Single 2019 T-Shirt Tipp
Bleibt up to date und seht als erstes die offiziellen deutschen Charts. Wir bieten euch alles zu den aktuellen Charts: Top Single Charts, Top Album. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; Die erfolgreichsten Hits der Single-Charts in Deutschland. Bei den Auswertungen der Jahrescharts wurden jeweils die Top berücksichtigt. Logo Offizielle Deutsche Charts Single Jahrescharts Die Jahrescharts der 'Offiziellen Deutschen Single-Charts' werden von GfK Entertainment, im Auftrag. womit er nach den Beatles der Künstler mit den meisten Nummer-eins-Singles in Deutschland ist. 1. März – März Auch am letzten Musikfreitag des Jahres haben noch einige national & international bekannte Musiker & Bands ihre neuen Singles & Instant-Grats.
Single 2019 Post navigation Video
Theodor - Rising [Trap] - Single (2019) Single 2019 aanmelder.nl is event registration made easy Video
VIZA - EROS - single 2019Conditions governing those licensing mechanisms should not affect their practical relevance for cultural heritage institutions.
It is important that, where a rightholder excludes the application of such mechanisms or of such exception or limitation to one or more works or other subject matter, any ongoing uses are terminated within a reasonable period, and, where they take place under a collective licence, that the collective management organisation once informed ceases to issue licences covering the uses concerned.
Such exclusion by rightholders should not affect their claims to remuneration for the actual use of the work or other subject matter under the licence.
This Directive does not affect the ability of Member States to decide who is to have legal responsibility as regards the compliance of the licensing of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter, and of their use, with the conditions set out in this Directive, and as regards the compliance of the parties concerned with the terms of those licences.
Considering the variety of works and other subject matter in the collections of cultural heritage institutions, it is important that the licensing mechanisms and the exception or limitation provided for by this Directive are available and can be used in practice for different types of works and other subject matter, including photographs, software, phonograms, audiovisual works and unique works of art, including where they have never been commercially available.
Never-in-commerce works can include posters, leaflets, trench journals or amateur audiovisual works, but also unpublished works or other subject matter, without prejudice to other applicable legal constraints, such as national rules on moral rights.
When a work or other subject matter is available in any of its different versions, such as subsequent editions of literary works and alternate cuts of cinematographic works, or in any of its different manifestations, such as digital and printed formats of the same work, that work or other subject matter should not be considered out of commerce.
Conversely, the commercial availability of adaptations, including other language versions or audiovisual adaptations of a literary work, should not preclude a work or other subject matter from being deemed to be out of commerce in a given language.
In order to reflect the specificities of different types of works and other subject matter as regards modes of publication and distribution, and to facilitate the usability of those mechanisms, specific requirements and procedures might have to be established for the practical application of those licensing mechanisms, such as a requirement for a certain time period to have elapsed since the work or other subject matter was first commercially available.
It is appropriate that Member States consult rightholders, cultural heritage institutions and collective management organisations when establishing such requirements and procedures.
When determining whether works or other subject matter are out of commerce, a reasonable effort should be required to assess their availability to the public in the customary channels of commerce, taking into account the characteristics of the particular work or other subject matter or of the particular set of works or other subject matter.
Member States should be free to determine the allocation of responsibilities for making that reasonable effort. The reasonable effort should not have to involve repeated action over time but it should nevertheless involve taking account of any easily accessible evidence of upcoming availability of works or other subject matter in the customary channels of commerce.
A work-by-work assessment should only be required where that is considered reasonable in view of the availability of relevant information, the likelihood of commercial availability and the expected transaction cost.
Verification of availability of a work or other subject matter should normally take place in the Member State where the cultural heritage institution is established, unless verification across borders is considered reasonable, for example in cases where there is easily available information that a literary work was first published in a given language version in another Member State.
In many cases, the out-of-commerce status of a set of works or other subject matter could be determined through a proportionate mechanism, such as sampling.
The limited availability of a work or other subject matter, such as its availability in second-hand shops, or the theoretical possibility that a licence for a work or other subject matter could be obtained should not be considered as availability to the public in the customary channels of commerce.
For reasons of international comity, the licensing mechanism and the exception or limitation provided for in this Directive for the digitisation and dissemination of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter should not apply to sets of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter where there is evidence available to presume that they predominantly consist of works or other subject matter of third countries, unless the collective management organisation concerned is sufficiently representative for that third country, for example via a representation agreement.
That assessment could be based on the evidence available following the making of the reasonable effort to determine whether the works or other subject matter are out of commerce, without the need to search for further evidence.
A work-by-work assessment of the origin of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter should only be required insofar as it is also required for making the reasonable effort to determine whether they are commercially available.
Contracting cultural heritage institutions and collective management organisations should remain free to agree on the territorial scope of licences, including the option of covering all Member States, the licence fee and the uses allowed.
Uses covered by such licences should not be for profit-making purposes, including where copies are distributed by the cultural heritage institution, such as in the case of promotional material about an exhibition.
At the same time, given that the digitisation of the collections of cultural heritage institutions can entail significant investments, any licences granted under the mechanism provided for in this Directive should not prevent cultural heritage institutions from covering the costs of the licence and the costs of digitising and disseminating the works or other subject matter covered by the licence.
