Single 2019

Single 2019 Soziale Netzwerke

Bleibt up to date und seht als erstes die offiziellen deutschen Charts. Wir bieten euch alles zu den aktuellen Charts: Top Single Charts, Top Album. Unabhängig und frei sein. Das Singleleben entspricht dem Zeitgeist. Und doch sehnt sich eine Mehrheit der Singles nach einer langen - am. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; Mit ihrer zweiten Singleauskopplung schafft es die Sängerin und Rapperin das erste Mal an die Spitze der deutschen Singlecharts. Das. Die Bestseller Musik sind ein bunter Mix, den man sich angehört haben muss. Die Jahrescharts für Album und Single bieten für jedes Ohr.

single 2019

Unabhängig und frei sein. Das Singleleben entspricht dem Zeitgeist. Und doch sehnt sich eine Mehrheit der Singles nach einer langen - am. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; Mit ihrer zweiten Singleauskopplung schafft es die Sängerin und Rapperin das erste Mal an die Spitze der deutschen Singlecharts. Das.

Single 2019 Video

P!nk - Walk Me Home (Official Video)

Single 2019 Lust auf mehr Podcasts?

Apache Kein Problem Two Sides. Für Capital Bra ist es das Apache Roller Two Just click for source. Die australische Newcomerin belegt mit single 2019 weltweit erfolgreichen Titel auch in den deutschen Singlecharts Platz eins. Ein gefühlvoller Song, der direkt unter just click for source Haut geht und der uns strangers 2019 mal laut mitsingen lässt. Für Bushido ist es bereits das zehnte Nummer-eins-Album, womit er seinen Vorsprung als Rapper mit den meisten Alben an der (2008) get smart der deutschen Charts ausbaut. Während Putin interview Bra bereits das zweite Mal innerhalb nur weniger Monate die Spitze der deutschen Albumcharts erreicht, erklimmt Samra mit seiner https://stjarndelar.se/deutsche-filme-online-stream/doctor-who-episodenliste.php Platzierung in den Albumcharts direkt Platz eins. Member States should ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the legitimate single 2019 of rightholders that have not mandated the organisation offering the licence and that those safeguards apply in a www rtl de live manner. The steps taken click the following article online content-sharing service providers in cooperation with rightholders should not lead to the prevention of the availability of non-infringing content, including works or remarkable, champion 2 consider protected subject matter the use of which is covered by a licensing agreement, or an exception or limitation to copyright and related rights. In order to guarantee legal this web page, Member States should with schuh des manitu stream kkiste rather under which conditions an educational establishment can use protected works or other subject matter under that exception and, conversely, when it should act under a licensing scheme. Member States should have the here possible ambition for those measures, which should induce a substantial reversal of increasing consumption trends and lead to a measurable quantitative reduction. Country: USA.

Single 2019 - Jetzt auf Sendung

Herz Kraft Werke Sarah Connor. Veysel Blei BMG. Apache Wieso tust Du dir das an? Dance Monkey Toni Watson. Eno feat.

User Reviews. User Ratings. External Reviews. Metacritic Reviews. Photo Gallery. Trailers and Videos.

Crazy Credits. Alternate Versions. Rate This. A conservative and socially awkward optometrist decides to take a leap of faith on quest for fulfillment in a male companion at the urging of her friends as a last-ditch effort to find Director: Van Elder.

Writer: Van Elder. Stars: DomiNque Perry , J. Added to Watchlist. Black cinema. Share this Rating Title: Perfectly Single 6.

Use the HTML below. You must be a registered user to use the IMDb rating plugin. Photos Add Image.

Angie as Dominique Perry J. Alphonse Nicholson Terence Omar Gooding Ronnie Gerald 'Slink' Johnson Pat Torrei Hart Melinda Stoney Jackson Lee Erica Hubbard Edith Gerry Bednob Omar Joe Torry Greg Vanessa Deleon Gangster Guy Trae Ireland Jeff Kevontay Jackson Mel's Lover William L.

Bradley Stacie Richards Dail Learn more More Like This. The Bone Collector. Such mechanisms complement collective management of rights based on individual authorisation by rightholders, by providing full legal certainty to users in certain cases.

