"Article 13" has been decided and is being sold as a great thing

In the last few weeks and months, an attentive Internet user has not been able to ignore the topics Article 11, Article 13 and upload filters. In short, these misguided EU rules are copyright adaptations designed to protect intellectual property. However, it all goes so far that (at least large) websites with user interaction have to incorporate a filter so that users cannot upload any copyrighted content. In the case of films, pieces of music, original pictures, etc., this is of course understandable - but individual elements of Internet culture such as memes, remixes, reaction videos, parodies and so on can break your neck.

Copyright protection and remuneration for journalistic services - or censorship and moneymaking? When ignorance meets uncharted territory, the consequences are dire.

Copyright protection and remuneration for journalistic services - or censorship and moneymaking? When ignorance meets uncharted territory, the consequences are dire.

Article 13 and upload filter decided on 13.02.2019/XNUMX/XNUMX

"Very, very much completely normal, harmless, everyday content from social media users will probably be blocked before being uploaded in the future because the portals do not want to risk any fines," it says at FinanzMarktWelt. In summary, that is what consumers in the European Union will face through Article 13 of the EU Copyright Act. In addition to the misguided protection of rights, which could even result in problems with Let's Plays or product presentations, there are other "property rights" that were approved yesterday by the EU Council, EU Commission and EU Parliament. These relate to journalistic texts and their links.

Payments for viewing news snippets

For example, anyone looking for news on Google News or trying to find articles on a specific topic / incident is sure to know the corresponding snippets. The small text excerpts give an outlook on the respective contribution and thus do not serve as a substitute for the page view, but basically promote it. Doesn't matter, because the EU still wants Google and everyone else who uses text excerpts from journalistic texts to pay a certain amount to the respective publisher. This means that the free linking and thus basically free advertising for the publisher should also bring him money. This in connection with the upload filter shows one thing: If old people are involved in politics, then they should stay away from what is known as "new territory".

What does this mean for bloggers and small site operators?

It can be assumed that quotations (like the one I built in above) will remain permitted by showing the exact source - after all, they are created manually and not automatically, quantitatively en masse produced excerpts for a directory. The use of certain (theoretically copyrighted) material for advertising or presentation purposes should not be a problem in the future. As a blogger or operator of a small website - or even a forum with lively user interaction - you can be sure of yourself, but not 100%. It is to be hoped that only large networks such as Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, etc. will be affected by upload filters and the like in the long term. Currently it says: "Companies that are younger than three years, have an annual turnover of less than ten million euros and have fewer than five million users per month, should be exempted from Article 13." ( )

Blog post: What are Article 11 and Article 13?

Did you like the article and did the instructions on the blog help you? Then I would be happy if you the blog via a Steady Membership or at Patreon would support.

Leave a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked with * marked