The Federal Ministry of Justice published a new draft for the implementation of the EU Copyright Directive on Tuesday and thus provoked divided reactions. There is criticism of the reform of digital copyright law from consumer protection and civil rights circles because it restricts user rights and freedom of expression too much. Publishers’ associations welcome parts of the law; other rules do not go far enough for them. Search engine and platform operator Google, on the other hand, is reluctant to express itself.

In comparison to two discussion papers from January and July, the ministry of Christine Lambrecht (SPD ) changed some key points. The focus is on the role of large online platforms such as YouTube and Facebook, which will in future be more liable for copyright infringements by their users, as well as ancillary copyrights for the press. What is new in the draft is that the platforms are to pay flat-rate fees to the authors not only for minor uses, but also for “pastiches” (including remixes and memes). In addition, the draft formulates new rules for user uploads that are intended to prevent content from being unjustifiably blocked.

“Pre-Check” – upload filter with a new name? In the original discussion proposal, “pre-flagging” should enable users to publish copyrighted content in legal forms of use, such as parodies, quotations or memes, without being blocked immediately by the platform. The current draft bill now stipulates that a “pre-check” should sound an alarm during the upload if a rights holder has deposited the content on the platform for blocking. Only then is “pre-flagging” still possible.

In an accompanying letter, the BMJV explains: “The user only has to answer the question if he / she requests blocking discuss whether the upload could also be legally permitted. ” The problem: In order to recognize whether a content is licensed or a blocking request has been made, the platforms would inevitably have to automatically check all uploads. In the eyes of some critics, these are at best weakened upload filters, which the federal government actually wanted to avoid after the protests against the EU directive.

Julia Reda, former MEP and project manager at the Society for Freedom Rights , criticizes the innovations as a “step backwards for freedom of expression”. In addition, the “pre-check” does not allow a precautionary measure to prevent rights holders from having their content blocked subsequently. If users complain to the platform in such cases, the draft provides for a decision period of one week. In her press release Reda warns: “Once the content is blocked, the damage to freedom of expression has already been done.”

Consumer advice center: step backwards in user rights The Federation of German Consumer Organizations also speaks of a “step backwards” in a message to heise online. The fact that this is now going to the detriment of user rights in “pre-flagging” is “disappointing,” said a spokesman. The consumer association also considers retroactive bans to be a problem. The spokesman emphasized: “The advantage that the content could initially go online fizzled out.” In practice, “in many cases either a license or a blocking request will already be stored at the time of the upload.” The platforms are ultimately obliged by law to actively seek license agreements with collecting societies. However, they want to examine the objection again.

A heavily affected platform would be the Google subsidiary YouTube. They at least appreciate that the ministry is trying to reconcile the various interests. However, when asked by heise online, a spokesman indicated that some suggestions for implementing the article 17 “could lead to additional complexity and legal uncertainty”. In earlier statements, the group had strongly criticized “pre-flagging” and a possible compulsion to license agreements.

Copyright associations protest against “minor uses” Various associations of rights holders have also criticized the draft bill – but for completely different reasons. You are particularly bothered by the exception for minor uses, according to which users can use up to 1000 characters of a protected text, 20 Seconds of an audio or video file or images up to 250 kB may legally be used on platforms. A group around the media association Vaunet, the Federal Association of the Music Industry and VG Media consider the exception to be “contrary to European law”. In a press release they explain that even such short excerpts are by no means insignificant. In 20 seconds could often already contain “key moments” of a protected song or film.

The Federal Association of Digital Publishers and Newspaper Publishers (BDZV) and the Association of German Magazine Publishers (VDZ) see the new press ancillary copyright law in particular at risk. An exception for a picture and 1000 characters of a text are “often half or even whole press articles”, explains a spokeswoman to heise online. The draft stipulates that rights holders should receive a lump sum payment from the platforms for this minor use. But the two publishers’ associations emphasize: Such a compensation “doesn’t help.”

Ancillary copyright: Exceptions again unclear That the ministry in the case of ancillary copyright law will