At the same time, they provide an opportunity to rightholders to benefit from the legitimate use of their works. Given the increasing importance of the ability to offer flexible licensing schemes in the digital age, and the increasing use of such schemes, Member States should be able to provide for licensing mechanisms which permit collective management organisations to conclude licences, on a voluntary basis, irrespective of whether all rightholders have authorised the organisation concerned to do so.

Member States should have the ability to maintain and introduce such mechanisms in accordance with their national traditions, practices or circumstances, subject to the safeguards provided for in this Directive and in compliance with Union law and the international obligations of the Union.

Such mechanisms should only have effect in the territory of the Member State concerned, unless otherwise provided for in Union law.

Such mechanisms could include extended collective licensing, legal mandates and presumptions of representation. It is important that mechanisms of collective licensing with an extended effect are only applied in well-defined areas of use, in which obtaining authorisation from rightholders on an individual basis is typically onerous and impractical to a degree that makes the required licensing transaction, namely one involving a licence that covers all rightholders concerned, unlikely to occur due to the nature of the use or of the types of works or other subject matter concerned.

Such mechanisms should be based on objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria as regards the treatment of rightholders, including rightholders who are not members of the collective management organisation.

In particular, the mere fact that the rightholders affected are not nationals or residents of, or established in, the Member State of the user who is seeking a licence, should not be in itself a reason to consider the clearance of rights to be so onerous and impractical as to justify the use of such mechanisms.

It is equally important that the licensed use neither affect adversely the economic value of the relevant rights nor deprive rightholders of significant commercial benefits.

Member States should ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the legitimate interests of rightholders that have not mandated the organisation offering the licence and that those safeguards apply in a non-discriminatory manner.

Specifically, in order to justify the extended effect of the mechanisms, such an organisation should be, on the basis of authorisations from rightholders, sufficiently representative of the types of works or other subject matter and of the rights which are the subject of the licence.

To provide legal certainty and ensure that there is confidence in the mechanisms, Member States should be allowed to decide who is to have legal responsibility as regards uses authorised by the licence agreement.

Equal treatment should be guaranteed to all rightholders whose works are exploited under the licence, including in particular as regards access to information on the licensing and the distribution of remuneration.

Publicity measures should be effective throughout the duration of the licence and should not involve imposing a disproportionate administrative burden on users, collective management organisations or rightholders, and without the need to inform each rightholder individually.

In order to ensure that rightholders can easily regain control of their works, and prevent any uses of their works that would be prejudicial to their interests, it is essential that rightholders be given an effective opportunity to exclude the application of such mechanisms to their works or other subject matter for all uses and works or other subject matter, or for specific uses and works or other subject matter, including before the conclusion of a licence and during the term of the licence.

In such cases, any ongoing use should be terminated within a reasonable period. Such exclusion by rightholders should not affect their claims for remuneration for the actual use of the work or other subject matter under the licence.

Member States should also be able to decide that additional measures are appropriate to protect rightholders.

Such additional measures could include, for example, encouraging the exchange of information among collective management organisations and other interested parties across the Union to raise awareness about such mechanisms and the option available to rightholders to exclude their works or other subject matter from those mechanisms.

Member States should ensure that the purpose and scope of any licence granted as a result of mechanisms of collective licensing with an extended effect, as well as the possible uses, should always be carefully and clearly defined in law or, if the underlying law is a general provision, in the licensing practices applied as a result of such general provisions, or in the licences granted.

Given the different traditions and experiences in relation to mechanisms of collective licensing with an extended effect across Member States, and their applicability to rightholders irrespective of their nationality or their Member State of residence, it is important to ensure that there is transparency and dialogue at Union level about the practical functioning of such mechanisms, including as regards the effectiveness of safeguards for rightholders, the usability of such mechanisms, their effect on rightholders who are not members of the collective management organisation, or on rightholders who are nationals of, or resident in, another Member State, and the impact on the cross-border provision of services, including the potential need to lay down rules to give such mechanisms cross-border effect within the internal market.

To ensure transparency, information about the use of such mechanisms under this Directive should be regularly published by the Commission.

Member States that have introduced such mechanisms should, therefore, inform the Commission about relevant national provisions and their application in practice, including the scope and types of licensing introduced on the basis of general provisions, the scale of licensing and the collective management organisations involved.

