What is Article 13?

Article 13, as written by the European Parliament, will create large unintended consequences for everyone. Let’s come together for a better solution.

Article 13 – There’s a better way

Article 13 is part of European copyright legislation created with the intent to better protect creativity and find effective ways for copyright holders to protect their content online.

We support the goals of Article 13, but the version written by the European Parliament could have large unintended consequences that would change the web as we know it.

There’s a better way. Learn more and make your voice heard.

1. What is Article 13?
   • Article 13 is one part of a proposed European Union (EU) copyright legislation created with the intent to better protect creativity and find effective ways for copyright holders to protect their content online. (Official text here).
   • To be clear, we support the goals of Article 13 and its push to help creators and artists succeed; we want more effective ways for copyright holders to protect their content. But Article 13, as written by the European Parliament, will create large unintended consequences for everyone, so we’re asking to find a better way forward.
2. What’s the status of Article 13?
   • On September 12th the European Parliament voted to move forward with Article 13.
   • However, Article 13 is not yet a law. The language is being drafted and revised in EU’s trilogue negotiationsbetween representatives from the European Commission, Parliament and Council.
   • This language could be finalized by the end of the year, and EU member states may have up to two years to make the directive into national law.
3. What changes with Article 13?
   • The proposed version of Article 13 would eliminate the existing notice-and-takedown system currently in place to protect rightsholders and platforms. This would make platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Soundcloud, Dailymotion, Reddit and Snapchat liable - at the moment of upload - for any copyright infringement in uploads from users, creators and artists.
   • This in turn would mean that platforms including YouTube would be forced to block the vast majority of uploads from Europe and views in Europe for content uploaded elsewhere given the uncertainty and complexity of copyright ownership (more on this below).
4. What would be the impact if the European Parliament version of Article 13 passes?
   • The risks associated with accepting content uploads with partial or disputed copyright information would be far too large for platforms such as YouTube.
   • As a result, YouTube would be forced to block millions of videos (existing and new ones) in the European Union. It could drastically limit the content that one can upload to the platform in Europe.
   • Creators would be especially hard hit. Videos that could be blocked include: educational videos (from channels such as Kurzgesagt in Germany and C.G.P. Grey in the UK), a large number of official music videos (like Despacitofrom Luis Fonsi or Mafioso from Lartiste), fan music covers, mashups, parodies and more.
   • As such, Article 13 threatens hundreds of thousands of jobs, European creators, businesses, artists and everyone they employ.
5. What does this mean for me as a YouTube creator or artist in the European Union?
   • YouTube and other platforms may have no choice but to block your existing videos and prevent you from uploading new ones in the European Union unless you can prove you own everything in your videos (including visuals and sounds).
6. What does this mean for me as a YouTube creator or an artist NOT in the European Union?
   • YouTube and other platforms will likely block your videos (including existing ones) to users in the European Union if there is partial or disputed copyright information.
7. What types of copyrighted content would I not be able to use in my videos?
   • Examples of copyrighted material possibly impacted in your videos include images, artwork, software, excerpts from books, music, parodies and much more. (Read more here).
8. Why aren’t copyright matching tools like Content ID enough?
   • With Article 13 as currently written, copyright matching tools like Content ID wouldn't help platforms such as YouTube to keep content on the platform.
   • Content ID works if rightsholders use it and provide clarity as to what belongs to them. However, in many cases information on copyright ownership is missing, or there is partial knowledge, meaning that no system could accurately identify full copyright information at the point of upload.
   • Put simply, a piece of content with partial or unknown ownership is - to YouTube - treated the same as a piece of content that is unlicensed and so would have to be blocked.
9. Is there a better way forward with Article 13?
   • Yes! We’re asking lawmakers to find a better balance we all need to protect against copyright violations and still enable European users, creators and artists to share their voices online. In order to do that, we need a system where both platforms and rightsholders collaborate.
   • What this means in reality is three things:
     • Rightsholders should work with platforms to identify the content they own, so the platforms know what is protected under copyright and can give rightsholders control to block if they choose.
     • Platforms should only be held liable for content identified to them using tools like Content ID or through notice and takedown.
     • Platforms and rightsholders should negotiate in good faith where licenses and rights can be easily identified
10. What can I do to help find a better way forward with Article 13?
    • European representatives are still working on the final version of Article 13 and there is time to work together towards a better path forward.
    • The European policymakers involved in negotiating Article 13 need to hear and see that real people could be negatively impacted if Article 13 goes into effect as written by the Parliament! That’s why we need you and your fans to make your voice heard now by:
      • Making a video about Article 13
      • Tweeting about Article 13 with the hashtag #SaveYourInternet
      • Joining the movement at youtube.com/saveyourinternet
11. What’s up with other players? Is YouTube alone in this fight?
    • The Copyright Directive won’t just affect creators and artists on YouTube. It will also apply to many forms of user generated content uploaded onto other platforms across the Internet.
    • Many other people are raising concerns too. Individuals, organizations (like European Digital Rights and theInternet Archive), companies (like Reddit, Patreon, Wordpress, and Medium), the Internet’s original architects and pioneers (like Sir Tim Berners Lee), and the UN Special Rapporteur for free expression have spoken out. Creators across the Internet are standing up for their right to create and express themselves, including Phil DeFranco,LeFloid, and TO JUZ Jutro.
12. Which countries would be directly impacted by Article 13?
    • All member states of the EU: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland,Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK (at least for now, here’s more about Brexit).
13. One last thing. What are common misunderstandings about Article 13?

