Single Market: Between New Uses of Protected Content and Fairness Considerations

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
The Legal Challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (ICLCFIR 2022)

Part of the book series: Law, Governance and Technology Series ((LGTS,volume 57))

  • 416 Accesses

Abstract

Rapid technological developments continue to transform the way creative works and other subject matters are created, produced, distributed and exploited. In consequence, novel practices, players, and business models, as well as new conflicts of interests have arisen. This has challenged the interpretation and application of copyright law in two particular respects: (i) the questioned legitimacy of new uses of protected works in the digital environment; and (ii) a different distribution of the value created along the value chain related to copyright, thus calling the need to rethink the function(s) of copyright as a tool to create markets for protected works and to (fairly) direct revenues towards the production stage of original content. After discussing the impact of the fourth industrial revolution on copyright law, this chapter proceeds to frame the modernisation of copyright law within the EU Digital Market Strategy, by focusing on selected aspects of the Directive 2019/790 (CDSMD). This instrument is largely driven by the aim to foster an efficient flow of content within the digital single market, by also allowing a fair distribution of the value generated by digital uses. In particular, there are three main legal responses given by the CDSMD to certain pressing challenges of the fourth industrial revolution: (a) text and data mining exceptions and limitations; (b) the press publishers related right for online uses of press publications; and (c) the new Liability Regime for Online Content-Sharing Services Providers. While discussing the strengths and weaknesses of such solutions, this chapter concludes with an overview of a number of further legal challenges, which may require further legislative or interpretative reforms in order to ensure internal and external consistency of EU copyright and the related rights system within the digital single market.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Olivieri and Scalzini (2018), passim; Geiger (2017), p. 73.

  2. 2.

    See Schwab (2017); Floridi (2017).

  3. 3.

    Jütte (2017); Ghidini (2018); Sganga (2018); De Vasconcelos Casimiro (2016).

  4. 4.

    Rosati (2021), §1.

  5. 5.

    Ramalho (2021), p. 3; Synodinou (2021), p. 39 the desireability of unification of EU Copyright Law.

  6. 6.

    Such rationales have been indicated by Recital n. 2 CDSMD.

  7. 7.

    See Recital n. 2 CDSMD.

  8. 8.

    Bently and Radauer (2014); Pila and Ohly (2013); Geiger (2013).

  9. 9.

    Rosati (2019).

  10. 10.

    See CJEU C-275/06 Productores de Musica de Espana v. Telefonica de Espana SAU; C-70/10 Scarlet Extended SA c. Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL; C-360/10 Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM) c. Netlog NV; C-469/17, Funke Medien NRW GmbH c. Bundesrepublik Deutschland; C-516/17, Spiegel Online GmbH c. Volker Beck; C-476/17, Pelham GmbH e a. c. Ralf Hütter e Florian Schneider-Esleben.

  11. 11.

    Commission Communication of 9 December 2015 entitled ‘Towards a modern, more European copyright framework’, DSM Strategy.

  12. 12.

    DIRECTIVE (EU) 2019/790 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC.

  13. 13.

    Recital 3 DCSMD.

  14. 14.

    For comments of the Directive see Rosati (2021), Quintais (2020), Dusollier (2020).

  15. 15.

    See Kretschmer et al. (2016).

  16. 16.

    Article 2, 2 CDSMD.

  17. 17.

    They are often carried out, for instance, on user generated content, such as tweets, messages, photos.

  18. 18.

    Mansani (2019), p. 3ff.

  19. 19.

    Geiger et al. (2018), p. 818.

  20. 20.

    Caspers and Guibault (2016), p. 1; Ducato and Strowel (2019).

  21. 21.

    Recital 8 CDSMD. Rosati (2018), p. 4; Triaille et al. (2014); Montagnani and Aime (2017), p. 380.

  22. 22.

    See Recital n. 16 CDSMD.

  23. 23.

    See Recital n. 16 CDSMD.

  24. 24.

    Art. 4(3) CDSMD.

  25. 25.