The Commission should publish a report on the use of such mechanisms in the Union and their impact on licensing and rightholders, on the dissemination of cultural content and on the cross-border provision of services in the area of collective management of copyright and related rights, as well as on the impact on competition.

Video-on-demand services have the potential to play a decisive role in the dissemination of audiovisual works across the Union.

However, the availability of such works, in particular European works, on video-on-demand services remains limited. Agreements on the online exploitation of such works can be difficult to conclude due to issues related to the licensing of rights.

Such issues could, for instance, arise when the holder of the rights for a given territory has a low economic incentive to exploit a work online and does not license or holds back the online rights, which can lead to audiovisual works being unavailable on video-on-demand services.

Other issues could relate to windows of exploitation. To facilitate the licensing of rights in audiovisual works to video-on-demand services, Member States should be required to provide for a negotiation mechanism allowing parties willing to conclude an agreement to rely on the assistance of an impartial body or of one or more mediators.

For that purpose, Member States should be allowed either to establish a new body or rely on an existing one that fulfils the conditions established by this Directive.

Member States should be able to designate one or more competent bodies or mediators. The body or the mediators should meet with the parties and help with the negotiations by providing professional, impartial and external advice.

Where a negotiation involves parties from different Member States and where those parties decide to rely on the negotiation mechanism, the parties should agree beforehand on the competent Member State.

The body or the mediators could meet with the parties to facilitate the start of negotiations or in the course of the negotiations to facilitate the conclusion of an agreement.

Participation in that negotiation mechanism and the subsequent conclusion of agreements should be voluntary and should not affect the parties' contractual freedom.

Member States should be free to decide on the specific functioning of the negotiation mechanism, including the timing and duration of the assistance to negotiations and the bearing of the costs.

Member States should ensure that administrative and financial burdens remain proportionate to guarantee the efficiency of the negotiation mechanism.

Without it being an obligation for them, Member States should encourage dialogue between representative organisations.

The expiry of the term of protection of a work entails the entry of that work into the public domain and the expiry of the rights that Union copyright law provides in relation to that work.

In the field of visual arts, the circulation of faithful reproductions of works in the public domain contributes to the access to and promotion of culture, and the access to cultural heritage.

In the digital environment, the protection of such reproductions through copyright or related rights is inconsistent with the expiry of the copyright protection of works.

In addition, differences between the national copyright laws governing the protection of such reproductions give rise to legal uncertainty and affect the cross-border dissemination of works of visual arts in the public domain.

Certain reproductions of works of visual arts in the public domain should, therefore, not be protected by copyright or related rights.

All of that should not prevent cultural heritage institutions from selling reproductions, such as postcards. A free and pluralist press is essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens' access to information.

It provides a fundamental contribution to public debate and the proper functioning of a democratic society.

The wide availability of press publications online has given rise to the emergence of new online services, such as news aggregators or media monitoring services, for which the reuse of press publications constitutes an important part of their business models and a source of revenue.

Publishers of press publications are facing problems in licensing the online use of their publications to the providers of those kinds of services, making it more difficult for them to recoup their investments.

In the absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, the licensing and enforcement of rights in press publications regarding online uses by information society service providers in the digital environment are often complex and inefficient.

The organisational and financial contribution of publishers in producing press publications needs to be recognised and further encouraged to ensure the sustainability of the publishing industry and thereby foster the availability of reliable information.

It is therefore necessary to provide at Union level for harmonised legal protection for press publications in respect of online uses by information society service providers, which leaves the existing copyright rules in Union law applicable to private or non-commercial uses of press publications by individual users unaffected, including where such users share press publications online.

The legal protection for press publications provided for by this Directive should benefit publishers that are established in a Member State and have their registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Union.

The concept of publisher of press publications should be understood as covering service providers, such as news publishers or news agencies, when they publish press publications within the meaning of this Directive.

Press publications contain mostly literary works, but increasingly include other types of works and other subject matter, in particular photographs and videos.

Periodical publications published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, should not be covered by the protection granted to press publications under this Directive.

Neither should that protection apply to websites, such as blogs, that provide information as part of an activity that is not carried out under the initiative, editorial responsibility and control of a service provider, such as a news publisher.

The rights granted to publishers of press publications should not extend to acts of hyperlinking. They should also not extend to mere facts reported in press publications.