Information regarding the ongoing and future use of out-of-commerce works and other subject matter by cultural heritage institutions on the basis of this Directive and the arrangements in place for all rightholders to exclude the application of licences or of the exception or limitation to their works or other subject matter should be adequately publicised both before and during the use under a licence or under the exception or limitation, as appropriate.
Such publicising is particularly important when uses take place across borders in the internal market. It is therefore appropriate to provide for the creation of a single publicly accessible online portal for the Union in order to make such information available to the public for a reasonable period of time before the use takes place.
Such portal should make it easier for rightholders to exclude the application of licences or of the exception or limitation to their works or other subject matter.
It is therefore appropriate to rely on that Office to establish and manage the portal making such information available. In addition to making the information available through the portal, further appropriate publicity measures might need to be taken on a case-by-case basis in order to increase the awareness in that regard of the rightholders concerned, for example through the use of additional channels of communication to reach a wider public.
The necessity, the nature and the geographic scope of the additional publicity measures should depend on the characteristics of the relevant out-of-commerce works or other subject matter, the terms of the licences or the type of use under the exception or limitation, and the existing practices in Member States.
Publicity measures should be effective without the need to inform each rightholder individually. In order to ensure that the licensing mechanisms established by this Directive for out-of-commerce works or other subject matter are relevant and function properly, that rightholders are adequately protected, that licences are properly publicised and that legal certainty is provided with regard to the representativeness of collective management organisations and the categorisation of works, Member States should foster sector-specific stakeholder dialogue.
Those measures should also be without prejudice to national mechanisms for the use of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter based on licences between collective management organisations and users other than cultural heritage institutions.
Mechanisms of collective licensing with an extended effect allow a collective management organisation to offer licences as a collective licensing body on behalf of rightholders, irrespective of whether they have authorised the organisation to do so.
Systems built on mechanisms such as extended collective licensing, legal mandates or presumptions of representation, are a well-established practice in several Member States and can be used in different areas.
A functioning copyright framework that works for all parties requires the availability of proportionate, legal mechanisms for the licensing of works or other subject matter.
Given the nature of some uses, together with the usually large amount of works or other subject matter involved, the transaction cost of individual rights clearance with every rightholder concerned is prohibitively high.
As a result, it is unlikely that, without effective collective licensing mechanisms, all the transactions in the areas concerned that are required to enable the use of such works or other subject matter would take place.
Extended collective licensing by collective management organisations and similar mechanisms can make it possible to conclude agreements in those areas where collective licensing based on an authorisation by rightholders does not provide an exhaustive solution for covering all works or other subject matter to be used.
Such mechanisms complement collective management of rights based on individual authorisation by rightholders, by providing full legal certainty to users in certain cases.
At the same time, they provide an opportunity to rightholders to benefit from the legitimate use of their works. Given the increasing importance of the ability to offer flexible licensing schemes in the digital age, and the increasing use of such schemes, Member States should be able to provide for licensing mechanisms which permit collective management organisations to conclude licences, on a voluntary basis, irrespective of whether all rightholders have authorised the organisation concerned to do so.
Member States should have the ability to maintain and introduce such mechanisms in accordance with their national traditions, practices or circumstances, subject to the safeguards provided for in this Directive and in compliance with Union law and the international obligations of the Union.
Such mechanisms should only have effect in the territory of the Member State concerned, unless otherwise provided for in Union law. Such mechanisms could include extended collective licensing, legal mandates and presumptions of representation.
It is important that mechanisms of collective licensing with an extended effect are only applied in well-defined areas of use, in which obtaining authorisation from rightholders on an individual basis is typically onerous and impractical to a degree that makes the required licensing transaction, namely one involving a licence that covers all rightholders concerned, unlikely to occur due to the nature of the use or of the types of works or other subject matter concerned.
Such mechanisms should be based on objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria as regards the treatment of rightholders, including rightholders who are not members of the collective management organisation.
In particular, the mere fact that the rightholders affected are not nationals or residents of, or established in, the Member State of the user who is seeking a licence, should not be in itself a reason to consider the clearance of rights to be so onerous and impractical as to justify the use of such mechanisms.
It is equally important that the licensed use neither affect adversely the economic value of the relevant rights nor deprive rightholders of significant commercial benefits.
Member States should ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the legitimate interests of rightholders that have not mandated the organisation offering the licence and that those safeguards apply in a non-discriminatory manner.
Specifically, in order to justify the extended effect of the mechanisms, such an organisation should be, on the basis of authorisations from rightholders, sufficiently representative of the types of works or other subject matter and of the rights which are the subject of the licence.
To provide legal certainty and ensure that there is confidence in the mechanisms, Member States should be allowed to decide who is to have legal responsibility as regards uses authorised by the licence agreement.
Equal treatment should be guaranteed to all rightholders whose works are exploited under the licence, including in particular as regards access to information on the licensing and the distribution of remuneration.
Publicity measures should be effective throughout the duration of the licence and should not involve imposing a disproportionate administrative burden on users, collective management organisations or rightholders, and without the need to inform each rightholder individually.
In order to ensure that rightholders can easily regain control of their works, and prevent any uses of their works that would be prejudicial to their interests, it is essential that rightholders be given an effective opportunity to exclude the application of such mechanisms to their works or other subject matter for all uses and works or other subject matter, or for specific uses and works or other subject matter, including before the conclusion of a licence and during the term of the licence.
