National Council wants to protect all photographs under copyright law - replay decision still pending

The project has a long history. The Federal Council relied on the compromise of a working group in which creative artists, producers, providers and consumers were represented. After a long back and forth, a compromise was reached with which the National Council expressed its satisfaction in the debate. The revision of copyright law is intended to better protect the interests of creative artists without criminalizing Internet users. Those who consume illegal content for personal use should still not be prosecuted.

Protection for photographs

The National Council has already approved an extension of protection for photographs. At present, copyright law only protects photographs if they have an individual character. Professional and amateur photographers can hardly defend themselves against unwanted use of their images. In future, all photographs are to be protected. In principle, this was not controversial. It was the exact form of protection that caused discussion. The preliminary consultation committee proposed an amendment which, in its view, would have further improved protection. However, the Council decided to stick with the Federal Council's version.

Compensation for video-on-demand

The National Council also agrees that filmmakers should receive remuneration for video-on-demand use. This would be collected by the collecting societies. The regulation is intended to take account of the increasing online use of works and the disappearance of video stores. As a result, filmmakers currently generate lower revenues. The video-on-demand remuneration system is limited to films by Swiss producers and films from countries that provide for a collective remuneration claim.

Double remuneration excluded

Christian Wasserfallen (FDP/BE) requested that the regulation be deleted. He justified this by arguing that it could lead to double remuneration and thus to an additional burden on consumers. According to Justice Minister Simonetta Sommaruga, this is out of the question. The Council rejected the proposal by 112 votes to 67 with 3 abstentions. It also said no to an exception for film music composers, which was requested by a minority of the committee. Sommaruga conceded that film music composers would fare somewhat worse with the new regulation than before. However, this was the price to be paid for improving the situation for filmmakers as a whole. Unequal treatment of directors, actresses and composers is not justifiable.

No protection for journalistic works

Protection for journalistic works was also up for discussion. A minority of the Commission proposed a regulation according to which social network operators would owe remuneration to authors or publishers if they make journalistic content accessible. The Council rejected this by 133 votes to 39 with 5 abstentions. The majority found that the media crisis could not be solved in this way. It was unclear how the platforms could be held accountable for the behavior of users. In addition, media professionals themselves have an interest in being read. They often distribute their articles on social networks. Sommaruga noted that such a regulation would be legally problematic and almost impossible to implement in practice.

No decision yet on Replay TV

The National Council will continue its deliberations on Friday. It will then also decide on the controversial regulation on time-shifted television proposed by the Commission. With replay TV, many viewers switch to fast-forward during advertising, which means that advertising revenue is lost. The Commission now wants to enshrine in law that TV broadcasters negotiate with cable companies about the possibility of skipping advertising. Advertising should only be allowed to be skipped if the broadcaster agrees.

Hosting provider in duty

The Council has also not yet decided on the heart of the bill, the fight against piracy. This is to be carried out by Swiss hosting providers that store content. Already today, providers generally remove content from their servers upon notification if it infringes copyright. In future, they will have to prevent illegal content from being uploaded again. If they fail to do so, they can be prosecuted under criminal law. Originally, the Federal Council also wanted to make access providers - internet access providers - responsible. They should have to block access to certain sites on the instructions of the authorities. However, following criticism during the consultation process, the Federal Council refrained from blocking the network. It also dispensed with the planned measures against peer-to-peer networks such as music sharing networks. (SDA)