Blog post by Stephen Wyber
This week, the European Commission published a new research report, commissioned following a request from the European Parliament, and produced by a consortium led by Visionary Analytics.
The Parliament’s original request, developed in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, was to examine how well the copyright system had enabled education and research to continue remotely.
While the pandemic restrictions were (thankfully) temporary, the question of whether copyright actually enables the use of digital tools to access knowledge, research, education, and culture is more broadly relevant. Indeed, it is a key reason for the existence of Knowledge Rights 21 as a programme. The report is therefore long anticipated!
General Takeaway – A Sound Evidence Base in Search of Meaningful Recommendations
Overall, the report responds well to the original mandate to build an understanding of the challenges encountered by libraries and other institutions (described as PIIs – Public Interest Institutions) in enabling digital access to, and use of, their collections.
In particular, it offers a strong overview of experiences of working with copyright, which will certainly help inform future decision-making. The findings underline that current laws–and the business models built on top of them–are not working as well as they could, especially when libraries are forced to negotiate levels of access and usage rights, or to work across borders. It also leaves space for the sharing of views from different actors in the discussion, which is welcome.
The report overall achieves a good level of balance, which is not a given in a highly litigated space like this. The consortium and the Commission team overseeing this work should be congratulated for this. While the report is weaker in its recommendations than we might hope and is particularly cautious when it comes to legislative reform, it nonetheless provides a valuable evidence base.
There are plenty of aspects to explore, but in this blog, we are happy to share some initial takeaways.
Takeaway Cluster #1 – A Perceptions Gap
A first cluster of takeaways focuses on what the report tells us about the wider copyright debate and, in particular, the arguments typically heard from each side.
A first cluster of takeaways focuses on what the report tells us about the wider copyright debate and, in particular, the arguments typically heard from each side.
1) That’s not how I see things: a stark point in the report is the difference in perception of the situation between institutions and rightholders. For example, publishers are frequently reported as believing that the possibilities offered by licenses are adequate, something that does not reflect the experience of libraries and others.
2) Uncritical thinking: a weakness of the report is its tendency sometimes to accept the arguments made by rightholder organisations without question. These are reported as fact, whereas library feedback is conveyed as opinion. This is particularly visible in the report’s claim that an EU-wide secondary publication right would represent a major rebalancing of rights. This only makes sense if you assume that academic publishers have an entitlement to copyright over academic articles. However, this tendency is thankfully limited to specific parts of the report.
3) References needed: it is worth recognising that the report does at least point out the counter-evidence to some claims. While noting that rightholders frequently cite a fear of piracy as justification for restricting access and use, the authors do refer to an EUIPO report that underscores that piracy of eBooks is limited, and that when these are pirated, there is no evidence that the source is libraries. Similarly, accusations that Resource Sharing undermines sales are challenged by evidence to the contrary.
4) Best for whom?: the report does seek to identify ‘best practices’ that can help overcome identified issues. However, the ones it suggests are only seen as ‘best’ by one side of the discussion. For example, the Studora platform highlighted in Sweden serves to circumvent libraries and does not offer any form of ownership. Such examples clearly require far more reflection before being parachuted into other settings.
Takeaway Cluster #2 – Welcome Recognition
This second cluster of takeaways highlights newer issues within the copyright space, which can hopefully broaden the discussion in the months to come.
5) A lack of transparency hurts: the report is helpful in recognising that a challenge for PIIs arises from a lack of access to data, either from publishers or intermediaries. Indeed, it recommends that steps to limit secrecy here could help level the playing field.
6) A strong case for change in research: the chapter on research probably contains the strongest contributions, potentially due to the nature of the stakeholders consulted. It is clear about challenges with pricing and other behaviours, and the value of Secondary Publication Rights in supporting science. At the same time, the main recommendation it makes for reform–a version of the Illustration for Teaching exception in the DSM Directive–is arguably sub-optimal, as it is limited to digital formats and can be overridden by licences.
7) Speaking truth on dedicated terminals: the report digs into the relevance of the dedicated terminals exception, sharing extensive inputs underlining that this is an increasingly antiquated provision. Many libraries, it notes, no longer even have such terminals. This is one of the areas where it suggests reform to at least enable on-site (own-device) access, or access via secure networks.
8) Technological Protection Measures (TPMs) need attention: another area explored in depth is that of TPMs. While rightsholder concerns about piracy are shared (see the separate point on this), the failure of the voluntary approach (leaving it to rightholders to remove TPMs when they prevent enjoyment of exceptions) is made clear. The report encourages a look at stronger tools, although the ones it references don’t always work.
9) Acknowledgement of the costs of copyright: while the report is broadly uncritical towards the idea that copyright represents the most effective way of achieving policy goals, it does acknowledge that it brings transaction costs. In particular, it notes that negotiating licenses can take effort, and that the current system implies that institutions need to invest resources in this that could be used elsewhere.
Takeaway Cluster #3 – More Work Needed
10) A mixed bag on eBooks: in contrast with the research section, the one on eBooks is less satisfactory. The report accepts the argument of rightholders about the need to delay access to eBooks (‘windowing’) on the basis of a single German study and its assumptions about impact – these have been questioned. There is recognition of the lack of action to implement the decision of the Court of Justice on eBooks (VOB vs Stichting Leenrecht), but also a readiness to believe the (flawed) argument that the decision in Tom Kabinet represents a justification for this failure.
11) An odd fixation: one repeated proposal in the report is to do more to explore the potential for Extended Collective Licensing to address copyright challenges. This seems to come from just one source and shows no effort to explore the downsides. This is regrettable as practical experience suggests that such schemes are expensive to negotiate and run, and only feasible in very limited circumstances.
12) Training as a solution?: the report places a lot of emphasis on the importance of training, making this the first theme in its overall recommendations. While training is welcome, it should be noted that just 6 of the nearly 60 issues raised by PIIs were fundamentally about a lack of knowledge. As we have previously underlined, the risk of focusing on training is to imply that dysfunction in the copyright system is purely due to the ignorance of librarians and others, rather than the need for genuine reform–something which is surely not intended.
13) Negotiate harder: similarly to the point about training, the report puts a lot of hope in the potential of forming consortia, ministry-backed coalitions, and other frameworks as a means of getting a better deal for libraries. However, the experience of Finland’s eBook platform shows that upscaling in this way does not necessarily provide an answer. It is perhaps telling that the report recognises that the open access movement has its roots in a frustration with traditional licensing models. –Ultimately, a model based on negotiation of licenses around proprietary content does not meet the needs of libraries and their users.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the report reinforces what PIIs have long highlighted: without targeted reforms, Europe risks leaving its libraries, educators, and researchers without the tools they need to fulfil their public mission.
While this report provides a crucial evidence base, it is now up to policymakers to look beyond the status quo and kickstart the legislative reforms necessary to fully unlock the potential of education and research in Europe.
5 December 2025