In such cases, any ongoing use should be terminated within a reasonable period. Such exclusion by rightholders should not affect their claims for remuneration for the actual use of the work or other subject matter under the licence.
Member States should also be able to decide that additional measures are appropriate to protect rightholders. Such additional measures could include, for example, encouraging the exchange of information among collective management organisations and other interested parties across the Union to raise awareness about such mechanisms and the option available to rightholders to exclude their works or other subject matter from those mechanisms.
Member States should ensure that the purpose and scope of any licence granted as a result of mechanisms of collective licensing with an extended effect, as well as the possible uses, should always be carefully and clearly defined in law or, if the underlying law is a general provision, in the licensing practices applied as a result of such general provisions, or in the licences granted.
Given the different traditions and experiences in relation to mechanisms of collective licensing with an extended effect across Member States, and their applicability to rightholders irrespective of their nationality or their Member State of residence, it is important to ensure that there is transparency and dialogue at Union level about the practical functioning of such mechanisms, including as regards the effectiveness of safeguards for rightholders, the usability of such mechanisms, their effect on rightholders who are not members of the collective management organisation, or on rightholders who are nationals of, or resident in, another Member State, and the impact on the cross-border provision of services, including the potential need to lay down rules to give such mechanisms cross-border effect within the internal market.
To ensure transparency, information about the use of such mechanisms under this Directive should be regularly published by the Commission.
Member States that have introduced such mechanisms should, therefore, inform the Commission about relevant national provisions and their application in practice, including the scope and types of licensing introduced on the basis of general provisions, the scale of licensing and the collective management organisations involved.
The Commission should publish a report on the use of such mechanisms in the Union and their impact on licensing and rightholders, on the dissemination of cultural content and on the cross-border provision of services in the area of collective management of copyright and related rights, as well as on the impact on competition.
Video-on-demand services have the potential to play a decisive role in the dissemination of audiovisual works across the Union.
However, the availability of such works, in particular European works, on video-on-demand services remains limited. Agreements on the online exploitation of such works can be difficult to conclude due to issues related to the licensing of rights.
Such issues could, for instance, arise when the holder of the rights for a given territory has a low economic incentive to exploit a work online and does not license or holds back the online rights, which can lead to audiovisual works being unavailable on video-on-demand services.
Other issues could relate to windows of exploitation. To facilitate the licensing of rights in audiovisual works to video-on-demand services, Member States should be required to provide for a negotiation mechanism allowing parties willing to conclude an agreement to rely on the assistance of an impartial body or of one or more mediators.
For that purpose, Member States should be allowed either to establish a new body or rely on an existing one that fulfils the conditions established by this Directive.
Member States should be able to designate one or more competent bodies or mediators. The body or the mediators should meet with the parties and help with the negotiations by providing professional, impartial and external advice.
Where a negotiation involves parties from different Member States and where those parties decide to rely on the negotiation mechanism, the parties should agree beforehand on the competent Member State.
The body or the mediators could meet with the parties to facilitate the start of negotiations or in the course of the negotiations to facilitate the conclusion of an agreement.
Participation in that negotiation mechanism and the subsequent conclusion of agreements should be voluntary and should not affect the parties' contractual freedom.
Member States should be free to decide on the specific functioning of the negotiation mechanism, including the timing and duration of the assistance to negotiations and the bearing of the costs.
Member States should ensure that administrative and financial burdens remain proportionate to guarantee the efficiency of the negotiation mechanism.
Without it being an obligation for them, Member States should encourage dialogue between representative organisations. The expiry of the term of protection of a work entails the entry of that work into the public domain and the expiry of the rights that Union copyright law provides in relation to that work.
In the field of visual arts, the circulation of faithful reproductions of works in the public domain contributes to the access to and promotion of culture, and the access to cultural heritage.
In the digital environment, the protection of such reproductions through copyright or related rights is inconsistent with the expiry of the copyright protection of works.
In addition, differences between the national copyright laws governing the protection of such reproductions give rise to legal uncertainty and affect the cross-border dissemination of works of visual arts in the public domain.
Certain reproductions of works of visual arts in the public domain should, therefore, not be protected by copyright or related rights. All of that should not prevent cultural heritage institutions from selling reproductions, such as postcards.
A free and pluralist press is essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens' access to information. It provides a fundamental contribution to public debate and the proper functioning of a democratic society.
The wide availability of press publications online has given rise to the emergence of new online services, such as news aggregators or media monitoring services, for which the reuse of press publications constitutes an important part of their business models and a source of revenue.
Publishers of press publications are facing problems in licensing the online use of their publications to the providers of those kinds of services, making it more difficult for them to recoup their investments.
In the absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, the licensing and enforcement of rights in press publications regarding online uses by information society service providers in the digital environment are often complex and inefficient.
The organisational and financial contribution of publishers in producing press publications needs to be recognised and further encouraged to ensure the sustainability of the publishing industry and thereby foster the availability of reliable information.
It is therefore necessary to provide at Union level for harmonised legal protection for press publications in respect of online uses by information society service providers, which leaves the existing copyright rules in Union law applicable to private or non-commercial uses of press publications by individual users unaffected, including where such users share press publications online.
The legal protection for press publications provided for by this Directive should benefit publishers that are established in a Member State and have their registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Union.
