The full list of signatories can be found at the end of this page.

Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law (CIPIL), University of Cambridge, United Kingdom; Centre d’Etudes Internationales de la Propriété Intellectuelle (CEIPI), University of Strasbourg, France; RCUK Copyright Centre (CREATe), University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK; Chair for Civil and Intellectual Property Law, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany; Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands; Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany; Center for Internet & Society (NEXA), Politecnico di Torino, Italy; Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC), Barcelona, Spain SciencesPo Paris, France; Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology and Society & Tilburg Law and Economics Center, University of Tilburg, Netherland

In order to facilitate debate, we have produced two short appendices to this letter, setting out the key flaws of the proposals, and listing sources of evaluation. There is independent scientific consensus that Articles 11 and 13 cannot be allowed to stand.

With respect to both provisions, independent empirical evidence has been ignored, consultations have been summarised in a misleading manner, and legitimate criticism has been labelled as anti-copyright. We urge you to look inside the copyright package and seek out independent expertise.

Article 13 indirectly tries to amend the E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) that arranges the liability of online intermediaries for user generated content into a shared responsibility of rights holders and service providers. The proposals will hinder digital innovation and users’ participation.

Article 11 seeks to create an additional exclusive right for press publishers, even though press publishers already acquire exclusive rights from authors via contract. The additional right will deter communication of news, obstruct online licensing, and will negatively affect authors.

While the Proposed Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (COM(2016) 593 final) contains a number of reasonable, common sense measures (for example relating to cross border access, out-of-commerce works, and access for the benefit of visually impaired people), there are two provisions that are fundamentally flawed. They do not serve the public interest.

The proposals say the right words on the cover : “EU Copyright Rules Fit For The Digital Age. Better choice & access to content online and across borders. Improved copyright rules for education, research, cultural heritage and inclusion of disabled people. A fairer online environment for creators and the press.”

It is likely that you personally are being lobbied with regard to a complex Copyright Reform package that extends to 3 Regulations and 2 Directives (supported by over 400 pages of Impact Assessments).

EU Copyright Reform Proposals Unfit for the Digital Age Amsterdam, Berlin, Cambridge, Glasgow, München, Paris, Strasbourg, Tilburg, Torino 24 February 2017 We are independent legal, economic and social scientists, and represent the leading European centres researching intellectual property and innovation law.

Martin Senftleben, Christina Angelopoulos, Giancarlo Frosio, Valentina Moscon, Miquel Peguera and Ole Andreas Rognstad (2017) The Recommendation on Measures to Safeguard Fundamental Rights and the Open Internet in the Framework of the EU Copyright Reform (24pp). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3054967

Thomas Margoni (2018) The Text and Data Mining exception in the Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market: Why it is not what EU copyright law needs. CREATe blog (25/04/18) available at: https://www.create.ac.uk/blog/2018/04/25/why-tdm-exception-copyright-directive-digital-single-market-not-what-eu-copyright-needs/

Matthias Leistner and Axel Metzger (2017) The EU Copyright Package: A Way Out of the Dilemma in Two Stages, International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC) 48(4), pp 381–384

Martin Husovec (2017) Compromising (on) the Digital Single Market? A Quick Look at the Estonian Presidency Proposal(s) on Art 13, Kluwer blog (08/09/2017) available at http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2017/09/08/compromising-digital-single-market-quick-look-estonian-presidency-proposals-art-13/

Christophe Geiger, Giancarlo Frosio, Oleksandr Bulayenko (2018) The Exception for Text and Data Mining (TDM) in the Proposed Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, Legal Aspects, Study commissioned by European Parliament, Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs for JURI Committee (29pp): http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2018/604941/IPOL_IDA(2018)604941_EN.pdf

Christophe Geiger, Giancarlo Frosio and Oleksandr Bulayenko (2017) Opinion of the CEIPI on the European Commission’s Proposal to Reform Copyright Limitations and Exceptions in the European Union. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3053983 (published version: “The EU Commission’s Proposal to Reform Copyright Limitations: A Good but Far Too Timid Step in the Right Direction”, European Intellectual Property Review 2018, 4)

