Talk:Copyright and Information Society Directive 2001

Removed only example of problematic legislation

The article used to include this text:

For example, the UK Patent Office withdrew its initial proposal for a fast-track implementation (using the European Communities Act), and British parliament may now have to pass customised implementation legislation.

I have removed it, because the UK did pass the EUCD into law in 2003. Although the linked text of the law says "Coming into force ... 31st October 2003", the previous page says "Came into force on 31 October 2003."

This removal detracts from the remaining sentence that preceded it:

Many important details are not specified in the Directive, and as a result, EU member states have significant freedom in certain aspects of directive implementation.

Can someone find another example of problematic implementation, or re-work this sentence? — PhilHibbs | talk 13:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lack of content?

This page doesn't say anything about the actual law... What it does, etc. Retinarow 20:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Name

I think the current article name is inappropriate. It think it should be moved back to "EU Copyright directive", or perhaps EU 2001 Copyright Directive. We have no obligation to refer to something by the official name. That makes linking and such unnecessarily difficult. Thoughts? Superm401 - Talk 05:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong disagree. Most EU directives don't have "short titles", and those common names that do exist are usually ambiguous (there are half a dozen directives covering copyright, for example). Use of the full name (or rather an abbreviated version, omitting the number and date which are given in the lead paragraph and table) is the only way to ensure consistent naming of articles on EU directives. Linking can be facilitated by making as many redirects as you like—"Redirects are cheap", and that's what they're there for! Physchim62 (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree too. The current article name is the actual name of the directive. Other forms are well-known too, but they're shortened forms with no consensus on which of those would be most appropriate. I think the article name should be the official name and would find it hard to justify changing it for esthetic reasons. As for the convenience reasons, a number of these short forms have been set up as redirects. — Northgrove 12:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Name (again)

Some proposed amendments to WP:EU/MOS would require renaming this article. For comments please go to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European Union/Style guidelines#Some proposed amendments. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Will do. In fact my views on the subject have changed in the last two years, and I would no longer oppose a page move. Physchim62 (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The directive is referred to as InfoSoc Directive among professionals and academics alike and definitely deservs a redirect. EU Copyright Directive is not a precise title (as there are several others which deal with certain aspects of copyright) but should also probably redirect here. --As286 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"Copyright Directive" is by far the commonest title. If it were so ambiguous, why does "EU Copyright Directive" redirect here instead of being a disambiguation page. The article could and should contain links to other directives which involve copyright. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A search of the European Commission's website produces only 18 hits for the "InfoSoc Directive" but 317 for the "Copyright Directive". — Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The name InfoSoc Directive should be placed more prominently. Although it seems from the above comments that the Commission's website seems to favor the term "Copyright Directive" I have always come across it as the InfoSoc Directive, be it in academic literature or at conferences (not only academic ones). In fact, I also just did a custom google search for both terms, and while "Copyright Directive" yielded more results, those for "InfoSoc Directive" were more targeted at the legislation in question. Moreover, as also mentioned above, the term "Copyright Directive" can easily be misleading, as one would expect to find a framework Directive such as the Trade Mark Directive or the Community Design Directive which purport to cover most of the field, which is certainly not the case for copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon503a (talk • contribs) 03:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

InfoSoc Directive redirects to this article. --Red King (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Enrichment of the implemented exceptions per jurisdiction

copyrightexceptions.eu presents a list of implemented exceptions per jurisdiction. Its data is licensed as CC0. I cannot include the data into this article, I'm the projects principal researcher and don't want to be slapped with an 'original research' remark. However, if other find this topic interesting I might suggest using http://copyrightexceptions.eu/#table as a way to show which exceptions is implemented in which jurisdciton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martsniez (talk • contribs) 10:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for pointing this out. (And for making that very useful website!) I'll give it a go. Great floors (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

2016 copyright reform

The 2016 European Commission copyright reform proposal  should be discussed on this page. It is not yet settled as of October 2017. I don't think this reform has a page of its own already, but ideally it should. With best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

References

The proposed directive from 2016 (which is currently in the ordinary Co-decision procedure is being described at Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. This is plausible as the CDSM-Directive will not replace and only slightly alter the existing InfoSoc-Directive. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Possible move of this article

Hi. I started working in the European Parliament in 2014 and since then, I haven't heard anyone refer to this Directive as "Copyright Directive", especially not when copyright was the actual topic of discussion. Given the fact that the EU institutions are currently working on the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, the term "Copyright Directive" might be confusing when it is meant to refer to the 2001 InfoSoc Directive. I would recommend to move this article to InfoSoc Directive to avoid confusion. My second preference would be the official title. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Copyright Directive is not its colloquial name in Europe. Should be InfoSoc Directive. --Martsniez (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello from Japanese Wikipedia. JAWP has already changed the page name from "ja: 著作権指令" (meaning "Copyright Directive") to "ja: 情報社会指令" (meaning "Information Society Directive") after thoroughly researched the name both in English and in Japanese. No reliable sources mention the 2001 directive as Copyright Directive... Although InfoSoc Directive is still the locus of the entire EU copyright law, InfoSoc Directive alone does not represent the entire EU's copyright legislation. The summary page of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market articulates that:

The directive (i.e. DSM copyright directive) updates but does not replace the 11 directives which together comprise the EU's copyright legislation.

I recommend to change the page name from Copyright Directive to Information Society Directive; and then Copyright Directive should be redirected to Copyright law of the European Union, not to Information Society Directive. --ProfessorPine (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, agree. Uncontroversial move. It will need an administrator to swap the redirects around. --Red King (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

As I am not familiar with the ENWP administrative procedures, it would be appreciated if someone could make a move on the redirect swapping. I also found Copyright Directive mentioned in many other articles. They must be rewritten after the swap. Thank you, --ProfessorPine (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Done

I have requested that the page be moved to Information Society Directive (not InfoSoc Directive, as it is a bit newspeak. When the move has gone through, that name can be set up as a redirect). Afterwards we will have to go through the "what directs here" to see whether they are good to continue to Copyright Law or whether they are actually talking about the Information Society Directive. But that is routine after any page move. --Red King (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done I see that the move is complete. Work needs to begin now on reviewing the "what directs here" pages for Copyright Directive, please. I have already done InfoSoc Directive. --Red King (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Most of the links arise from their use of Template:Legislation of the European Union, which I have just changed. So I suggest waiting 24 hours until this propagates and then see what is left to do. --Red King (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Directive updated?

I deleted material referring to an update of the "Copyright Directive", which seemed to me to be a misapplication arising from the original erroneous name of this directive. I have started a new topic at Talk:Copyright law of the European Union#Copyright directive updated? to ask if anyone knows which of the Copyright directives it really refers to. Perhaps it does belong here but if so then it needs a lot more supporting information, like a proper EC reference number.--Red King (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I suspect that the intended target was Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market? --Red King (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, but it complements this directive more than it amends it (I believe the cn-tag was from me ;-)). Besides that, the copyright in the EU is for a large part a rewriting of the InfoSoc directive, so quite some work there is needed I am afraid... L.tak (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

At talk:Copyright law of the European Union, ProfessorPine wrote

Please check the summary of key points on the OJ as well as the whereas clause (4) on page 2. The whereas clause mentions "This Directive is based upon, and complements, the rules laid down in the directives currently in force in this area, in particular..." and the summary on the OJ says "The directive updates but does not replace the 11 directives which together comprise the EU’s copyright legislation." Hope this helps. --ProfessorPine (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I replied that I really don't know anything like enough about the topic to elaborate so perhaps you both might resolve? --Red King (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)