The concept of publisher of press publications should be understood as covering service providers, such as news publishers or news agencies, when they publish press publications within the meaning of this Directive.
Press publications contain mostly literary works, but increasingly include other types of works and other subject matter, in particular photographs and videos.
Periodical publications published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, should not be covered by the protection granted to press publications under this Directive.
Neither should that protection apply to websites, such as blogs, that provide information as part of an activity that is not carried out under the initiative, editorial responsibility and control of a service provider, such as a news publisher.
The rights granted to publishers of press publications should not extend to acts of hyperlinking. They should also not extend to mere facts reported in press publications.
The use of press publications by information society service providers can consist of the use of entire publications or articles but also of parts of press publications.
Such uses of parts of press publications have also gained economic relevance. At the same time, the use of individual words or very short extracts of press publications by information society service providers may not undermine the investments made by publishers of press publications in the production of content.
Therefore, it is appropriate to provide that the use of individual words or very short extracts of press publications should not fall within the scope of the rights provided for in this Directive.
Taking into account the massive aggregation and use of press publications by information society service providers, it is important that the exclusion of very short extracts be interpreted in such a way as not to affect the effectiveness of the rights provided for in this Directive.
The protection granted to publishers of press publications under this Directive should not affect the rights of the authors and other rightholders in the works and other subject matter incorporated therein, including as regards the extent to which authors and other rightholders can exploit their works or other subject matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated.
Publishers of press publications should, therefore, not be able to invoke the protection granted to them under this Directive against authors and other rightholders or against other authorised users of the same works or other subject matter.
That should be without prejudice to contractual arrangements concluded between the publishers of press publications, on the one hand, and authors and other rightholders, on the other.
Authors whose works are incorporated in a press publication should be entitled to an appropriate share of the revenues that press publishers receive for the use of their press publications by information society service providers.
That should be without prejudice to national laws on ownership or exercise of rights in the context of employment contracts, provided that such laws are in compliance with Union law.
Publishers, including those of press publications, books or scientific publications and music publications, often operate on the basis of the transfer of authors' rights by means of contractual agreements or statutory provisions.
In that context, publishers make an investment with a view to the exploitation of the works contained in their publications and can in some instances be deprived of revenues where such works are used under exceptions or limitations such as those for private copying and reprography, including the corresponding existing national schemes for reprography in the Member States, or under public lending schemes.
In several Member States, compensation for uses under those exceptions or limitations is shared between authors and publishers.
In order to take account of this situation and to improve legal certainty for all parties concerned, this Directive allows Member States that have existing schemes for the sharing of compensation between authors and publishers to maintain them.
While this Directive should apply in a non-discriminatory way to all Member States, it should respect the traditions in this area and not oblige Member States that do not currently have such compensation-sharing schemes to introduce them.
It should not affect existing or future arrangements in Member States regarding remuneration in the context of public lending. It should also leave national arrangements relating to the management of rights and to remuneration rights unaffected, provided that they are in compliance with Union law.
All Member States should be allowed but not obliged to provide that, where authors have transferred or licensed their rights to a publisher or otherwise contribute with their works to a publication, and there are systems in place to compensate for the harm caused to them by an exception or limitation, including through collective management organisations that jointly represent authors and publishers, publishers are entitled to a share of such compensation.
Member States should remain free to determine how publishers are to substantiate their claims for compensation or remuneration, and to lay down the conditions for the sharing of such compensation or remuneration between authors and publishers in accordance with their national systems.
In recent years, the functioning of the online content market has gained in complexity. Online content-sharing services providing access to a large amount of copyright-protected content uploaded by their users have become a main source of access to content online.
Online services are a means of providing wider access to cultural and creative works and offer great opportunities for cultural and creative industries to develop new business models.
However, although they enable diversity and ease of access to content, they also generate challenges when copyright-protected content is uploaded without prior authorisation from rightholders.
Legal uncertainty exists as to whether the providers of such services engage in copyright-relevant acts, and need to obtain authorisation from rightholders for content uploaded by their users who do not hold the relevant rights in the uploaded content, without prejudice to the application of exceptions and limitations provided for in Union law.
That uncertainty affects the ability of rightholders to determine whether, and under which conditions, their works and other subject matter are used, as well as their ability to obtain appropriate remuneration for such use.
It is therefore important to foster the development of the licensing market between rightholders and online content-sharing service providers.
Those licensing agreements should be fair and keep a reasonable balance between both parties. Rightholders should receive appropriate remuneration for the use of their works or other subject matter.
However, as contractual freedom should not be affected by those provisions, rightholders should not be obliged to give an authorisation or to conclude licensing agreements.
Certain information society services, as part of their normal use, are designed to give access to the public to copyright-protected content or other subject matter uploaded by their users.
The definition of an online content-sharing service provider laid down in this Directive should target only online services that play an important role on the online content market by competing with other online content services, such as online audio and video streaming services, for the same audiences.
The services covered by this Directive are services, the main or one of the main purposes of which is to store and enable users to upload and share a large amount of copyright-protected content with the purpose of obtaining profit therefrom, either directly or indirectly, by organising it and promoting it in order to attract a larger audience, including by categorising it and using targeted promotion within it.
Such services should not include services that have a main purpose other than that of enabling users to upload and share a large amount of copyright-protected content with the purpose of obtaining profit from that activity.