Reto M. Hilty and Valentina Moscon (eds.) (2017) Modernisation of the EU Copyright Rules – Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (Research Paper, No. 17-12, 208pp): https://www.ip.mpg.de/en/projects/details/modernisation-of-european-copyright-rules.html

Kristofer Erickson and Martin Kretschmer (2018) ‘This Video is Unavailable’: Analyzing Copyright Takedown of User-Generated Content on YouTube, Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E- Commerce Law (JIPITEC), 9(1). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3144329

Lionel Bently, Martin Kretschmer & Technopolis Consultants (2017) The position of press publishers and authors & performers in the copyright directive, Study commissioned by European Parliament, Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs (100pp): http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596810/IPOL_STU%282017%29596810_EN.pdf

The Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive is now failing its stated goals to improve choice, access and fairness in the digital environment.

If the legislation progresses in the form proposed by the recent drafts of the Bulgarian Presidency and JURI rapporteur Voss, we call on you to reject the Proposed Directive altogether. It will not serve the public interest.

Comodini’s draft report for the JURI Committee in our view still offers the most workable basis for progress because it was based on wide and transparent consultation, taking into account scientific evidence.

There is a tremendous amount of noise and misinformation. “Fake news” is dressed as a copyright issue (which can only be characterised as cynical), and the misleading rhetoric of a “value gap” clouds the true nature of the issues for online platforms.

Comodini resigned as a MEP in June 2017 to take up a seat in the Maltese Parliament and Axel Voss, a German MEP from the EPP Group, was appointed rapporteur. The legislative drafts that have since emerged from his office as well as from the Bulgarian Council presidency (since January 2018) pay lip service to authors’ interest but respond in effect to the agenda of powerful corporate interests.

In the lead Legal Affairs committee JURI, rapporteur Therese Comodini Cachia (EPP) produced a balanced draft report, published on 10 March 2017 [4] that replaced the deeply problematic new publishers’ right in Art. 11 with a presumption that gives press publishers standing to sue. Comodini’s report also opened the text-and-data-mining exception under Art. 3 to all, and clarified the obligations on service providers under Art. 13.

When the Commission’s Proposed Directive was published on 14 September 2016, there were grounds for optimism. The Committees of the European Parliament did their job in scrutinising the proposals. In particular the draft report of MEP Catherine Stihler (S&D) for the Internal Market committee IMCO recognised the dangers of Art. 13 (where it may undermine the innovation benefits of the e-Commerce Directive); the report by MEP Michał Boni (EPP) for the Civil Liberties committee LIBE emphasised the Charter of Fundamental Rights and that Art. 13 should not impose a general monitoring obligation; the report by MEP Zdzisław Krasnodębski (ECR) for the Industry committee ITRE drew attention to the narrow scope of the proposed Art. 3 exception for text-and-data-mining.

There is scientific consensus that the proposed exception for text-and-data-mining in Art. 3 will not achieve its goal to stimulate innovation and research if restricted to certain organisations, that the proposals for a new publishers’ right under Art. 11 will favour incumbent press publishing interests rather than innovative quality journalism, and that the proposals for Art. 13 threaten the user participation benefits of the e-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC) which shared the responsibility for enforcement between rightholders and service providers.

We note with dismay that the latest revisions to the Proposed Directive are being negotiated behind closed doors. Independent evidence is ignored in response to heavy lobbying. “Compromise” texts are now being drafted both in the Council of the European Union [2] and in the European Parliament [3]. They are destined for the agenda of the EU Council (Competitiveness Council, 28-29 May 2018) and are scheduled to be voted in the JURI Committee on 21-22 June 2018.

We acknowledged from the beginning that this was a heavily lobbied field, where there was a danger that the interests of small innovating firms, of non-organised creators and of consumers would not be heard. We therefore repeatedly recommended that the legislative process should be conducted transparently and that the public should be offered proper evidence for review.

