ADEL, Youcef; a. HAQ, Abdul a. HEQ, Abdul; a. IMAN, Maimaiti; a. HUJI-B; a. IDEK; a. HUA; a. HUM; a. POB Veracruz, Mexico; alt. HICOM a. HIAST; a. ISAT; a. HIR, Musa Abdul; a. HIR, Zulkifli Abdul; a. HLA, Aung a. HO, Chun Ting a. HAW, Aik; a. HEIN, Aung; a. HO, Aik; a. HO, Chung Ting; a. HO, Hsiao; a. HOE, Aik; a.
TE, Ho Chun; a. WIN, Aung; a. Y CIA. Passport G Pakistan ; alt. Passport A India issued 04 Jun ; alt. Passport P India issued 30 Jul ; alt. Passport G Pakistan issued 12 Aug ; alt. Passport A India issued 26 Jul ; alt. Passport K India issued 30 Jul ; alt. Passport V India issued 03 Oct ; alt. Passport R India issued 26 Nov ; alt. ICDB a. Montana, Col. Napoles, Del. Observatorio, Del. ICA Mexico ; alt. Simon Bolivar Km.
NexGuard forensic watermarking| NAGRA
Francisco Eusebio km. INTER; a. Box , Harare, Zimbabwe; Phone No. IPI S. IFD S. IGASA; a. IGASE; a. IIRO; a. PRDF; a. Parque Santander of. B Apto. Y CIA S. IRSA S. HESA; a. HTC; a. IAMCO; a. IAMI; a. Box , Esfahan, Iran; P. Box , No. ICI; a. IEI; a. IHSC; a. IARA; a. ISRA , E. IRISL; a. Box , Tehran, Iran; No. AGIR; a. IRG; a. IRGC; a. SEPAH; a. ATTO, Abdullah; a. BUR, Abdullah; a. SA-ID; a. JIT; a. Passport AD Zimbabwe ; alt.
KMC , Nr. DOV; a. KACH; a. ORG; a. COM; a. KOACH; a. DOB 1 Jun ; alt. POB Baalbeck, Lebanon; alt. KARIM a. KAVE, S. Ahmad Murtada Ahmad a. DOB 2 May ; alt. DOB 3 Jul ; alt. KHAN, Ali; a. KHAN, Shahbaz a. HAN, Cellat; a. HAN, Sahbaz; a.
- Origine du prénom Melchior (Oeuvres courtes) (French Edition).
- Eine Insel für zwei (Teil 2) (German Edition)?
- Voltes de maó, una nova visió (Catalan Edition)!
Box , Bandar Anzali , Iran; M. Khomeini St. KO, Myint Myint a. KADEK; a. KGK; a. PKK; a. KYA, La Bo a. A, Carrera 71 No. DOB 13 Nov ; alt. LAO, Ssu a. WANG, Ssu; a. Corporate Services Limited P. Emilio Althaus , Int. LAW, Steven a. LAW, Stephen; a. LO, Ping Han; a. LO, Ping Hau; a. LO, Ping Zhong; a. LO, Steven; a. DOB 25 Jan ; alt. LI, Cheng Yu a. LI, Fangwei a. LI, Kai Shou a. LTTE; a. LIN, Aung Thein a. LO, Hsing Han a. LAW, Hsit-han; a. LO, Hsin Han; a. EL TIO; a. GAP, Gure; a. YARE, Bashir; a. Bashir Uddin; a. DOB 22 May ; alt. Diplomatic Passport A Yemen ; alt. MANN, Shwe a.
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform documents in the last year. Government Contracts 42 documents in the last year. Fishery Management documents in the last year.
Taking of Marine Mammals documents in the last year. Flights To and From Cuba by the U. Cultural Objects Imported for Exhibition 88 documents in the last year. International Trade Anti-Dumping documents in the last year. Department of Energy. Broadband Policy documents in the last year. Patent, Trademark, and Copyright documents in the last year. Climate Change documents in the last year.