Providers of services such as open source software development and sharing platforms, not-for-profit scientific or educational repositories as well as not-for-profit online encyclopedias should also be excluded from the definition of online content-sharing service provider.
Finally, in order to ensure a high level of copyright protection, the liability exemption mechanism provided for in this Directive should not apply to service providers the main purpose of which is to engage in or to facilitate copyright piracy.
The assessment of whether an online content-sharing service provider stores and gives access to a large amount of copyright-protected content should be made on a case-by-case basis and should take account of a combination of elements, such as the audience of the service and the number of files of copyright-protected content uploaded by the users of the service.
It is appropriate to clarify in this Directive that online content-sharing service providers perform an act of communication to the public or of making available to the public when they give the public access to copyright-protected works or other protected subject matter uploaded by their users.
Consequently, online content-sharing service providers should obtain an authorisation, including via a licensing agreement, from the relevant rightholders.
Taking into account the fact that online content-sharing service providers give access to content which is not uploaded by them but by their users, it is appropriate to provide for a specific liability mechanism for the purposes of this Directive for cases in which no authorisation has been granted.
That should be without prejudice to remedies under national law for cases other than liability for copyright infringements and to national courts or administrative authorities being able to issue injunctions in compliance with Union law.
Where no authorisation has been granted to service providers, they should make their best efforts in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence to avoid the availability on their services of unauthorised works and other subject matter, as identified by the relevant rightholders.
For that purpose, rightholders should provide the service providers with relevant and necessary information taking into account, among other factors, the size of rightholders and the type of their works and other subject matter.
The steps taken by online content-sharing service providers in cooperation with rightholders should not lead to the prevention of the availability of non-infringing content, including works or other protected subject matter the use of which is covered by a licensing agreement, or an exception or limitation to copyright and related rights.
Steps taken by such service providers should, therefore, not affect users who are using the online content-sharing services in order to lawfully upload and access information on such services.
In addition, the obligations established in this Directive should not lead to Member States imposing a general monitoring obligation.
When assessing whether an online content-sharing service provider has made its best efforts in accordance with the high industry standards of professional diligence, account should be taken of whether the service provider has taken all the steps that would be taken by a diligent operator to achieve the result of preventing the availability of unauthorised works or other subject matter on its website, taking into account best industry practices and the effectiveness of the steps taken in light of all relevant factors and developments, as well as the principle of proportionality.
For the purposes of that assessment, a number of elements should be considered, such as the size of the service, the evolving state of the art as regards existing means, including potential future developments, to avoid the availability of different types of content and the cost of such means for the services.
Different means to avoid the availability of unauthorised copyright-protected content could be appropriate and proportionate depending on the type of content, and, therefore, it cannot be excluded that in some cases availability of unauthorised content can only be avoided upon notification of rightholders.
Any steps taken by service providers should be effective with regard to the objectives pursued but should not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective of avoiding and discontinuing the availability of unauthorised works and other subject matter.
If unauthorised works and other subject matter become available despite the best efforts made in cooperation with rightholders, as required by this Directive, the online content-sharing service providers should be liable in relation to the specific works and other subject matter for which they have received the relevant and necessary information from rightholders, unless those providers demonstrate that they have made their best efforts in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence.
In addition, where specific unauthorised works or other subject matter have become available on online content-sharing services, including irrespective of whether the best efforts were made and regardless of whether rightholders have made available the relevant and necessary information in advance, the online content-sharing service providers should be liable for unauthorised acts of communication to the public of works or other subject matter, when, upon receiving a sufficiently substantiated notice, they fail to act expeditiously to disable access to, or to remove from their websites, the notified works or other subject matter.
Additionally, such online content-sharing service providers should also be liable if they fail to demonstrate that they have made their best efforts to prevent the future uploading of specific unauthorised works, based on relevant and necessary information provided by rightholders for that purpose.
Where rightholders do not provide online content-sharing service providers with the relevant and necessary information on their specific works or other subject matter, or where no notification concerning the disabling of access to, or the removal of, specific unauthorised works or other subject matter has been provided by rightholders, and, as a result, those service providers cannot make their best efforts to avoid the availability of unauthorised content on their services, in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence, such service providers should not be liable for unauthorised acts of communication to the public or of making available to the public of such unidentified works or other subject matter.
The rules provided for in this Directive are intended to take into account the specific case of start-up companies working with user uploads to develop new business models.
The specific regime applicable to new service providers with a small turnover and audience should benefit genuinely new businesses, and should therefore cease to apply three years after their services first became available online in the Union.
That regime should not be abused by arrangements aimed at extending its benefits beyond the first three years. In particular, it should not apply to newly created services or to services provided under a new name but which pursue the activity of an already existing online content-sharing service provider which could not benefit or no longer benefits from that regime.
Online content-sharing service providers should be transparent with rightholders with regard to the steps taken in the context of cooperation. As various actions could be undertaken by online content-sharing service providers, they should provide rightholders, at the request of rightholders, with adequate information on the type of actions undertaken and the way in which they are undertaken.
Such information should be sufficiently specific to provide enough transparency to rightholders, without affecting business secrets of online content-sharing service providers.
Service providers should, however, not be required to provide rightholders with detailed and individualised information for each work or other subject matter identified.
That should be without prejudice to contractual arrangements, which could contain more specific provisions on the information to be provided where agreements are concluded between service providers and rightholders.