Many of us participated in the public debate surrounding the Proposed Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (COM(2016) 593 final), contributing studies, scholarly articles, comments and open letters [1]. We did this work in the belief that it is the responsibility of academics to offer independent expertise in a complex and contested area of policy making.

First Open Letter: Full List of Signatories (24 February 2017)

(First Open Letter: Full List of Signatories (24 February 2017)

If you support the Open Letter and wish to add your name, please send an e-mail to the CREATe hub .

Appendix I (Independent Studies and Opinions & Sources of Data): What is wrong with Article 11? (24 February 2017)

Appendix I (Independent Studies and Opinions & Sources of Data): What is wrong with Article 11? (24 February 2017)

Proposed Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market: Article 11

Protection of press publications concerning digital uses The Proposal aims to change the legal framework for the online use of news, by creating a new exclusive right for press publishers. Any statement that this intervention will not affect the communication of information in a democratic society (and thus the right to freedom of expression) is seriously misleading. While the motivation for the proposed new right is to help publishers in a time of technological change, the consequence will be a fundamental change in the copyright treatment of news. The onus must be on the proponents of the new right to present independently verifiable evidence on the effects and the proportionality of the intervention (including an assessment of the lack of alternatives). This is entirely missing from the Commission’s package, a scandalous omission. There is consensus, as Recital 31 puts it, that “[a] free and pluralist press is essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens’ access to information”. But it is wrong to present copyright as the solution. Exclusive rights cut two ways. They incentivise and they prevent. Already the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886), the ‘mother’ of the international copyright system, explicitly permits free press summaries, recognising the sensitive status of information and news. No evidence is presented by the Commission that restricting the communication of news would address the decline in revenues from advertising and subscription of many traditional newspapers. Will citizens read more, and read more European sources? The second main argument offered by the Commission is that there is nothing problematic or unusual under copyright law to recognise investment through a related right (Recital 32: “the organisational and financial contribution of publishers”). This too is misleading. The contribution of a producer of a phonogram or the producer of an audio-visual recording is very different from a publisher, even a news publisher. Through employment contracts or contracts with free-lance journalists, press publishers already acquire the authors’ copyright. So the proposal in effect establishes a double layering of rights for the same creation. If the real issues relate to licensing and enforcement (e.g. proof of ownership), the answer needs to focus on licensing and enforcement rather than on creating new rights. Article 5 of the Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC) could be amended to create a presumption that a press publisher is entitled to bring proceedings to enforce the copyright in any article or other item appearing in a journal of which it is the identified publisher. It is false to claim that the proposed new right for press publishers will have no effect on authors who are protected under the “no prejudice” clause in Art. 11(2) (and Recital 35). In the public consultation, journalists and photographers expressed their concern that by granting publishers a related right, the freedom to republish the work (under contract or as a matter of national law), would be even more difficult to exercise. From a user perspective, a service that wishes to republish works covered by the new right will have to approach whom? If the pie does not get bigger, the authors’ share will become smaller as additional rights are introduced into play. The proposal adds another layer of rights that new services and innovators have to clear in all Member States. This will hinder European innovation compared to the rest of world. The empirical evidence from the introduction of ancillary rights for press publishers in Germany (2013) and Spain (2014) indicates that big firms can adjust their business model, pay licence fees or negotiate free licences. The innovation effects on independent news services and start-ups are not assessed by the Commission. There are many technical issues around the drafting language of Article 11. The term of 20 years appears to apply retrospectively, and is never justified. The subject matter is defined very broadly, covering professional publications, blogs and websites. Despite Recital 33 stating that “this protection does not extend to acts of hyperlinking which do not constitute communication to the public” (reasserting case law of the European Court of Justice), the recitals and explanatory documents state the intention to make aggregators, search engines and social media pay. It is unclear for what activity. Non-linking digital uses, such as scanning, indexing, and text-and-data-mining may become a target. There are potential consequences for open data and open access policies. It is no surprise that academic publishers are taking a close interest in the Article. Article 11 is fundamentally misconceived, and should be removed from the Proposed Directive. Independent studies and opinions European Copyright Society (20 academics), Opinion on European Commission Proposals for Reform of Copyright in the EU (24 January 2017): https://europeancopyrightsociety.org/how-the-ecs-works/ecs-opinions/