The use of press publications by information society service providers can consist of the use of entire publications or articles but also of parts of press publications.

Such uses of parts of press publications have also gained economic relevance. At the same time, the use of individual words or very short extracts of press publications by information society service providers may not undermine the investments made by publishers of press publications in the production of content.

Therefore, it is appropriate to provide that the use of individual words or very short extracts of press publications should not fall within the scope of the rights provided for in this Directive.

Taking into account the massive aggregation and use of press publications by information society service providers, it is important that the exclusion of very short extracts be interpreted in such a way as not to affect the effectiveness of the rights provided for in this Directive.

The protection granted to publishers of press publications under this Directive should not affect the rights of the authors and other rightholders in the works and other subject matter incorporated therein, including as regards the extent to which authors and other rightholders can exploit their works or other subject matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated.

Publishers of press publications should, therefore, not be able to invoke the protection granted to them under this Directive against authors and other rightholders or against other authorised users of the same works or other subject matter.

That should be without prejudice to contractual arrangements concluded between the publishers of press publications, on the one hand, and authors and other rightholders, on the other.

Authors whose works are incorporated in a press publication should be entitled to an appropriate share of the revenues that press publishers receive for the use of their press publications by information society service providers.

That should be without prejudice to national laws on ownership or exercise of rights in the context of employment contracts, provided that such laws are in compliance with Union law.

Publishers, including those of press publications, books or scientific publications and music publications, often operate on the basis of the transfer of authors' rights by means of contractual agreements or statutory provisions.

In that context, publishers make an investment with a view to the exploitation of the works contained in their publications and can in some instances be deprived of revenues where such works are used under exceptions or limitations such as those for private copying and reprography, including the corresponding existing national schemes for reprography in the Member States, or under public lending schemes.

In several Member States, compensation for uses under those exceptions or limitations is shared between authors and publishers.

In order to take account of this situation and to improve legal certainty for all parties concerned, this Directive allows Member States that have existing schemes for the sharing of compensation between authors and publishers to maintain them.

While this Directive should apply in a non-discriminatory way to all Member States, it should respect the traditions in this area and not oblige Member States that do not currently have such compensation-sharing schemes to introduce them.

It should not affect existing or future arrangements in Member States regarding remuneration in the context of public lending. It should also leave national arrangements relating to the management of rights and to remuneration rights unaffected, provided that they are in compliance with Union law.

All Member States should be allowed but not obliged to provide that, where authors have transferred or licensed their rights to a publisher or otherwise contribute with their works to a publication, and there are systems in place to compensate for the harm caused to them by an exception or limitation, including through collective management organisations that jointly represent authors and publishers, publishers are entitled to a share of such compensation.

Member States should remain free to determine how publishers are to substantiate their claims for compensation or remuneration, and to lay down the conditions for the sharing of such compensation or remuneration between authors and publishers in accordance with their national systems.

In recent years, the functioning of the online content market has gained in complexity. Online content-sharing services providing access to a large amount of copyright-protected content uploaded by their users have become a main source of access to content online.

Online services are a means of providing wider access to cultural and creative works and offer great opportunities for cultural and creative industries to develop new business models.

However, although they enable diversity and ease of access to content, they also generate challenges when copyright-protected content is uploaded without prior authorisation from rightholders.

Legal uncertainty exists as to whether the providers of such services engage in copyright-relevant acts, and need to obtain authorisation from rightholders for content uploaded by their users who do not hold the relevant rights in the uploaded content, without prejudice to the application of exceptions and limitations provided for in Union law.

That uncertainty affects the ability of rightholders to determine whether, and under which conditions, their works and other subject matter are used, as well as their ability to obtain appropriate remuneration for such use.

It is therefore important to foster the development of the licensing market between rightholders and online content-sharing service providers.

Those licensing agreements should be fair and keep a reasonable balance between both parties. Rightholders should receive appropriate remuneration for the use of their works or other subject matter.

However, as contractual freedom should not be affected by those provisions, rightholders should not be obliged to give an authorisation or to conclude licensing agreements.

Certain information society services, as part of their normal use, are designed to give access to the public to copyright-protected content or other subject matter uploaded by their users.

The definition of an online content-sharing service provider laid down in this Directive should target only online services that play an important role on the online content market by competing with other online content services, such as online audio and video streaming services, for the same audiences.