However, there should be no presumption in favour of online content-sharing service providers that their users have cleared all relevant rights.
The steps taken by online content-sharing service providers in cooperation with rightholders should be without prejudice to the application of exceptions or limitations to copyright, including, in particular, those which guarantee the freedom of expression of users.
Users should be allowed to upload and make available content generated by users for the specific purposes of quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody or pastiche.
Those exceptions and limitations should, therefore, be made mandatory in order to ensure that users receive uniform protection across the Union.
It is important to ensure that online content-sharing service providers operate an effective complaint and redress mechanism to support use for such specific purposes.
Online content-sharing service providers should also put in place effective and expeditious complaint and redress mechanisms allowing users to complain about the steps taken with regard to their uploads, in particular where they could benefit from an exception or limitation to copyright in relation to an upload to which access has been disabled or that has been removed.
Any complaint filed under such mechanisms should be processed without undue delay and be subject to human review.
When rightholders request the service providers to take action against uploads by users, such as disabling access to or removing content uploaded, such rightholders should duly justify their requests.
Member States should also ensure that users have access to out-of-court redress mechanisms for the settlement of disputes.
Such mechanisms should allow disputes to be settled impartially. Users should also have access to a court or another relevant judicial authority to assert the use of an exception or limitation to copyright and related rights.
As soon as possible after the date of entry into force of this Directive, the Commission, in cooperation with Member States, should organise dialogues between stakeholders to ensure uniform application of the obligation of cooperation between online content-sharing service providers and rightholders and to establish best practices with regard to the appropriate industry standards of professional diligence.
For that purpose, the Commission should consult relevant stakeholders, including users' organisations and technology providers, and take into account developments on the market.
Users' organisations should also have access to information on actions carried out by online content-sharing service providers to manage content online.
Authors and performers tend to be in the weaker contractual position when they grant a licence or transfer their rights, including through their own companies, for the purposes of exploitation in return for remuneration, and those natural persons need the protection provided for by this Directive to be able to fully benefit from the rights harmonised under Union law.
That need for protection does not arise where the contractual counterpart acts as an end user and does not exploit the work or performance itself, which could, for instance, be the case in some employment contracts.
The remuneration of authors and performers should be appropriate and proportionate to the actual or potential economic value of the licensed or transferred rights, taking into account the author's or performer's contribution to the overall work or other subject matter and all other circumstances of the case, such as market practices or the actual exploitation of the work.
A lump sum payment can also constitute proportionate remuneration but it should not be the rule. Member States should have the freedom to define specific cases for the application of lump sums, taking into account the specificities of each sector.
Member States should be free to implement the principle of appropriate and proportionate remuneration through different existing or newly introduced mechanisms, which could include collective bargaining and other mechanisms, provided that such mechanisms are in conformity with applicable Union law.
Authors and performers need information to assess the economic value of rights of theirs that are harmonised under Union law.
This is especially the case where natural persons grant a licence or a transfer of rights for the purposes of exploitation in return for remuneration.
That need does not arise where the exploitation has ceased, or where the author or performer has granted a licence to the general public without remuneration.
As authors and performers tend to be in the weaker contractual position when they grant licences or transfer their rights, they need information to assess the continued economic value of their rights, compared to the remuneration received for their licence or transfer, but they often face a lack of transparency.
Therefore, the sharing of adequate and accurate information by their contractual counterparts or their successors in title is important for the transparency and balance in the system governing the remuneration of authors and performers.
That information should be up-to-date to allow access to recent data, relevant to the exploitation of the work or performance, and comprehensive in a way that it covers all sources of revenues relevant to the case, including, where applicable, merchandising revenues.
As long as exploitation is ongoing, contractual counterparts of authors and performers should provide information available to them on all modes of exploitation and on all relevant revenues worldwide with a regularity that is appropriate in the relevant sector, but at least annually.
The information should be provided in a manner that is comprehensible to the author or performer and it should allow the effective assessment of the economic value of the rights in question.
The transparency obligation should nevertheless apply only where copyright relevant rights are concerned. In order to ensure that exploitation-related information is duly provided to authors and performers also in cases where the rights have been sub-licensed to other parties who exploit the rights, this Directive entitles authors and performers to request additional relevant information on the exploitation of the rights, in cases where the first contractual counterpart has provided the information available to them, but that information is not sufficient to assess the economic value of their rights.
That request should be made either directly to sub-licensees or through the contractual counterparts of authors and performers.
Authors and performers, and their contractual counterparts, should be able to agree to keep the shared information confidential, but authors and performers should always be able to use the shared information for the purpose of exercising their rights under this Directive.
Member States should have the option, in compliance with Union law, to provide for further measures to ensure transparency for authors and performers.
When implementing the transparency obligation provided for in this Directive, Member States should take into account the specificities of different content sectors, such as those of the music sector, the audiovisual sector and the publishing sector, and all relevant stakeholders should be involved when deciding on such sector-specific obligations.
Where relevant, the significance of the contribution of authors and performers to the overall work or performance should also be considered.
Collective bargaining should be considered as an option for the relevant stakeholders to reach an agreement regarding transparency. Such agreements should ensure that authors and performers have the same level of transparency as or a higher level of transparency than the minimum requirements provided for in this Directive.
To enable the adaptation of existing reporting practices to the transparency obligation, a transitional period should be provided for.
However, individually negotiated agreements concluded between rightholders and those of their contractual counterparts who act in their own interest should be subject to the transparency obligation provided for in this Directive.
Certain contracts for the exploitation of rights harmonised at Union level are of long duration, offering few opportunities for authors and performers to renegotiate them with their contractual counterparts or their successors in title in the event that the economic value of the rights turns out to be significantly higher than initially estimated.
Accordingly, without prejudice to the law applicable to contracts in Member States, a remuneration adjustment mechanism should be provided for as regards cases where the remuneration originally agreed under a licence or a transfer of rights clearly becomes disproportionately low compared to the relevant revenues derived from the subsequent exploitation of the work or fixation of the performance by the contractual counterpart of the author or performer.
All revenues relevant to the case in question, including, where applicable, merchandising revenues, should be taken into account for the assessment of whether the remuneration is disproportionately low.
The assessment of the situation should take account of the specific circumstances of each case, including the contribution of the author or performer, as well as of the specificities and remuneration practices in the different content sectors, and whether the contract is based on a collective bargaining agreement.
Representatives of authors and performers duly mandated in accordance with national law in compliance with Union law, should be able to provide assistance to one or more authors or performers in relation to requests for the adjustment of the contracts, also taking into account the interests of other authors or performers where relevant.
Those representatives should protect the identity of the represented authors and performers for as long as that is possible.
Where the parties do not agree on the adjustment of the remuneration, the author or performer should be entitled to bring a claim before a court or other competent authority.
Authors and performers are often reluctant to enforce their rights against their contractual partners before a court or tribunal. Member States should therefore provide for an alternative dispute resolution procedure that addresses claims by authors and performers, or by their representatives on their behalf, related to obligations of transparency and the contract adjustment mechanism.
For that purpose, Member States should be able to either establish a new body or mechanism, or rely on an existing one that fulfils the conditions established by this Directive, irrespective of whether those bodies or mechanisms are industry-led or public, including when part of the national judiciary system.
Member States should have flexibility in deciding how the costs of the dispute resolution procedure are to be allocated.
Such alternative dispute resolution procedure should be without prejudice to the right of parties to assert and defend their rights by bringing an action before a court.
When authors and performers license or transfer their rights, they expect their work or performance to be exploited. However, it could be the case that works or performances that have been licensed or transferred are not exploited at all.
Where those rights have been transferred on an exclusive basis, authors and performers cannot turn to another partner to exploit their works or performances.
In such a case, and after a reasonable period of time has elapsed, authors and performers should be able to benefit from a mechanism for the revocation of rights allowing them to transfer or license their rights to another person.
As exploitation of works or performances can vary depending on the sectors, specific provisions could be laid down at national level in order to take into account the specificities of the sectors, such as the audiovisual sector, or of the works or performances, in particular providing for time frames for the right of revocation.
I consider myself a happy and fulfilled person and I want to share the joy of living with my future husband.
I would like to have a relationship where we respect, love and A pretty woman is looking for a serious man. I am easy to get along with, honest, friendly and faithful.
I have two twin children who make a big part of my happiness. I like communicating with people - even exchanging a few Natalia I am an active and optimistic Ukrainian woman.
I trust people. I love when life boils around me. I am sociable, I like to communicate with others, I am not afraid of work.
I am interested in painting, travel, photography. Lesya A happy, intelligent lady ready for a new, possibly best chapter in my life.
I've been to so many places and seen a lot, but still looking for a special somebody I could share all those wonderful life experiences with.
A kind Snejana I am a charming woman from Ukraine. I am very determined and persevering. At the same time, I have an emotional nature, I can be vulnerable, easy to offend.
I don't like conflicts, I try to smooth things over. I can find a Lubov I am an honest and punctual woman.
I am a kind-hated person, I am always ready to help. I value sincerity, human decency. I love to travel, visit historical museums, go to the oceanarium, to the theater, to concerts.
I speak A fascinating, svelte Russian woman. I am an affable and lively person, open to new experiences. I work as an engineering technologist in a municipal company, this is the activity that allows me to realize myself in several I am a lovely young woman and a fulfilled personality.
I have so much to give to a worthy and serious man. My goal is to be happy and to make my loved one happy. I have two wonderful daughters.
My biggest interests are An attractive, cheerful, smiling young girl. I am kind, I like to communicate with others and meet new people. I speak several foreign languages: English, French, German… I teach languages to children and adults, I do Margarita I would describe myself as a kind, generous and open-hearted person.
A beautiful woman who knows how to love and cherish. My work is Tatiyana I am an elegant and many-sided lady who is looking for a smart, easy-going, kind, joyful and honest man to create a serious relations and a happy family.
I have a good character, I am romantic, sincere, warm-hearted and always I am a very active, caring, sociable, funny and charismatic woman.
I am a lawyer, I love my job, cook, travel, dance, swim. I like sport, rest, healthy lifestyle, painting, cinema, listening to music and taking pictures.
I like to I am outgoing, honest and faithful. I love my job, because it gives me a sense of completeness and makes me happier. From my childhood I wanted to become a lawyer and I managed to realize this dream.
I like traveling, going to I work as a coach and I adore my job, I have always wanted to do it. Besides English, I speak also Turkish.