Lionel Bently et al., Response to Article 11 of the Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, entitled ‘Protection of press publications concerning digital uses’on behalf of 37 professors and leading scholars of Intellectual Property, Information Law and Digital Economy (5 December 2016): https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/press/news/2016/12/cambridge-academics-respond-call-views-european-commissions-draft-legislation

Richard Danbury (2016), ‘Is an EU publishers’ right a good idea?’ Evaluating potential legal responses to threats to the production of news in a digital era, University of Cambridge Final report on AHRC project: https://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/projectscopyright-and-news-research-project-2014-16/working-papers

Mireille van Eechoud (2017), A publisher’s intellectual property right: Implications for freedom of expression, authors and open content policies, Research paper for OpenForum Europe: http://www.openforumeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/OFE-Academic-Paper-Implications-of-publishers-right_FINAL.pdf

Christophe Geiger, Oleksandr Bulayenko and Giancarlo Frosio (2017), Opinion of the CEIPI on the European Commission’s copyright reform proposal, with a focus on the introduction of neighbouring rights for press publishers in EU law (version published in European Intellectual Property Review [E.I.P.R.] 39(4) 202-210): http://www.ceipi.edu/fileadmin/upload/DUN/CEIPI/Documents/CEIPI_Opinion_on_the_introduction_of_neighbouring_rights_for_press_publishers_in_EU_final.pdf

Martin Kretschmer, Séverine Dusollier, P. Bernt Hugenholtz, Christophe Geiger (2016), The European Commission’s public consultation on the role of publishers in the copyright value chain: A response by the European Copyright Society, European Intellectual Property Review [E.I.P.R.] 36(10) 591-595: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2801595

Alexander Peukert (2016), An EU Related Right for Press Publishers Concerning Digital Uses, A Legal Analysis, Research Paper of the Faculty of Law, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main No. 22/2016: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2888040

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (2012), Stellungnahme zum Gesetzesentwurf für eine Ergänzung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes durch ein Leistungsschutzrecht für Verleger: http://www.ip.mpg.de/fileadmin/ipmpg/content/stellungnahmen/leistungsschutzrecht_fuer_verleger_01.pdf

Raquel Xalabarder (2016), Press Publisher Rights in the New Copyright in the Digital Single Market Draft Directive, CREATe Working Paper 2016/15: https://www.create.ac.uk/publications/press-publisher-rights-in-the-new-copyright-in-the-digital-single-market-draft-directive/ Sources of data Susan Athey, Mark Mobius and Jeno Pal (2017), The Impact of News Aggregators on Internet News Consumption: The Case of Localization Stanford Business School Working Paper No. 3353 (Shutdown of Google News in Spain reduced overall news consumption by about 20% for treatment users, and it reduced page views on publishers other than Google News by 10%. This decrease is concentrated around small publishers while large publishers do not see significant changes in their overall traffic): https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers/impact-news-aggregators-internet-news-consumption-case-localization

Joan Calzada and Ricard Gil (2016), What Do News Aggregators Do? Evidence from Google News in Spain and Germany, Universitat de Barcelona and John Hopkins Carey Business School Working Paper (Shutdown of Google News in Spain decreased the number of daily visits to Spanish news outlets by 11%. In Germany, the opt-in policy adopted by the German edition of Google News in October 2014 did not significantly affect the daily visits of all outlets that opted out, but reduced by 7% the number of visits of the outlets controlled by the publisher Axel Springer): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2837553

Copyright, related rights and the news in the EU: Assessing potential new laws (conference proceedings, CIPIL University of Cambridge, IViR University of Amsterdam, 23 April 2016): https://www.ivir.nl/newsconference2016/