6 myths on Article 13:

FACT  Myth 1: Article 13 will protect small creators and artists while ensuring they are paid fairly for their work. Rightsholders should be protected from piracy and compensated fairly for their work, but the current Parliament proposal of Article 13 unintentionally harms the small creators, artists and businesses it intends to protect by forcing sites like YouTube to block most user uploads. YouTube pays the majority of revenue generated on its platform to creators and artists of all sizes. Over the last 12 months, YouTube paid over €800 million to content owners in the EU. And, over the years, YouTube has paid the music industry over €5 billion. The majority of revenue earned from EU viewers could disappear if Article 13 imposes direct liability on platforms before notice of potential copyright infringement, because this would create uncapped financial liability that could force us to block most of YouTube’s content in Europe. 

FACT  Myth 2: Article 13 is already law in the EU.   Right now, Article 13, as part of the European Union Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, is being finalized in the EU’s trilogue negotiations. This process could be concluded by the end of the year, and EU member states may have up to two years to make the directive into national law.

FACT  Myth 3: YouTube is against Article 13 and there is no room for compromise. We support the premise of Article 13 to pay rightsholders fairly, but this legislation must be written carefully. Working with industry and lawmakers, we can find a solution within Article 13 in which rightsholders have the responsibility to identify their copyrighted material and platforms work to make sure rightsholders can control and earn revenue from identified content. This solution would require technology companies to provide tools that make it easy for rightsholders to control the use of their content and requires rightsholders to work with technology companies to identify the content they own. Platforms that follow these rules, and help rightsholders identify their content, shouldn’t be held directly liable for copyright infringement for every potentially copyrighted work in every single piece of content that a user uploads.

FACT  Myth 4: The digital advertising model is destroying the creative industry. 

Ads and subscription businesses are growing and that revenue is accelerating, fueling the fastest growth for the music industry in 20 years. In the last 12 months, YouTube paid the music industry over €1.5 billion generated from ad revenue alone. This twin-engine revenue machine provides two sources of income to creators and artists. Ad-supported content also helps drive consumption and promotion for global music moments, like Despacito, in countries where people may not be able to afford a monthly subscription service. 

FACT  Myth 5: Managing rights today on big platforms is an impossible case of whack-amole, making it too difficult for record labels to withdraw their works. Technology like YouTube’s Content ID not only helps rightsholders manage their copyrighted works automatically and at scale, but it can make them money too. Over 98% of copyright management on YouTube takes place through Content ID. In fact, to date, Content ID has paid rightsholders over €2.5 billion for third party uses of their content. However, Content ID only works if rightsholders use it and make it clear what belongs to them.

FACT Myth 6: YouTube already has the technology needed to comply with Article 13. YouTube’s Content ID automates rightsholders ability to manage their copyrighted content at scale on YouTube. But it only works if rightsholders use the tool, make it clear what belongs to them. Under the current proposal, Article 13 would make YouTube liable for every potential copyright violation, even without being on notice. It’s similar to holding a bookstore owner responsible if one of the books on its shelves contains plagiarized work. Even rightsholders don’t always know who owns what, and at YouTube’s scale--400 hours of video are uploaded every minute--this is an impossible expectation to meet. It should be clear in the directive that collaboration between rightsholders and platforms is essential, and that collaboration will better serve the underlying purpose of Article 13.

Share: