The European Authors’ Petition to Remove Article 12 from the DSM Directive

The article 12 should not be passed, because

It is against the basic principles of copyright

The basic principle of copyright is that the author of a work is always a natural person, i.e. a human being. Creating rights to publishers directly through legislation would be contrary to the basic principles of copyright – the individual author has the right to decide which rights to grant. Publishers get all the rights they need through the contracts between the author and the publisher.

It limits contractual freedom in an unprecedented way

The weaker contractual position of authors is widely recognized and accepted. The proposed article 12 would further weaken the position of authors in relation to publishers. Limiting contractual freedom by legislative measures to the detriment of the weaker party is not acceptable. On the contrary, the duty of the legislators is to protect the weaker party.

It would weaken the livelihood of authors

In several countries the copyright remunerations for authors, among them the public lending remuneration, enable them to continue doing creative work. Dividing the remunerations with the publishers would seriously weaken the possibilities of authors to continue in their chosen profession. In Nordic and Baltic countries – as well as in many other European countries – the public lending remuneration has always been a compensation solely aimed for the creators of works.

It causes disturbances in the book markets and causes friction between authors and publishers

The article is hastily drafted and its impacts on the book market and the livelihood of the authors are not suffciently studied and assessed. Instead of improving the working of the single digital market, it would cause market disturbances and weaken the publishers’ business opportunities as at least some authors would become self-publishers.

It is terminologically unclear and intrinsically contradictory

If passed, the article would create a legally unclear situation. Additionally, the articles of the proposed directive are contradictory and their impact scattershot.

It is very difficult to implement

The passing of the article would cause several practical problems and heavy administrative costs. Before distributing the remunerations, each individual work would have to be checked to nd out to whom the compensation should be given and how it should be divided.

It is problematic in the light of the basic principles of the European Union

Article 12 is problematic in the light of the principle of subsidiarity, and it should be taken into account that, according to the European Union treaties, the Union’s role in cultural issues is only to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the member states. The public lending remunerations are an issue of cultural politics in all the countries supporting this petition.

It may have undesirable effects to the ways use of literature will be remunerated in the future

As it is impossible to foresee the ways literature will be used in the future, the undesirable effects of the compensation for publishers prescribed in the Article 12 have to be taken into account.

Any organization willing to join the petition may contact Sanasto – Finnish Literary Copyright Society: info(at)sanasto.fi