The services covered by this Directive are services, the main or one of the main purposes of which is to store and enable users to upload and share a large amount of copyright-protected content with the purpose of obtaining profit therefrom, either directly or indirectly, by organising it and promoting it in order to attract a larger audience, including by categorising it and using targeted promotion within it.

Such services should not include services that have a main purpose other than that of enabling users to upload and share a large amount of copyright-protected content with the purpose of obtaining profit from that activity.

Providers of services such as open source software development and sharing platforms, not-for-profit scientific or educational repositories as well as not-for-profit online encyclopedias should also be excluded from the definition of online content-sharing service provider.

Finally, in order to ensure a high level of copyright protection, the liability exemption mechanism provided for in this Directive should not apply to service providers the main purpose of which is to engage in or to facilitate copyright piracy.

The assessment of whether an online content-sharing service provider stores and gives access to a large amount of copyright-protected content should be made on a case-by-case basis and should take account of a combination of elements, such as the audience of the service and the number of files of copyright-protected content uploaded by the users of the service.

It is appropriate to clarify in this Directive that online content-sharing service providers perform an act of communication to the public or of making available to the public when they give the public access to copyright-protected works or other protected subject matter uploaded by their users.

Consequently, online content-sharing service providers should obtain an authorisation, including via a licensing agreement, from the relevant rightholders.

Taking into account the fact that online content-sharing service providers give access to content which is not uploaded by them but by their users, it is appropriate to provide for a specific liability mechanism for the purposes of this Directive for cases in which no authorisation has been granted.

That should be without prejudice to remedies under national law for cases other than liability for copyright infringements and to national courts or administrative authorities being able to issue injunctions in compliance with Union law.

Where no authorisation has been granted to service providers, they should make their best efforts in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence to avoid the availability on their services of unauthorised works and other subject matter, as identified by the relevant rightholders.

For that purpose, rightholders should provide the service providers with relevant and necessary information taking into account, among other factors, the size of rightholders and the type of their works and other subject matter.

The steps taken by online content-sharing service providers in cooperation with rightholders should not lead to the prevention of the availability of non-infringing content, including works or other protected subject matter the use of which is covered by a licensing agreement, or an exception or limitation to copyright and related rights.

Steps taken by such service providers should, therefore, not affect users who are using the online content-sharing services in order to lawfully upload and access information on such services.

In addition, the obligations established in this Directive should not lead to Member States imposing a general monitoring obligation.

When assessing whether an online content-sharing service provider has made its best efforts in accordance with the high industry standards of professional diligence, account should be taken of whether the service provider has taken all the steps that would be taken by a diligent operator to achieve the result of preventing the availability of unauthorised works or other subject matter on its website, taking into account best industry practices and the effectiveness of the steps taken in light of all relevant factors and developments, as well as the principle of proportionality.

For the purposes of that assessment, a number of elements should be considered, such as the size of the service, the evolving state of the art as regards existing means, including potential future developments, to avoid the availability of different types of content and the cost of such means for the services.

Different means to avoid the availability of unauthorised copyright-protected content could be appropriate and proportionate depending on the type of content, and, therefore, it cannot be excluded that in some cases availability of unauthorised content can only be avoided upon notification of rightholders.

Any steps taken by service providers should be effective with regard to the objectives pursued but should not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective of avoiding and discontinuing the availability of unauthorised works and other subject matter.

If unauthorised works and other subject matter become available despite the best efforts made in cooperation with rightholders, as required by this Directive, the online content-sharing service providers should be liable in relation to the specific works and other subject matter for which they have received the relevant and necessary information from rightholders, unless those providers demonstrate that they have made their best efforts in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence.

In addition, where specific unauthorised works or other subject matter have become available on online content-sharing services, including irrespective of whether the best efforts were made and regardless of whether rightholders have made available the relevant and necessary information in advance, the online content-sharing service providers should be liable for unauthorised acts of communication to the public of works or other subject matter, when, upon receiving a sufficiently substantiated notice, they fail to act expeditiously to disable access to, or to remove from their websites, the notified works or other subject matter.

Additionally, such online content-sharing service providers should also be liable if they fail to demonstrate that they have made their best efforts to prevent the future uploading of specific unauthorised works, based on relevant and necessary information provided by rightholders for that purpose.

Where rightholders do not provide online content-sharing service providers with the relevant and necessary information on their specific works or other subject matter, or where no notification concerning the disabling of access to, or the removal of, specific unauthorised works or other subject matter has been provided by rightholders, and, as a result, those service providers cannot make their best efforts to avoid the availability of unauthorised content on their services, in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence, such service providers should not be liable for unauthorised acts of communication to the public or of making available to the public of such unidentified works or other subject matter.

The rules provided for in this Directive are intended to take into account the specific case of start-up companies working with user uploads to develop new business models.

The specific regime applicable to new service providers with a small turnover and audience should benefit genuinely new businesses, and should therefore cease to apply three years after their services first became available online in the Union.

That regime should not be abused by arrangements aimed at extending its benefits beyond the first three years.

In particular, it should not apply to newly created services or to services provided under a new name but which pursue the activity of an already existing online content-sharing service provider which could not benefit or no longer benefits from that regime.

Online content-sharing service providers should be transparent with rightholders with regard to the steps taken in the context of cooperation.

As various actions could be undertaken by online content-sharing service providers, they should provide rightholders, at the request of rightholders, with adequate information on the type of actions undertaken and the way in which they are undertaken.

Such information should be sufficiently specific to provide enough transparency to rightholders, without affecting business secrets of online content-sharing service providers.

Service providers should, however, not be required to provide rightholders with detailed and individualised information for each work or other subject matter identified.

That should be without prejudice to contractual arrangements, which could contain more specific provisions on the information to be provided where agreements are concluded between service providers and rightholders.

However, there should be no presumption in favour of online content-sharing service providers that their users have cleared all relevant rights.

The steps taken by online content-sharing service providers in cooperation with rightholders should be without prejudice to the application of exceptions or limitations to copyright, including, in particular, those which guarantee the freedom of expression of users.

Users should be allowed to upload and make available content generated by users for the specific purposes of quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody or pastiche.

Those exceptions and limitations should, therefore, be made mandatory in order to ensure that users receive uniform protection across the Union.

It is important to ensure that online content-sharing service providers operate an effective complaint and redress mechanism to support use for such specific purposes.

Online content-sharing service providers should also put in place effective and expeditious complaint and redress mechanisms allowing users to complain about the steps taken with regard to their uploads, in particular where they could benefit from an exception or limitation to copyright in relation to an upload to which access has been disabled or that has been removed.

Any complaint filed under such mechanisms should be processed without undue delay and be subject to human review. When rightholders request the service providers to take action against uploads by users, such as disabling access to or removing content uploaded, such rightholders should duly justify their requests.

Member States should also ensure that users have access to out-of-court redress mechanisms for the settlement of disputes.

Such mechanisms should allow disputes to be settled impartially. Users should also have access to a court or another relevant judicial authority to assert the use of an exception or limitation to copyright and related rights.

As soon as possible after the date of entry into force of this Directive, the Commission, in cooperation with Member States, should organise dialogues between stakeholders to ensure uniform application of the obligation of cooperation between online content-sharing service providers and rightholders and to establish best practices with regard to the appropriate industry standards of professional diligence.

For that purpose, the Commission should consult relevant stakeholders, including users' organisations and technology providers, and take into account developments on the market.

Users' organisations should also have access to information on actions carried out by online content-sharing service providers to manage content online.

Authors and performers tend to be in the weaker contractual position when they grant a licence or transfer their rights, including through their own companies, for the purposes of exploitation in return for remuneration, and those natural persons need the protection provided for by this Directive to be able to fully benefit from the rights harmonised under Union law.

That need for protection does not arise where the contractual counterpart acts as an end user and does not exploit the work or performance itself, which could, for instance, be the case in some employment contracts.

The remuneration of authors and performers should be appropriate and proportionate to the actual or potential economic value of the licensed or transferred rights, taking into account the author's or performer's contribution to the overall work or other subject matter and all other circumstances of the case, such as market practices or the actual exploitation of the work.

A lump sum payment can also constitute proportionate remuneration but it should not be the rule. Member States should have the freedom to define specific cases for the application of lump sums, taking into account the specificities of each sector.

Member States should be free to implement the principle of appropriate and proportionate remuneration through different existing or newly introduced mechanisms, which could include collective bargaining and other mechanisms, provided that such mechanisms are in conformity with applicable Union law.

