Welcome to this week’s PA’s PA, in which the Easter recess has made the political scene very quiet, save for The Times’s relentless pursuit of UKIP over expenses.
However, there is one piece of news, concerning three favourite subjects: the EU, text & data mining and copyright. Whereas two weeks ago we reported on a study by everyone’s favourite “independent” expert Ian Hargreaves for DG Research on data mining; another study has now been published, this time by DG MARKET on “the legal framework of text and data mining”. The study was conducted by Jean-Paul Triallie, a partner at De Wolf & Partners law firm, as part of the European Commission’s in-house review of the Copyright Acquis, which regular readers will know ran alongside the stakeholder dialogues “Licences for Europe”. It can be read here: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/studies/1403_study2_en.pdf
The Trialle report concludes that the Copyright Directive needs to be amended in order to permit data and text mining (Hargreaves came to this conclusion too, but went a step further and said the Directive should also be totally rewritten). Trialle’s logic is that reproduction for data mining isn’t “temporary” (and so isn’t captured by exceptions under Article 5.1 on temporary reproduction); and nor is it always for scientific purposes (and so isn’t captured by exceptions under Article 5.3(a) for “the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research”.)
This is significant for two reasons: first, most clearly, if the Copyright Directive doesn’t currently allow Member States to introduce text & data mining exceptions, how is it that the UK is looking to introduce one? Secondly, to plead in the alternate, even if IPO could make the case that the Directive does permit a TDM exception its proposed legislation talks only of allowing reproduction “for the sole purpose of RESEARCH for a non-commercial purpose”. The absence of the word “scientific” in the UK language is therefore hugely significant, since Trialle explicitly notes that the Directive is especially problematic because it does not account for non-scientific research. Capice?
The upshot may well be that the UK government is attempting to introduce an exception which an expert report into DG MARKET somewhat awkwardly claims is not permitted under European law. Naturally, we (The PA, International STM and FEP) think it would be quite important to point out this rather large snag to the two Parliamentary Committees currently scrutinising the UK legislation. We shall be doing so next week.
Next week look out for the European Librarians (EBLIDA) and CILIP’s campaign on the “right to e-read”. Yes, I know, we already have that right. Here are some further thoughts from this week’s Bookseller:
Who We’ve Met and Forthcoming Meetings
Ros Lynch, the new Director of Copyright and Enforcement at the IPO; next week we will be having further conversations with IPO and with JISC…and there will be a sneak preview of the Alliance for IP’s Manifesto for IP which will be launched in Parliament on 28 April.