Skip links

Article 5


What is at stake?

Digital preservation, sharing and collaborating across borders, being able to work in an environment that creates legal certainty and allows the use of the latest technologies both for internal working processes and to share knowledge with the public must be at the outcome of this reform.

A GOOD cultural heritage institution provision

Is mandatory

Only if all EU Member States are obliged to implement such an exception, can you be sure that the same rules apply for all cultural heritage institutions, and that cross-border collaboration between institutions is possible.

Allows for preservation copies in any format or medium

The exception needs to allow cultural heritage institutions to make copies in any format or medium, such format-shifting is necessary to truly enable preservation.

Includes reproductions for other internal purposes

Cultural heritage, educational and research institutions often need to make reproductions for many purposes other than what is strictly considered reproduction: for insurance purposes (insurance companies usually demand all possible details of a work), indexing (where reproductions make it possible to index visual art), cataloguing (to ensure works remain discoverable in future), and while a work is being loaned out to another institution (in case of loss or damage) . Such a variety of purposes should hence be covered.

Includes education and research institutions as beneficiaries

It is important that education and research institutions are explicitly included in the scope of the beneficiaries of the exception. In order to allow these institutions to also engage in the preservation and dissemination of their collections.

Includes (long-term) loans in the permanent collection

Works in (long-term) loan to cultural heritage institutions need to be considered part of the permanent collection, in order to ensure that an exception covers all the works that an institution holds.

Enables preservation networks

In order for cultural heritage institutions to rely on each other’s resources and expertise in preservation efforts the exception needs to enable collaboration between institutions and allow them to set-up ‘preservation networks’.

Does not impose compensation for preservation

The exception should not trigger the need for cultural heritage institutions to pay compensation for preservation efforts.

Does not allow contractual or technical override

There is no point adopting an exception, if rightholders can just override it in their licensing terms or through the use of technical protection measures (also known as DRM for ‘digital rights management’). This must be explicitly specified in the adopted legislation.

A BAD cultural heritage institution provision

Is limited to preservation only

There are many reproductions of works needed in the work of cultural heritage, educational and research institutions, for merely internal purposes. An exception limited to the strict definition of “preservation”, while already a useful step forwards, would not fulfill the goal of further facilitating this institutions’ internal functioning.

Excludes education and research institutions as beneficiaries

Research organisations and educational institutions also safeguard yesterday’s heritage, and they act in the public interest and the benefit for all. The exception should also cover preservation activities undertaken by these institutions.

Imposes an obligation for compensation

Unless there is illegitimate harm created to the interests of rights holders, no compensation should be made mandatory for this exception.