Nera Consulting (2015), Impacto del Nuevo Artículo 32.2 de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual, Informe para la Asociación Española de Editoriales de Publicaciones Periódicas (AEEPP) (study commissioned by Spanish Association of Publishers of Periodicals AEEPP): http://www.nera.com/publications/archive/2015/impact-of-the-new-article-322-of-the-spanish-intellectual-proper.html

Deloitte (2016), The impact of web traffic on revenues of traditional newspaper publishers: A study for France, Germany, Spain, and the UK (study commissioned by Google): https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/technology-media-telecommunications/deloitte-uk-impact-of-web-traffic-on-newspaper-revenues-2016.pdf

European press publishers associations (EMMA, ENPA, EPC and NME): Putting the record straight on copyright, links and other questions (17 November 2016), Letter send to every MEP (presenting the new right as “straightforward” and “in line with the copyright acquis”) [link to pdf]

CopyrightEvidence.org: Wiki resource, cataloguing empirical evidence relating to copyright

Appendix II (Independent Studies and Opinions & Sources of Data): What is wrong with Article 13? (24 February 2017)

Appendix II (Independent Studies and Opinions & Sources of Data): What is wrong with Article 13? (24 February 2017)

Proposed Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market: Article 13 Use of protected content by information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users The Proposal aims to change the legal framework for online use of copyright works. Without acknowledging it and contradicting the results of the public consultation, it reverses the allocation of responsibilities between rightsholders and service providers that was adopted by the European legislator in the E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC). The E-Commerce Directive had two main goals. First, it was to support the economic growth of digital services relying on user-generated content by providing them with legal certainty. Second, it was to legislate for rapid, reliable and proportionate enforcement of copyright and other rights. The resulting mechanism adopted for hosting services, known as “notice and takedown”, splits the responsibility and costs associated with preventing copyright infringements between rightsholders and intermediaries. It does so by making a host of content uploaded by users liable only upon obtaining knowledge of the content and its illegality. As a result, while rightsholders bear the burden of identifying and notifying infringements, intermediaries oversee verification and subsequent takedown of the notified content. The proposed Article 13 attempts to change this by creating an obligation on intermediary services to take “appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure protection of works or other subject-matter, such as implementing effective technologies” (Recital 38). The aim is to force platforms into licensing agreements that close the so-called “value gap” between the benefits platforms derive from hosting user uploaded content and the money paid to rightsholders of that content. The Proposal is poorly drafted. It is unclear if it imposes a novel filtering obligation only on platforms with existing licensing agreements, or on all platforms regardless of such agreements. In any case, Article 13 avoids answering the central question: when and on what legal grounds should platforms pay for their users’ content? But most importantly, Article 13 is not based on any assessment of the consequences of the intervention that conforms to “better regulation principles” agreed by Commission, Parliament and Council: a duty to strive “for simple, evidence-based, predictable and proportionate rules that are fit for purpose and deliver maximum benefits to citizens and businesses” (Jean-Claude Juncker, State of the Union Address 2016). In particular, the Commission’s proposals take the “value gap” as given as a rationale for intervention. The idea that the creation of value should lead automatically to transfer or compensation payments has no scientific basis. The concept was invented by the music industry in 2006, initially as a “value recognition right” in the copyright levy debate. This led quickly to reports commissioned from economic consultants that confirm the views of the commissioners. It is disturbing that the European legislator now appears to take the concept for granted. The value gap language also obfuscates the legitimate goal of improving the economic positions of creators. Online service providers that rely on user generated content not only include large multinational companies, such as YouTube or Facebook. There are many European platforms run by SMEs falling into the same category. Innovative companies are the engine of European growth and an important source of cultural diversity. They will be affected by Article 13 in unpredictable ways. We need to know how. During the scrutiny of this proposal in Parliament and in the Council, the following questions need to be asked: (1) why improving notice and takedown procedure is not sufficient; (2) how expensive and available is the crucial filtering technology; (3) how precise is it; (4) can Internet start-up companies afford it; (5) which services are likely to be affected (e.g. cloud hosts, social media, news aggregators, wikis); (6) will the new obligations raise barriers to entry; (7) if so, for which markets, and with what consequences for European consumers and innovators; (8) will new licensing agreements benefit creators, and why; (9) how effective are counter-notice measures in preventing over-blocking of legitimate content; (10) will there be any systematic impact on freedom of expression; and (11) how does the European Commission plan to assure public oversight of these measures. The Proposal appears to require private companies to monitor their customers by using unspecified filtering technologies without any public oversight. It appears to encourage value transfer arrangements without considering innovation, consumer and cultural effects. Article 13 needs radical reform that may not be achievable through amendments within its current structure. We would advise removing the Article from the Proposed Directive, and focussing attention on improving the procedure for “notice and takedown”. Independent studies and opinions European Copyright Society (20 academics), Opinion on European Commission Proposals for Reform of Copyright in the EU (24 January 2017): https://europeancopyrightsociety.org/how-the-ecs-works/ecs-opinions/