    See Recital 18 CDSMD.

  26. 26.

    See also Hugenholtz (2019).

  27. 27.

    Rosati (2021), p. 89. Ducato and Strowel (2019).

  28. 28.

    Geiger et al. (2018); Strowel and Ducato (2021), p. 299 ff; Stenftleben (2017); European Copyright Society, General Opinion on the EU Copyright Reform Package, https://europeancopyrightsocietydotorg.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/ecs-opinion-on-eu-copyright-reform-def.pdf.

  29. 29.

    See Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F. 3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015); Authors Guild v. HathiTrust, 755 F.3d 87 (2d Cir.2014). Sobel (2017) W., p. 49.

  30. 30.

    For an analysis of such profile see Scalzini (2019). The concrete functioning of the exception, once implemented in the national legal systems, and the related exercise of the opt out that may create very different scenarious, also due to the broad spectrum of very different right-holders.

  31. 31.

    Some scholars call for “a consistent international baseline that resolves the tensions between copyright and Text and data mining practices”, also in light of transnational uses of data. See in particular Flynn et al. (2020), p. 393.

  32. 32.

    Directive (EU) 2019/1024 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on open data and the re-use of public sector information (recast).

  33. 33.

    Scalzini (2021).

  34. 34.

    Rosati (2016), p. 569; Kretschmer et al. (2016); Geiger et al. (2017), p. 202; Hilty and Moscon (2017); Ramalho (2017), p. 71; van Eechoud (2017).

  35. 35.

    See Colangelo (2021), p. 133.

  36. 36.

    Defined by Article 2(4)CDSMD, with some exclusions.

  37. 37.

    See recital 58 CDSMD.

  38. 38.

    See French Competition Authority, Autorité de la concurrence, decision of 9 April 2020, n. 20-MC-01 ‘relative à des demandes de mesures conservatoires présentées par le Syndicat des éditeurs de la presse magazine, l'Alliance de la presse d'information générale e.a. et l’Agence France-Presse’, https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/fr/decision/relative-des-demandes-de-mesures-conservatoires-presentees-par-le-syndicat-des-editeurs-de (last accessed 25 July 2020).

  39. 39.

    See the new Art. 43 bis of the Italian copyright law (L. 633/1941).

  40. 40.

    See nternational Federation of the Phonographic Industry, Global Music Report 2021—Annual State of the Industry (2021), p. 40.

  41. 41.

    I.e., according to Art. 286) CDSMD, providers “of an information society service of which the main or one of the main purposes is to store and give the public access to a large amount of copyright-protected works or other protected subject matter uploaded by its users, which it organises and promotes for profit-making purposes”.

  42. 42.

    Providers which do not meet the criteria set out in that provision remain subject to the general liability regime, as interpreted by the CJEU. See CJEU, Judgment of 22 June 2021, Youtube and Cyando, C-682/18 and C-683/18, EU:C:2021:50.

  43. 43.

    See Art. 17 (4) CDSMD.

  44. 44.

    For a comment of this provision see Rendas (2022), p. 54.

  45. 45.

    See Quintais et al. (2019); Geiger and Jütte (2021), p. 517; Rosati (2021); Husovec and Quintais (2021).

  46. 46.

    Rosati (2021), Art. 17, §3.4; See also Commission Article 17 Guidelines.

  47. 47.

    CJEU, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 April 2022, Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union, Case C-401/19, ECLI:EU:C:2022:297.

  48. 48.

    §22 ss.

  49. 49.

    C-401/19, § 39-58.

  50. 50.

    See Opinion Of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe delivered on 15 July 2021 ECLI:EU:C:2021:613.

  51. 51.

    C-401/19,§ 54 and 55.

  52. 52.

    C-401/19, §98.

  53. 53.

    C-401/19, §78.

  54. 54.

    C-401/19, §80.

  55. 55.

    C-401/19, §86.

  56. 56.

    Husovech (2022).

  57. 57.

    Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC.

  58. 58.

    C-401/19, §87.

  59. 59.

