The purpose of Article 11 is to help news organizations generate money from the content they create. Or, as paragraph 32 of the proposal for a directive puts it: `the organisational and financial contribution of publishers to the production of press publications must be recognised and encouraged in order to ensure the sustainability of the publishing sector`. It warned that its Content ID system only works if rights holders commit to it and “clarify” the material they own. It is “too risky” to let anyone in the EU download anything. In this discussion of what Article 13 is, we have come full circle. This controversial EU legislation must be implemented by the national governments of EU member states by 2021 – and it has profound implications. A lot can happen in the next couple of years – so keep an eye out for this space. In this article, we explain in more detail what Article 13 entails and what it means for publishers and Internet users. Current Economist columnist Jeremy Cliffe described this as a typical example of what French President Emmanuel Macron, another supporter of the directive, calls “the Europe that protects.” Well, the full directive is quite long and perhaps the cure for insomnia. In any case, many things are quite simple.

But as with most things, the devil is in the details – or in this case, Articles 11 and 13. How much of an article must be shared before a platform has to pay the publisher? The policy states that platforms don`t have to pay if they “simply share hyperlinks with simple words,” but since most links are accompanied by more than a few words, it seems that many platforms and news aggregators would violate this rule. With regard to the question of what Article 13 is and who is in favour of it, we should also mention the entertainment industry. Singers like Paul McCartney and filmmakers like Mike Leigh have also spoken out strongly in favour of Article 13. What does that mean? All this article says is that all websites that host large amounts of user-generated content (think YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook) are responsible for removing that content if it infringes copyright. Wojcicki has never written again. In a second blog post out of 12. “Parliament`s approach is unrealistic in many cases because copyright holders often disagree on who owns which rights,” she wrote. “If the owners can`t reach an agreement, it`s impossible to expect the open platforms hosting this content to make the right rights decisions.” Article 12 bis could prevent any person who is not the official organiser of a sports match from publishing videos or photos of that match. This could stop viral sports GIFs and even discourage people who have attended matches from posting photos on social media. But, as with the articles mentioned above, all this depends on how the Directive is interpreted by the Member States when transposing it into national law. Obviously, both sections are well-intentioned.

And many people and organizations find reasons to celebrate. On Facebook, the EU`s Article 13 compliant meme group currently has more than 12,100 likes. The group wants to “prove that our internet community is so strong that we can still enjoy high-class memes and jokes without violating Article 13.” Jim Killock, executive director of the UK-based Open Rights Group, went even further in an article for The Independent, saying the policy, if implemented, “will change the face of the internet forever, from an open platform to a place where everything can be removed without warning.” Regardless of what goes through the filters, there is no doubt that the implementation of Article 13 will mean that EU viewers will have very limited access to content compared to the current landscape. This could narrow down their options to the content of a few large companies, forcing them to pay high prices for content they are used to consuming for free or for a minimal price. As we discussed in a previous article, it is very likely that the use of virtual private networks (VPNs) will increase among Europeans as they find ways to maintain their status quo in terms of content consumption. The article aims to get news aggregator sites like Google News to pay publishers to use snippets of their articles on their platforms. Press publications “may receive fair and proportionate remuneration for the digital use of their press publications by information society service providers,” the directive states. How does it work? Well, this section is not really a law.

It is a directive. This is the part of the Copyright Directive that worries most people. This article states: “Online content-sharing service providers and rightholders shall cooperate in good faith to ensure that unauthorized works or other subject-matter are not available on their services.” You can read the full text of the full policy here. Many fear that this is the world of tomorrow. Others dismiss it as sensationalist apocalyptic speech. But whatever their opinion, people are engaged in heated debates around the world. A little more cautiously, The Economist suggests that “collateral damage” could be likely, citing the case of GitHub – an online code repository – which fears that open source computer code hosted on its website will run into the new filters. The reason this article has been called a “meme ban” is that no one is sure that memes, often based on copyrighted images, violate these laws. Proponents of the legislation argue that memes are protected as parodies and therefore do not need to be removed under this policy, but others argue that filters will not be able to distinguish between memes and other copyrighted material, so they would be caught in the crossfire anyway. On Instagram, a hashtag search #article13 generated 45,685 massive posts on April 17, 2019. As you probably guessed, the vast majority were memes. “IF WE MAKE ARTICLE 13 A MEME, YOU HAVE TO BAN ARTICLE 13,” AS THE MOST NOTED COMMENT ON A YouTube video from Wired magazine about article 13 SAYS.

Article 13 doesn`t require companies to filter what users download, though critics say companies won`t have a choice. The Copyright Directive and its most controversial element, Article 13, oblige online platforms to filter or remove copyright-protected content from their websites.