Sophie Stalla-Bourdillon et al (40 academics), Open Letter to the European Commission – On the Importance of Preserving the Consistency and Integrity of the EU Acquis Relating to Content Monitoring within the Information Society: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2850483

Stellungnahme des Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverbandes zu den Regelungsvorschlägen der Europäischen Kommission (insbesondere COM(2016) 593 final und COM(2016) 594 final): https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Gesetzgebungsverfahren/Stellungnahmen/2016/Downloads/10262016_Stellungnahme_vzbv_EU-Urheberrechtsreform.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3

Christina Angelopoulos (2016), EU Copyright Reform: Outside the Safe Harbours, Intermediary Liability Capsizes into Incoherence: http://kluwercopyrightblog.com/2016/10/06/eu-copyright-reform-outside-safe-harbours-intermediary-liability-capsizes-incoherence/

Christina Angelopoulos (2017), On Online Platforms and the Commission’s New Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (study commissioned by Julia Reda MEP):

https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/angelopoulos_platforms_copyright_study.pdf

https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/angelopoulos_platforms_copyright_study.pdf Giancarlo F. Frosio (2017), Reforming Intermediary Liability in the Platform Economy: A European Digital Single Market Strategy, 15(2) Northwestern University Law Review Online (forthcoming): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2912272

Martin Husovec (2016), EC Proposes Stay-down & Expanded Obligation to License UGC Services: http://www.husovec.eu/2016/09/ec-proposes-stay-down-expanded.html

Matthias Leistner and Axel Metzger (2017), Wie sich das Problem illegaler Musiknutzung lösen lässt: http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/gema-youtube-wie-sich-urheberrechts-streit-schlichten-liesse-14601949.html?printPagedArticle=true#pageIndex_2

Eleonora Rosati (2016), Why a reform of hosting providers’ safe harbour is unnecessary under EU copyright law, European Intellectual Property Review [E.I.P.R.] 28(11), 669-677: https://www.create.ac.uk/publications/why-a-reform-of-hosting-providers-safe-harbour-is-unnecessary-under-eu-copyright-law/

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition (2017), Position Statement on the Proposed Modernization of European Copyright Rules: http://www.ip.mpg.de/en/research/intellectual-property-and-competition-law/position-statement-modernization-of-european-copyright-rules.html Sources of data EconLaw Strategic Consulting (2007), Economic Analysis of Private Copy Remuneration, Report prepared by Albert Sanchez-Grealls and Juan Santaló for Groupement Européen des Sociétés d’Auteurs et Compositeurs (GESAC) (early example of “transfer of value” concept, commissioned by association of music collecting societies): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1885107

Mark Rogers, Joshua Tomalin and Ray Corrigan (2009), “The Economic Impact of Consumer Copyright Exceptions: A literature review”, Study commissioned by Consumer Focus (includes critique of the economic assumptions in EconLaw 2007): http://oro.open.ac.uk/25604/5/The_economics_of_consumer_copyright_exceptions_final.pdf