    On this point see Borghi (2021), p. 263.

  60. 60.

    C-401/19, §66 and 91.

  61. 61.

    CJEU, judgment of 22 June 2021, YouTube and Cyando, C-682/18 and C-683/18, EU:C:2021:503.

References

  • Bently L, Radauer A (2014) European intellectual property law: what lies ahead. Paper for the directorate general for Internal Policies of the EU Parliament

    Google Scholar 

  • Borghi M (2021) Exceptions as users’ rights? In: Rosati E (ed) Routledge handbook of EU copyright law. Routledge, London, pp 263–280

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Caspers M, Guibault L (2016) A right to ‘read’ for machines: assessing a black-box analysis exception for data mining. Comput Sci 53:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Colangelo G (2021) Enforcing copyright through antitrust? The strange case of news publishers against digital platforms. J Antitrust Enforcement 10:133–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vasconcelos Casimiro S (2016) The convergence of mass media and Copyright: times of change. Intellectual Property Magazine 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducato R, Strowel A (2019) Limitations to text and data mining and consumer empowerment: making the case for a right to “Machine Legibility”. IIC - Int Rev Intellect Prop Compet Law 50:649–684

    Google Scholar 

  • Dusollier S (2020) The 2019 Directive on copyright in the digital single market: some progress, a few bad choices, and an overall failed ambition. Common Mark Law Rev 57:979–1030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Floridi L (2017) La quarta rivoluzione: come l’infosfera sta trasformando il mondo. Milano, Raffaello Cortina Editore

    Google Scholar 

  • Flynn S, Geiger C, Quintais JP et al (2020) Implementing user rights for research in the field of artificial intelligence: a call for international action. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 42:393–398

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C (ed) (2013) Constructing European intellectual property. Achievements and perspectives. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C (2017) Copyright as an access right, securing cultural participation through the protection of creators’ interests. In: Giblin R, Weatherall K (eds) What if we could reimagine copyright? ANU Press, Canberra, pp 73–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C, Jütte BJ (2021) Platform Liability Under Art. 17 of the copyright in the digital single market directive, automated filtering and fundamental rights: an impossible match. GRUR Int 70:517–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C, Bulayenko O, Frosio GF (2017) The introduction of a neighbouring right for press publisher at EU level: the unneeded (and unwanted) reform. EIPR 39:202–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger C, Frosio G, Bulayenko O (2018) Text and data mining in the proposed copyright reform: making EU ready for an age of big data? IIC. Int Rev Ind Prop Copyright Law 49:814–844

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghidini G (2018) Rethinking intellectual property: balancing conflicts of interest in the constitutional paradigm. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hilty RM, Moscon V (eds) (2017) Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules. Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition’ (2017) Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper No. 17-12. Available at https://pure.mpg.de

  • Hugenholtz B (2019) The New Copyright Directive: Text and Data Mining (Articles 3 and 4). Kluwer Copyright Blog, 24 July 2019. http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com. Accessed 21 Dec 2022

  • Husovec M, Quintais JP (2021) How to License Article 17? Exploring the implementation options for the new EU rules on content-sharing platforms. GRUR Int, 4/2021. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3463011

  • Husovech M (2022) Internet filters do not infringe freedom of expression if they work well. But will they?, Euractiv, 2 May 2022. https://www.euractiv.com. Accessed 21 Dec 2022

  • Jütte BJ (2017) Reconstructing European Copyright Law for the digital single market: between old paradigms and digital challenges. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kretschmer M, Dusollier S, Geiger C, Hugenholtz PB (2016) The European Commission’s public consultation on the role of publishers in the copyright value chain: a response by the European Copyright Society. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 38:591–595

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansani L (2019) Le eccezioni per estrazione di testo e dati, didattica e conservazione del patrimonio culturale. AIDA 28:3–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Montagnani ML, Aime G (2017) Il text and data mining e il diritto d’autore. AIDA 26:376–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Olivieri G, Scalzini S (2018) La proprietà intellettuale. In: Caporale C, De Martin JC, Marchis V et al (eds) Le sfide della scienza, “Europa”. Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana Treccani, pp 598–606