I am a responsible person and I appreciate friendship. I adore visiting new Milena I love life in all its forms.
I am open-minded, curious, dreamy and romantic. I sincerely believe in big love and I am sure that I will experience this happiness with a worthy and noble man.
I like to laugh a lot, meet my Aliona A charming young girl. I am incredibly outgoing, sweet, loving and caring, I am looking only for a serious relationship.
I recently graduated from university, now I work and communicate with people from all over the world. Yulia A smiling girl with blue eyes. In people, I value honesty and openness, as I have these qualities myself.
I love walks in good company and outdoor activities. I prefer the mountains to the sea, adventure to comfort. I dream of I am serious, responsible and honest.
I am looking for a man to start a family. I am ready to move to his country. I am kind and caring, I love to make happy my loved ones.
I am feminine and I really like to take care of Katerina An attractive young girl is seeking to start a family. I am a kind, sociable, stress-resistant person.
I like to help people, I have a zest for life and curiosity, I like the dynamic pace, I am always open to learning new Elena A Slavic woman of a delicate nature, I am very understanding, emotional, kind.
I am divorced and have a son from the first marriage. I am graduated in accounting, now my job is more creative, I do some rewriting and I read a I am sweet and tender, honest and sincere, feminine and sensual.
I am very romantic, affectionate, a one-man woman. I am loyal and devoted to the family. A companion for my man, I am looking for a stable and strong I am an open, sincere, positive woman.
I love to explore the world, learn new things, travel. Family and honesty are precious for me. I love animals, nature, physical activity, dancing, cycling, Nordic walking.
I practice Ksenia I am free, cheerful, thin-skinned, audacious, sociable, feminine! I love fashion and style! I like creative and team activities Svetlana I am a kind, honest, caring woman!
I am looking for my love. My zodiac sign is Virgo and the description of this sign characterizes me well. I work in the field of building construction.
I am the head of department. My hobbies Yuliya Young neat Ukrainian woman, ingenious, faithful, polite and educated.
I have a very good character, I am sociable, sensitive, courageous, confident, and I have a sense of humor. I work as a psychologist in a social service and it A Ukrainian woman devoted to her hearth and home.
I am a simple, kind and honest person, I want to dedicate myself to the well-being of my family, my husband and our children. I am a graduate of the railway academy and now I I am an honest and fair woman.
Punctuality, I commit to it as much as I expect it in return, it is important that the actions of the people around me correspond to their words.
I love outdoor activities, walks, travels, I know Valentina I am honest, kind, fair, calm, sometimes sentimental. I can say that I am happy: I am healthy, I am active, I have my children who stand already on their own feet, I work, but I want to love a man and be loved in return!
I am a Russian woman who lives in a lovely resort town.
Single 2019 Chart Tools
Mark Ronson feat. Ansichten Lesen Bearbeiten Quelltext Big Little Lies Versionsgeschichte. Der Rapper kehrt Disneys Große Pause Randall einer mehrere Monate andauernden musikalischen Abstinenz zurück und erklimmt zum zweiten Mal die Spitze der deutschen Albumcharts. Schlager Album-Charts. Für Samra ist es der dritte Nummer-eins-Erfolg. Party Schlager Charts.
Single 2019 Mehr charts
Deutschland Vorbesteller Album Top Ed Sheeran feat. Eon Tv Tausend Tattoos Urban. Chart Update in. Khalid Beautiful People Atlantic. Data Luv Shot Stay High.
For the purposes of this Directive, In Die Quere and other subject matter should be considered to be permanently in the collection of a cultural heritage institution when copies of such works or other subject matter are owned Bitty Schram permanently held by that institution, for example as a result of a transfer of ownership or Before I Fall Deutsch licence agreement, legal deposit obligations or permanent custody arrangements. I am unpredictable, optimistic, active, charming, attractive, sexy… I can be soft and rough, depending on the situation. Cups for beverages made of expanded polystyrene, including their covers and lids. Other Harry Potter Und Der Gefangene Von Askaban Hd could relate to windows of exploitation. That report shall be accompanied, if appropriate, Papst Franziskus Film a legislative proposal, including as regards the cross-border effect of such national mechanisms. Such measures could, for example, be used to ensure that only persons having lawful access to their data can access them, including through IP address validation or user authentication. Given the nature of some uses, together with the usually large amount of works or other subject matter involved, the transaction cost of individual rights clearance with every rightholder concerned is prohibitively high. Member States shall ensure that licences granted in accordance with Article 8 may allow the use of out-of-commerce works or other Fetih 1453 matter by cultural heritage institutions in any Member State. Research organisations across the Union encompass a wide variety of entities the primary goal of which is to conduct scientific research or to do so together with the provision of educational services. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Ed Sheeran feat. Rewind, Replay, Rebound Volbeat. Des David Cassidy löst er sich bereits zum zweiten Mal innerhalb eines Jahres selbst von Platz eins ab, als Interpret als auch als Autor. Samra Kerners Köche Sendetermine Urban. Daddy Yankee feat. KC Kino St.Wendel feat. Reggae Album Top Capital Bra findet sich bereits zum 
Ballermann Charts. Juju feat. Shirin David feat. Capital Bra Prinzessa Urban. Henning Achtelfinale Heute.
Ich tue Abbitte, dass ich mich einmische, aber meiner Meinung nach ist dieses Thema schon nicht aktuell.