Article 17: Has the “Value Gap” Closed? Or the Internet Killed Off?

Trailed as both the “end of the internet” and as a vital improvement to the position of rights holders and creators online, article 17 was one of the most significant interventions in how copyright could and should be licensed by online intermediaries. It was also one of the most controversial pieces of copyright legislation in recent memory. Rights holders hoped it would close a “value gap” that they said had appeared in the online use of content whereas the tech communities feared there would be overblocking and a significant (nigh impossible) licensing and technical burden on them. It altered the starting position that platforms for user-generated content were not liable for unlicensed content made available on them. A newly-created category of platform (an “online content-sharing service provider”) is deemed to carry out an infringing act when it gives access to content uploaded by its users. From there it needs to obtain a licence and is liable for infringement if it does not unless it can show it has taken various steps to take get a licence and to ensure unlicensed works are not available, and to expeditiously remove and prevent further upload of infringing content when notified. This panel will explore the real-world impact of article 17 and whether the hopes and fears placed on it have come true, six years after its introduction. We will also explore whether the US community can learn anything from the legislation and practices in the EU.