Oil and Gas Leasing 25 documents in the last year. Air Travel 89 documents in the last year. Trade Adjustment Assistance 52 documents in the last year. Health Care Reform documents in the last year. Veterans Educational Benefits 6 documents in the last year. Go to a specific date Go to a specific date:. Legal Status. Text and data mining allows the reading and analysis of large amounts of digitally stored information to gain new knowledge and discover new trends. It is generally only after that information is normalised that it can be processed through text and data mining.
Once there is lawful acc ess to information, it is when that information is being normalised that a copyright-protected use takes place, since this leads to a reproduction by changing the format of the information or by extracting it from a database into a format that can be subje cted to text and data mining. The copyright-relevant processes in the use of text and data mining technology is consequently not the text and data mining process itself which consists of a reading and analysis of digitally stored, normalised information, b ut the process of accessing and the process by which information is normalised to enable its automated computational analysis, insofar as this process involves extraction from a database or reproductions.
The exceptions for text and data mining purposes pr ovided for in this Directive should be understood as referring to such copyright-relevant processes necessary to enable text and data mining. Where existing copyright law has been inapplicable to uses of text and data mining, such uses should remain unaffe cted by this Directive.
Research organisations sho uld also benefit from the exception when they engage into public-private partnerships.
Legal Notice - Costume jewelry | Les Néréides and N2 brands
Educational establishments and cultural heritage institutions that conduct scientific research should also be covered by the text and data mining exception provide d that the results of the research do not benefit an undertaking exercising a decisive influence upon such organisations in particular.
In the event that the research is carried out in the framework of a public private-partnership, the undertaking particip ating in the public private partnership should also have lawful access to the works and other subject matter. The reproductions and extractions made for text and data mining purposes should be stored in a secure manner and in a way that ensures that the co pies are only used for the purpose of scientific research. The exception or limitation provided for in this Directive should therefore benefit all educational establishments in primary, secondary, vocational and higher education to the extent they pursue their educational activity for a non-commercial purpose.
The organisational structure and the means of funding of an educational establishment are not the decisive factors to determine the non-commercial nature of the activity. Where cultural heritage institutions pursue an educational objective and are involved in teaching activities, it should be possible for Member States to consider those institutions as an educ ational establishment under this exception in so far as their teaching activities are concerned.
The use of the works or other subject-matter under the exception or limitation should be only in the context of teaching and learning activities carried out under the responsibility of educational establishments, including during examinations, and be limited to what is necessary for the purpose of such activities. The exception or limitation should cover both uses through digital means in the classroom and online uses through the educational establishment's secure electronic network , the access to which should be protected, notably by authentication procedures.
The exception or limitation should be understood as covering the specific accessibility needs of persons with a disability in the context of illustration for teaching. The exception or limitation should cover both uses through digital means where the teaching ac tivity is physically provided, including where it takes place outside the premises of the educational establishment, for example in libraries or cultural heritage institutions, as long as the use is made under the responsibility of the educational establis hment, and online uses through the educational establishment's secure electronic environment , the access to which should be protected, notably by authentication procedures.
Such arrangements have usually been developed taking account of the needs of educational establishments and different levels of education. Whereas it is essential to harmonise the scope of the new mandatory exception or limitation in relation to digital uses and cross-border teaching activities, the modalities of implementation may differ from a Member State to another, to the extent they do not hamper the effective application of the exception or limitation or cross-border uses.
This should allow Member States to build on the existing arrangements concluded at national level. In particular, Member States could decide to subject the application of the exception or limitation, fully or partially, to the availability of adequate licences , cove ring at least the same uses as those allowed under the exception. This mechanism would, for example, allow giving precedence to licences for materials which are primarily intended for the educational market.
In order to avoid that such mechanism results in legal uncertainty or administrative burden for educational establishments, Member States adopting this approach should take concrete measures to ensure that licensing schemes allowing digital uses of works or other subject-matter for the purpose of illustration for teaching are easily available and that educational establishments are aware of the existence of such licensing schemes.
In particular, Member States could decide to subject the application of the exception or limitation, fully or partially, to the availability of adequate licences. Such licenses should be affordable and cover at least the same uses as those allowed under the exception. This mechanism would, for example, allow giving precedence to licences for materials which are primarily intended for the educational market , or for teaching in educational establishments or sheet music. In order to avoid that such mechanism results in legal uncertainty or administrative burden for educational establishments, Member States adopting this approach should take concrete measures to ensure that such licensing schemes allowing digital uses of works or other subject-matter for the purpose of illustration for teaching are easily available and that educational establishments are aware of the existence of such licensing schemes.
Member States should be able to provide for systems to ensure that there is fair compensation for right-holders for u ses under those exceptions or limitations. Member States should be encouraged to use systems that do not create an administrative burden, such as systems that provide for one-off payments. The proposed amendment is needed in order to provide legal certainty in cases when a Member State decides to subject the application of the exception to the availability of adequate licences. Cultural heritage institutions are engaged in the preservation of their collections for future generations.
Digital technologies offer new ways to preserve the heritage contained in those collections but they also create new challenges. In view of these new challenges, it is necessary to adapt the current legal framework by providing a mandatory exception to the right of reproduction in order to allow those acts of preservation.
BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT FOR PUBLIC WORKS
In view of these new challenges, it is necessary to adapt the current legal framework by providing a mandatory exception to the right of reproduction in order to allow those acts of preservation by such institutions. This can have a negative impact on the preservation of cultural heritage.
Such an exception should allow for the making of copies by the appropriate preservation tool, means or technology, in the required number and at any point in the life of a work or other subject-matter to the extent required in order to produce a copy for preservation purposes only. Such an exception should allow for the making of copies by the appropriate preservation tool, means or technology, in any format or medium, in the required number , at any point in the life of a work or other subject-matter and to the extent required in order to produce a copy for preservation purposes only.
The archives of research organisations or public-service broad casting organisations should be considered cultural heritage institutions and therefore beneficiaries of this exception. Member States should, for the purpose of this exception, be able to maintain provisions to treat publicly accessible galleries as museu ms. Works or other subject matter that cultural heritage instit utions access temporarily via a third-party server are not considered as being permanently in their collections. Such content may include short extracts of pre-existing protected works or other subject-matter that such users might have altered, combined or otherwise transformed.
A situation of this type creates legal uncertainty for both users and rightholders. It is ther efore necessary to provide a new specific exception to permit the legitimate uses of extracts of pre-existing protected works or other subject-matter in content that is uploaded or made available by users. Where content generated or made available by a use r involves the short and proportionate use of a quotation or of an extract of a protected work or other subject-matter for a legitimate purpose, such use should be protected by the exception provided for in this Directive.
This exception should only be app lied in certain special cases which do not conflict with normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter concerned and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder. This exception should be without prejudice to the moral rights of the authors of the work or other subject-matter. However, the particular characteristics of the collections of out-of-commerce works mean that obtaining the prior consent of the individual rightholders may be very difficult.
This can be due, for example, to the age of the works or other subject-matter, their limited commercial value or the fact that they were never intended for commercial use. It is therefore necessary to provide for measures to facilitate the licensing of rights in out-of-commerce works that are in the collections of cultural heritage institutions and thereby to allow the conclusion of agreements with cross-border effect in the internal market.
This can be due, for example, to the age of the works or other subject-matter, their limited commercial value or the fact that they were never intended for commercial use or have never been in commerce.
It is therefore necessary to provide for measures to facilitate the use of out-of-commerce works that are in the collections of cultural heritage institutions and thereby to allow the conclusion of agreements with cross-border effect in the internal market. However considering the variety of works and other subject-matter in the collections of cultural heritage institutions and the variance between collective management practices across Member States and sectors of cultural production, such measures may not provide a solution in all cases, for example, because there is no practice of collect ive management for a certain type of works or other subject matter.
In such particular instances, it is therefore necessary to allow cultural heritage institutions to make out-of-commerce works held in their permanent collection available online under an e xception to copyright and related rights. While it is essential to harmonise the scope of the new mandatory exception in order to allow cross-border uses of out-of-commerce works, Member States should nevertheless be allowed to use or continue to use exten ded collective licencing arrangements concluded with cultural heritage institutions at national level for categories of works that are permanently in the collections of cultural heritage institutions The lack of agreement on the conditions of the licence s hould not be interpreted as a lack of availability of licensing-based solutions.
Any uses under this exception should be subject to the same opt out and publicity requirements as uses authorised by a licensing mechanism. In order to ensure that the excepti on only applies when certain conditions are fulfilled and to provide legal certainty, Member States should determine, in consultation with rightholders, collective management organisations and cultural heritage organisations, and at appropriate intervals o f time, for which sectors and which types of works appropriate licence-based solutions are not available, in which case the exception should apply.
Such mechanisms can include extended collective licensing and presumptions of representation. Additional appropriate safeguards should be available for all rightholders, who should be given the opportunity to exclude the application of such mechanisms to their works or other subject-matter. Conditions attached to those mechanisms should not affect their practical relevance for cultural heritage institutions.
Additional appropriate safeguards should be available for all rightholders, who should be given the opportunity to exclude the application of such licensing mechanisms or of such exceptions to their works or other subject-matter. In order to reflect the specificities of different categories 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 may have to be established by Member States for the practical application of those licensing mechanisms. It is appropriate that Member States consult rightholders, users and collective management organisations when doing so.
In order to reflect the specificities of different categories of works and other subject-matter as regards modes of publication and distribution and to facilitate the usability of the solutions on the use of out-of-commerce works introduced by this Directive , specific requirements and procedures may have to be established by Member States for the practical application of those licensing mechanisms. It is appropriate that Member States consult rightholders, cultural heritage institutions and collective management organisations when doing so. Those mechanisms should also not apply to works or other subject-matter of third country nationals except when they are first published or, in the absence of publication, first broadcast in the territory of a Member State or, in the case of cinematographic or audiovisual works, to works of which the producer's headquarters or habitual residence is in a Member State.
This is particularly important when uses take place across borders in the internal market. It is therefore appropriate to make provision for the creation of a single publicly accessible online portal for the Union to make such information available to the public for a reasonable period of time before the cross-border use takes place.
It is therefore appropriate to rely on that Office to establish and manage the European portal making such information available. The body should meet with the parties and help with the negotiations by providing professional and external advice. Against that background, Member States should decide on the conditions of the 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 forum. The participation in this negotiation mechanism and the subsequent conclusion of agreements should be voluntary. Where a n egotiation involves parties from different Member States, those parties should agree beforehand on the competent Member State should they decide to rely on the negotiation mechanism. The body should meet with the parties and help with the negotiations by providing professional , impartial and external advice.
Against that background, Member States should decide on the conditions of the functioning of the negotiation mechanism, including the timing and duration of the assistance to negotiations and the divisi on of any costs arising, and the composition of such bodies. This should be achieved notably through the protection of published heritage.
Not only should such heritage be preserved through the creation of a Union archive for publications dealing with Union-related matters, but it should also be made available to Union citizens and fu ture generations. The European Parliament Library, as the Library of the only Union institution directly representing Union citizens, should be designated as the Union depository library. In order not to create an excessive burden on publishers, printers a nd importers, only electronic publications, such as e-books, e-journals and e-magazines should be deposited in the European Parliament Library, which should make available for readers publications covered by the Union legal deposit at the European Parliame nt Library for the purpose of research or study and under the control of the European Parliament Library.
Such publications should not be made available online externally. It provides a fundamental contribution to public debate and the proper functioning of a democratic society. In the transition from print to digital, publishers of press publications are facing problems in licensing the online use of their publications and recouping their investments.
In the absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, licensing and enforcement in the digital environment is often complex and inefficient. The increasing imbalance between powerful platforms and press publishers, which can also be news agencies, has already led to a remarkable regression of the media landscape on a regional level.
In the transition from print to digital, publishers and news agencies of press publications are facing problems in licensing the online use of their publications and recouping their investments. It is therefore necessary to provide at Union level a harmonised legal protection for press publications in respect of digital uses. Such protection should be effectively guaranteed through the introduction, in Union law, of rights related to copyright for the reproduction and making available to the public of press publications in respect of digital uses.
It is therefore necessary for Member States to provide at Union level legal protection for press publications in the Union for digital uses. Such protection should be effectively guaranteed through the introduction, in Union law, of rights related to copyright for the reproduction and making available to the public of press publications in respect of digital uses in order to obtain fair and proportionate remuneration for such uses.
Private uses should be excluded from this reference. In addition, the listing in a search engine should not be considered as fair and proportionate remuneration. Such publications would include, for instance, daily newspapers, weekly or monthly magazines of general or special interest and news websites. Periodical publications which are published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, should not be covered by the protection granted to press publications under this Directive.
This protection does not extend to acts of hyperlinking which do not consti tute communication to the public. This protection does not extend to acts of hyperlinking. Therefore, publishers of press publications should not be able to invoke the protection granted to them against authors and other rightholders. This is without prejudice to contractual arrangements concluded between the publishers of press publications, on the one side, and authors and other rightholders, on the other side.
Notwithstanding the fact that authors of the works incorporated in a press publ ication receive an appropriate reward for the use of their works on the basis of the terms for licensing of their work to the press publisher, authors whose work is incorporated in a press publication should be entitled to an appropriate share of the new a dditional revenues press publishers receive for certain types of secondary use of their press publications by information society service providers in respect of the rights provided for in Article 11 1 of this Directive.
In this context, publishers make an investment with a view to the exploitation of the works contained in their publications and may in some instances be deprived of revenues where such works are used under exceptions or limitations such as the ones for private copying and reprography. In a number of Member States compensation for uses under those exceptions is shared between authors and publishers.
Select your language and place of delivery
In order to take account of this situation and improve legal certainty for all concerned parties, Member States should be allowed to determine that, when an author has transferred or licensed his rights to a publisher or otherwise contributes with his works to a publication and there are systems in place to compensate for the harm caused b y an exception or limitation, publishers are entitled to claim a share of such compensation, whereas the burden on the publisher to substantiate his claim should not exceed what is required under the system in place. In this context, publishers make an investment and acquire rights, in some fields including rights to claim a share of co mpensation within joint collective management organisations of authors and publishers, with a view to the exploitation of the works and may therefore also find themselves being deprived of revenues where such works are used under exceptions or limitations such as the ones for private copying and reprography.
In a large number of Member States compensation for uses under those exceptions is shared between authors and publishers. In order to take account of this situation and to improve legal certainty for all concerned parties, Member States should be allowed to provide an equivalent compensation sharing system if such a system was in operation in that Member State before 12 November The share between authors and publishers of such compensation could be set in the internal distribution rules of the collective management organisation acting jointly on behalf of authors and publishers, or set by Members States in law or regulation, in accordance with the equivalent system that was in operation in that Memb er State before 12 November This provision is without prejudice to the arrangements in the Member States concerning public lending rights, the management of rights not based on exceptions or limitations to copyright, such as extended collective licen sing schemes, or concerning remuneration rights on the basis of national law.
The protection of copyright and related rights are at the core of the CCI's revenue. Online services providing access to copyright protected content uploaded by their users without the involvement of right holders have flourished and have become main sources of access to content online. This affects rightholders' possibilities to determine whether, and under which conditions, their work and other subject-matter are used as well as their possibilities to get an appropriate remuneration for it.
Online services providing access to copyright protected content uploaded by their users without the involvement of right holders have flourished and have become main sources of access to copyright protected content online. Online services are 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, alt hough they allow for diversity and ease of access to content, they also generate challenges when copyright protected content is uploaded without prior authorisation from rightholders.
The definition of online content sharing service providers u nder this Directive does not cover service providers that act in a non-commercial purpose capacity such as online encyclopaedia, and providers of online services where the content is uploaded with the authorisation of all rightholders concerned, such as ed ucational or scientific repositories. Providers of cloud services for individual use which do not provide direct access to the public, open source software developing platforms, and online market places whose main activity is online retail of physical good s, should not be considered online content sharing service providers within the meaning of this Directive.
As a consequence, they should conclude fair and appropriate licensing agreements with rightholders. The rightholder should not be obliged to conclude licensing agreements. In respect of Article 14, it is necessary to verify whether the service provider plays an active role, including by optimising the presentation of the uploaded works or subject-matter or promoting them, irrespective of the nature of the means used therefor.
Where licensing agreements are concluded, they should also cover, to the same extent and scope, the liability of users when they are acting in a non-commercial capacity. In order to ensure the functioning of any licensing agreement, information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users should take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure protection of works or other subject-matter, such as implementing effective technologies.
In order to ensure the functioning of any licensing agreement, online content sharing service providers should take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure the protection of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users , such as implementing effective technologies. In the absence of agreements with the rightholders it is also re asonable to expect from online content sharing service providers that they take appropriate and proportionate measures leading to the non-availability on those services of copyright or related-right infringing works or other subject matter.
Such service pr oviders are important content distributors, thereby impacting on the exploitation of copyright-protected content. Such service providers should take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure the non-availability of works or other subject matter as i dentified by rightholders. These measures should however not lead to the non-availability of non-infringing works or other subject matter uploaded by users. In such c ases, rightholders should provide the necessary data to allow the services to identify their content and the services should be transparent towards rightholders with regard to the deployed technologies, to allow the assessment of their appropriateness.
The services should in particular provide rightholders with information on the type of technologies used, the way they are operated and their success rate for the recognition of rightholders' content. Those technologies should also allow rightholders to get i nformation from the information society service providers on the use of their content covered by an agreement.
In particular, rightholders should provide the relevant information to online content sharing service providers to allow them to identify their content when applying the measures. The service providers should be transparent towards rightholders with regard to the deployed measures, to allow the assessment of their appropriateness.
When assessing the proportionality and effectiveness of the measures implemented, due consideration should be given to technological constraints and limitations as w ell as to the amount or the type of works or other subject matter uploaded by the users of the services. When implementing such measures, the service provider s should also strike a balance between the rights of users and those of the rightholders under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Since the measures deployed by online content sharing service providers in application of this Directive could have a negative or disproportionate effect on legitimate content that is uploaded or displayed by users, in particular where the content concerned is covered by an exception or limitation, online content sharing service providers should be required to offe r a complaints mechanism for the benefit of users whose content has been affected by the measures.
Such a mechanism should enable the user to ascertain why the content concerned has been subject to measures and include basic information on the relevant exc eptions and limitations applicable. It should prescribe minimum standards for complaints to ensure that rightholders are given sufficient information to assess and respond to complaints.
Rightholders or a representative should reply to any complaints recei ved within a reasonable amount of time. The platforms or a trusted third party responsible for the redress mechanism should take corrective action without undue delay where measures prove to be unjustified. To that end, Member States should appoint an i mpartial body with all the relevant competence and experience necessary to assist the parties in the resolution of their dispute. The existence of technologies of this kind and competition among suppliers thereof should therefore create a market that is fair for all und ertakings, irrespective of their size, ensuring that SME access thereto is affordable and simple.
However, the absence of clear legal obligations to use these technologies enables dominant market operators in particular to refuse to use those tools which a re appropriate for the purposes of licensing and management of rights. This remuneration should be mentioned explicitly in the contracts according to e ach mode of exploitation, including online exploitation. Members States should look into the specificities of each sector and should be allowed to provide that remuneration is deemed fair and appropriate if it is determined in accordance with the collecti ve bargaining or joint remuneration agreement.
This is especially the case where such rightholders grant a licence or a transfer of rights in return for remuneration. As authors and performers tend to be in a 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 information by their contractual counterparts or their successors in title is important for the transparency and balance in the system that governs the remuneration of authors and performers. Therefore, the sharing of comprehensive and relevant information by their contractual counterparts or their successors in title is important for the transparency and balance in the system that governs the remuneration of authors and performers.
The information that authors and performers are entitled to expect should be proportionate and cover all modes of exploitation, direct and indirect revenue generated, including reven ues from merchandising, and the remuneration due. The information on the exploitation should also include information about the identity of any on the sub-licensee or sub-transferee. The transparency obligation should nevertheless apply only where copyrigh t relevant rights are concerned.
Therefore, without prejudice to the law applicable to contracts in Member States, there should be a remuneration adjustment mechanism for cases where the remuneration originally agreed under a licence or a transfer of rights is disproportionately low compared to the relevant revenues and the benefits derived from the exploitation of the work or the fixation of the performance, including in light of the transparency ensured by this Directive. The assessment of the situation should take account of the specific circumstances of each case as well as of the specificities and practices of the different content sectors.
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. Therefore, without prejudice to the law applicable to contracts in Member States, there should be a remuneration adjustment mechanism for cases where the remuneration originally agreed under a licence or a transfer of rights is disproportionately low compared to the relevant direct and indirect revenues and the benefits derived from the exploitation of the work or the fixation of the performance, including in light of the transparency ensured by this Directive.
The assessment of the situation should take account of the specific circumstances of each case , the specificities and practices of the different content sectors as well as of the nature and the contribution to the work of the author or performer. Such a contract adjustment request could also be made by the organisation representing the author or performer on his behalf, unless the request would be detrimental to t he interests of the author or performer.
Where the parties do not agree on the adjustment of the remuneration, the author or performer or a representative organisation appointed by them should on request by the author or performer be entitled to bring a claim before a court or other competent authority. Member States should therefore provide for an alternative dispute resolution procedure that addresses claims related to obligations of transparency and the contract adjustment mechanism.
Representative organisations of authors and performers, including collective management organisations and trade unions, should be able to initiate such procedures at the request of authors and performers. Details about who initiated the procedure should remain undisclosed. However, it happens that works or performances that have been licensed or transferred are not exploited at all. When these rights hav e been transferred on an exclusive basis, authors and performers cannot turn to another partner to exploit their work.
As digital technology is not accessible everywhere and can not solve everything, we are moving into vital areas for particularly vulnerable audiences. We are thus taking action to promote access to health, education and culture in France, Europe and Africa. In France, Autism Info Service is the first nationwide, online and free-of-charge information and listening service designed to help and guide people with autism, their entourage and medico-social professionals.
By telephone 71 40 40 and via the internet www. In the Orange Village of Mudusa in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the construction of the primary school has been going well thanks to the on-site support from the association SOS Enfants. Indeed, after having finished construction on the hospital, our teams have been busy working since The Orange Book Prize in Africa launched this year recognises a novel written in French by an African writer and published between 1 January and 30 October by an African publishing house.
The objective is to unearth and support new authors and promote access to culture and knowledge We have opened the first Women's Digital Centre in Casablanca, Morocco, to train women without qualifications or a job. Ana took part in the challenge with the Madrid solidarity FabLab. The jury was charmed by the collective dimension of the projects. He talks about his experience in a FabLab which taught him teamwork and how to open up to others.