Article 13 is currently a very big issue in Europe and I do not know if the worries are justified or if everything is a bit overdrawn (especially from the press, Youtubern etc.)
But now I have a question about the whole thing myself. I myself am a streamer on Twitch and I think streaming itself with Article 13 will not really be that big, because the game developers / vendors spend licenses pretty fast and they even want the streams or YT videos made from their games. But what about the things that can be seen in the stream via the webcam, eg. Clothes of the streamer, pictures on the wall, furniture, gaming merchandise, headset, microphones? Do I have to obtain licenses for this?
Article 13 does not change the copyright itself, but only the implementation of it. What you were allowed to show before, you can still show what you can't show. Through the upload filter, even if this word does not appear in the bill itself, it should be prevented before uploading that trademark rights are violated, not only when the image was reported.
How that is when streaming is a good question. In general, the draft law says very little about how such demands should be implemented. Some even say that this is almost impossible, which is a criticism of this law. So we will only know more when this basis of the EU has been rewritten into German law.
This has no effect, unless these things are clearly displayed for promotional purposes, then it would be commercial.
This legal difference, private or commercial, is an existing right and not an amendment to Article 13.
Clothes etc. Are not problematic. It looks different, however, if, for example, in the background music from a TV o. Ä. To hear. So let's say you make a livestream and first tell something before you start daddling, and while this introduction is music in the background, it may be a violation of rights.
However, the more exciting question will be whether and to what extent real live streaming will still be possible in the future. On the one hand, it could be that platforms rely on (slightly) time-delayed broadcasting, in order to have a technical opportunity in between to perform automated filtering. The other question is how many unproblematic streams are mistakenly recognized as copyright violations and what the platforms do. Will the streaming suddenly be interrupted? Will the livestream created until then be deleted immediately, or will it initially go into "quarantine" (from which it can be unlocked by request to the support)? It's completely unclear here how platforms will handle the new situation.
It is also unclear whether smaller platforms would like to join in the entire mump. After all, this is an expensive endeavor, which many smaller companies can't afford. The result could be that some small platforms simply shut down. Other providers could come up with the idea of their services z. B. For users in Europe / EU inaccessible. So geo-blocking is conceivable as a reaction to the new legal situation.
We'll see what happens.
On Monday, the final vote will take place in the EU Council of Ministers. Incidentally, the topic was elegantly relocated to the agricultural committee (!). So Katarina Barley does not have to vote for Germany herself and avoids final loss of face. Instead, Agriculture Minister Julia Klöckner will then vote for DE.
Meanwhile, Sweden has mitgeilt that contrary to previous line on Monday against (!) The RiLi will vote. From Estonia there are screenshots of documents that suggest that Estonia (previously: pro RiLi) may also be swirling around at short notice.
If, with this new situation, the German government could actually be persuaded to abstain, at least during the vote, there would be no majority and the RiLi would be dead for now.
I think the livestreaming will be possible. I think that is even the most unproblematic of all things. Maybe it gets, for example. Twitch iwie hin to obtain licenses and then you just stop these games can only stream. You have to do without music or just use copyright free music.
For Memes I personally look the absolute. I do not know how to get there fast licenses.
Basically, the internet will change but I think it will not destroy it.
Nevertheless, I still prefer it if the whole thing is rejected. Do you know when Monday the vote takes place?
That sounds interesting with Estonia, vllt change even more small countries their opinion, that would be enough. Or maybe even UK.
In Germany, the decision is 100% certain.
That means if I'm wearing Nike clothes now, then it's okay or which posters I have in the background. If I have a contract with Nike now and I should advertise accordingly, how does it all go? Because I have the permission or license, right?
So in the end, things that were already prohibited such as. Which music videos you have just uploaded, which is then almost controlled more sharply? Sounds to me then somewhere for a good cause, as long as the systems that control that work properly.
That's true. The intention behind it is good. However, such filters require a lot of programming and computing power, and are actually impossible to implement without having almost every image in a database ever published.
The only companies that could do something like that are the big ones. This means that a website operator would not only have to pay them money to implement the filter, but also allow access to their own data. Really effective exceptions for smaller website operators, even if they hardly make their site, there's not. So should also good question someday money to go to Google or similar, if you want to keep the image upload.
I would be in favor of the EU itself having to provide such a filter. But for someone who promulgates such laws, an implementation is probably even 'impossible'.
Then you will have to prove the rights of use (license) in case of doubt.
This is not a novelty, because anyway part of the UrhG.
Article 13 only a single European regulation.