Daniel Seng (2015), ‘Who Watches the Watchmen?’ An Empirical Analysis of Errors in DMCA Takedown Notices: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2563202

Jennifer M. Urban, Joe Karaganis and Brianna L. Schofield (2016), Notice and Takedown in Everyday Practice, UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. 2755628 (empirical study identifying problematic takedowns): https://ssrn.com/abstract=2755628https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=2755628

European Commission, Public Consultation on the Review of the EU Copyright Rules (5 December 2013 – 5 March 2014: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/consultations/2013/copyright-rules/index_en.htm

European Commission (2015), The Liability Regime and Notice-and-Action Procedures, call for a study (SMART 2016/0039) tendered under framework contract (the resulting study has NOT been published, we link to the pdf of the call here) [link]

European Commission (2016), Synopsis Report on The Public Consultation on The Regulatory Environment for Platforms, Online Intermediaries and The Collaborative Economy: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/full-report-results-public-consultation-regulatory-environment-platforms-online-intermediaries (underreporting concerns about changes to liability regime)

https://lumendatabase.org/: database of legal complaints and requests for removal of online materials

CopyrightEvidence.org: Wiki resource, cataloguing empirical evidence relating to copyright

Earlier Contributions

Earlier Contributions

The European Commission’s public consultation on the review of EU copyright rules: a response by the CREATe Centre

CREATe Working Paper 2014/9

https://www.create.ac.uk/publications/create-response-to-eu-copyright-rules-review/

CREATe Working Paper 2014/9 https://www.create.ac.uk/publications/create-response-to-eu-copyright-rules-review/ Response to the Public Consultation by the European Commission on the Evaluation and Modernisation of the Legal Framework for the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights on behalf of CREATe by Elena Cooper, Theodore Koutmeridis and Martin Kretschmer (April 2016)

https://www.create.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/CREATe-response-to-EC-enforcement-consultation.pdf

https://www.create.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/CREATe-response-to-EC-enforcement-consultation.pdf The European Commission’s public consultation on the role of publishers in the copyright value chain: A response by the European Copyright Society

CREATe Working Paper 2016/09

Martin Kretschmer, Séverine Dusollier, Christophe Geiger, and P. Bernt Hugenholtz

https://www.create.ac.uk/publications/the-european-commissions-public-consultation-on-the-role-of-publishers-in-the-copyright-value-chain-a-response-by-the-european-copyright-society/

CREATe Working Paper 2016/09 Martin Kretschmer, Séverine Dusollier, Christophe Geiger, and P. Bernt Hugenholtz https://www.create.ac.uk/publications/the-european-commissions-public-consultation-on-the-role-of-publishers-in-the-copyright-value-chain-a-response-by-the-european-copyright-society/ Why a reform of hosting providers’ safe harbour is unnecessary under EU copyright law

CREATe Working Paper 2016/11

Eleonora Rosati, University of Southampton and e-LAWnora

https://www.create.ac.uk/publications/why-a-reform-of-hosting-providers-safe-harbour-is-unnecessary-under-eu-copyright-law/

CREATe Working Paper 2016/11 Eleonora Rosati, University of Southampton and e-LAWnora https://www.create.ac.uk/publications/why-a-reform-of-hosting-providers-safe-harbour-is-unnecessary-under-eu-copyright-law/ EU copyright reform: the case for and against a related right for press publishers

CREATe Working Paper 2017/08

Thomas Höppner

CREATe Working Paper 2016/15

Raquel Xalabarder

https://www.create.ac.uk/publications/eu-copyright-reform-the-case-for-a-related-right-for-press-publishers/

https://www.create.ac.uk/publications/press-publisher-rights-in-the-new-copyright-in-the-digital-single-market-draft-directive/

ESRC resource from public lectures: https://www.create.ac.uk/create-public-lecture-2017-the-case-for-a-related-right-for-press-publishers/ CREATe’s earlier contributions to the EU Copyright reform debate include the following papers and policy submissions: A full list of interventions is available here: https://www.create.ac.uk/policy-responses/