    Google Scholar 

  • Pila J, Ohly A (eds) (2013) The Europeanization of intellectual property law. Towards a European legal methodology. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Quintais JP (2020) The new copyright in the digital single market directive: a critical look. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 42:28–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Quintais JP, Frosio G, Gompel S van Hugenholtz PB, Husovec M, Jütte BJ, Senftleben M (2019) Safeguarding User Freedoms in Implementing Article 17 of the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive: Recommendations From European Academics (November 11, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3484968 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3484968

  • Ramalho A (2017) Beyond the cover story – an enquiry into the EU competence to introduce a right for publishers IIC 48:71–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramalho A (2021) The competence and rationale of EU copyright harmonisation. In: Rosati E (ed) Routledge handbook of EU copyright law. Routledge, London, pp 3–18

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rendas T (2022) Are copyright-permitted uses ‘Exceptions’, ‘Limitations’ or ‘User Rights’? the special case of Article 17 CDSM Directive. J Intellect Prop Law Pract 17:54–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosati E (2016) Neighbouring rights for publishers: are national and (possible) EU initiatives lawful? IIC 47:569–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosati E (2018) The exception for text and data mining (TDM) in the proposed Directive on Copyright in the digital single market – Technical aspects. https://www.europarl.europa.eu

  • Rosati E (2019) Copyright and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rosati E (2021) Copyright in the digital single market article-by-article commentary to the provisions of Directive 2019/790. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scalzini S (2019) L’estrazione di dati e di testo per finalità commerciali dai contenuti degli utenti. Algoritmi, proprietà intellettuale e autonomia negoziale. In Analisi Giuridica dell’Economia 1:395–423

    Google Scholar 

  • Scalzini S (2021) The new related right for press publishers: what way forward? In: Rosati E (ed) Routledge handbook of EU copyright law. Routledge, London, pp 101–119

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab K (2017) The fourth industrial revolution. World Economic Forum

    Google Scholar 

  • Sganga C (2018) Propertizing European Copyright. History, challenges and opportunities. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobel BL (2017) Artificial intelligence’s fair use crisis. Colum J Law Arts 41:45–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenftleben M (2017) EU copyright Reform and Startups – Shedding the Light on Potential Threats in the Political Black Box

    Google Scholar 

  • Strowel A, Ducato R (2021) Artificial Intelligence and text and data mining: a copyright carol. In: Rosati E (ed) Routledge handbook of EU copyright law. Routledge, London, pp 299–316

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Synodinou T-E (2021) The desiderability of unification of EU copyright law. In: Rosati E (ed) Routledge handbook of EU copyright law. Routledge, London, pp 39–60

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Triaille J-P, de Meeûs d’Argenteuil J, de Francquen A (2014) Study on the legal framework on text and data mining (TDM). European Commission, Directorate-General for the Internal Market and Services, Publications Office. Available at https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2780/1475. Accessed 21 Dec 2022

  • van Eechoud M (2017) A Publisher’s intellectual property right: implications for freedom of expression, authors and open content policies (2017) OpenForum Europe, 32. http://www.openforumeurope.org

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Parma, Parma, Italy

    Silvia Scalzini

Authors
  1. Silvia Scalzini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silvia Scalzini .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Research in Private Law – CIDP, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    Dário Moura Vicente

  2. Portuguese Military Academy and Centre for Research in Private Law – CIDP, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    Sofia de Vasconcelos Casimiro

  3. Centre for Research in Private Law – CIDP, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    Chen Chen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Scalzini, S. (2023). The Legal Challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution: Copyright in the Digital Single Market: Between New Uses of Protected Content and Fairness Considerations. In: Moura Vicente, D., de Vasconcelos Casimiro, S., Chen, C. (eds) The Legal Challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. ICLCFIR 2022. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 57. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40516-7_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40516-7_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-40515-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-40516-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation