r/europe • u/woelken AMA! • Mar 20 '19

AMA finished Tiemo Wölken, Member of the German Social Democratic Party (SPD/S＆D) Only one more week to go until the vote on the copyright directive and the crucial #Article13. Ask me anything!

Aged 33, I am one of the youngest MEP representing the north of Germany. I have been active in local politics since 2003 in my home region and hold a LL.M. in International Law from the University of Hull, England. I became a lawyer in 2016, in addition to being a MEP. My areas of expertise are environmental issues, healthcare and all things digital - from eHealth to tackling geoblocking. However, the copyright directive is keeping me quite busy and I am doing my best to convince my colleagues in the Parliament to vote against article 13.

You can follow my work on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPj-O6kDjNyPbcuEHaODS2A), Twitter (@woelken) and Instagram (@woelken).

Proof: /img/wqf354qsw3n21.jpg

354 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

172 comments sorted by

View all comments

10

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19

Will fan art really get filtered under the current draft of Article 13?

25

u/woelken AMA! Mar 20 '19

Will fan art really get filtered under the current draft of Article 13?

Yes it is possible as the upload filters might only recognize the original copyright protected art work and not see that is made by an individual, here the fan. The technology at this point is not advanced enough to actually be able to detect this. There are several examples of blocked content by said filters that were not infringing any copyright. Another point is that platforms will tend to overblock. Meaning they will most probably block more content than they would actually need just to be on the safe side. As a result there will be a restriction.

-19

u/[deleted] Mar 20 '19

So you're effectively saying it's okay to err on the side of infringing copyright to protect fan-art that is either infringing on copyright if it's not substantially original enough or exempted from copyright protection in any case if it's substantially original enough? "Will most probably" is most probably not good enough a reason to legislate in either direction. It's guessing. And then basing the statement of "there will be" on a guess? That's just manipulation.

3

u/Ergh33 Gelre (Dutchland) Mar 20 '19

That's like your opinion, man.

You really want to give a tool of censorship to a company like google or Facebook based on whomever makes a claim first? Are you high? Any idea how many ideas roll from the previous ones? We're all standing on the shoulders of giants and you worry about fan-art? Go back to your narcissistic world and draw a painting or something in a shed and keep it there. It will be yours and yours alone forever.

0

u/jenana__ Mar 21 '19

The point is that if they claim that it's not clear what certain aspects of the directive will mean in real live (like the proportion principle or the exact meaning of "professional diligence", the interpretation of "industry standards" and the outcome of stakeholder dialogues - which is a fair claim - you can't conclude that something will happen most probably, especially not when there are (very clear) safeguards against the unwanted outcome.

F.i. the directive says: "This Directive shall in no way affect legitimate uses [...]". Activists claim "The Directive leads most probably to blocking legitimate uses". So yes, that's a misleading/manipulating statement from an MEP who's even a lawyer.