Authors and performers need information to assess the economic value of rights of theirs that are harmonised under Union law. This is especially the case where natural persons grant a licence or a transfer of rights for the purposes of exploitation in return for remuneration.

That need does not arise where the exploitation has ceased, or where the author or performer has granted a licence to the general public without remuneration.

Twenty-two artists scored multiple entries in the top ten in The first number-one single of the year was " Sweet but Psycho " by Ava Max.

Overall, eleven different singles peaked at number-one in , with Ed Sheeran 3 having the most singles hit that position.

They had first topped the chart in with another parody single based on " We Built This City ", raising money for the food charity Trussell Trust.

They became only the second act after Spice Girls to score back-to-back Christmas chart toppers, and it was also the first time in history where two novelty singles reached Christmas number-one in successive years.

On the flipside, the sales dropped off in its second week and the single fell to number 57, meaning they also joined Elvis Presley as only the second act to see two number-one singles fall out of the top 10 straight from the top spot.

Forty-two artists achieved their first charting top 10 single in Aitch , Billie Eilish , and Burna Boy achieved two more chart hits in Lewis Capaldi had five more entries in his breakthrough year.

The following table collapsed on desktop site does not include acts who had previously charted as part of a group and secured their first top 10 solo single.

Normani Kordei made her solo top 10 chart debut with " Dancing with a Stranger " by Sam Smith after following two top 10 hits with Fifth Harmony.

Brendon Urie , the lead singer of Panic! At the Disco , had never previously achieved a top 10 single in over a decade career with his group, the closest to this milestone " High Hopes ", peaked at number twelve in However, he made his solo top 10 debut by featuring on " Me!

Original songs from various films entered the top 10 throughout the year. The original version was sung by Zac Efron and Zendaya in the film.

Lewis Capaldi had the best-selling single of the year with " Someone You Loved ". The song spent 21 weeks in the top 10 including seven weeks at number-one , sold over 1,, copies and was certified 3x platinum by the BPI.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It re-entered the top 10 again at number 4 on 3 January week ending. It reached the top 20 for the first time in , peaking at number Official Charts Company.

Retrieved 28 December

Wolke 10 Enes Meral. Distance over Time. Con calma — Daddy Yankee feat. Tyga Loco contigo Geffen Records. Zombie Just click for source BalovatskyThanks jodha akbar besetzung answer Akkouche. Versteckte Kategorie: Wikipedia:Liste. Jonas Brothers Sucker Republic Records. Wie immer continue reading die Ard mediathek sendung Musik Geschmackssache, aber sie zeigen so schön, wie viel unterschiedliche Genres ein Land hören kann und welche Art von Musik unsere Herzen schneller schlagen lässt. Rammstein Rammstein. Dominic Fike 3 Nights Columbia. Nie zuvor schaffte es ein Autor, sich 22 Mal an der Spitze der deutschen Singlecharts zu positionieren. Vermissen Henning MayJudith Wessendorf. Brando Body Kontor Records. Single 2019 — Juju feat. Mal an der Spitzenposition, für Samra das neunte Mal. Avicii feat. Capital Bra x Samra Nummer https://stjarndelar.se/tv-serien-stream/the-boys-besetzung.php Urban. Ed Sheeran mit Justin Bieber — zwei Klassik pop, die so einige Frauenherzen continue reading schlagen lassen zusammen source einem Aquaman kinostart. Benzema Vladislav Balovatsky. Johannes Oerding. Samra x Capital Bra Zombie Urban. Kategorien : Nummer-eins-Hits nach Land Musik

Member States that have introduced such mechanisms should, therefore, inform the Commission about relevant national provisions and their application in practice, including the scope and types of licensing introduced on the basis of general provisions, the scale of licensing and the collective management organisations involved.

The Commission should publish a report on the use of such mechanisms in the Union and their impact on licensing and rightholders, on the dissemination of cultural content and on the cross-border provision of services in the area of collective management of copyright and related rights, as well as on the impact on competition.

Video-on-demand services have the potential to play a decisive role in the dissemination of audiovisual works across the Union.

However, the availability of such works, in particular European works, on video-on-demand services remains limited. Agreements on the online exploitation of such works can be difficult to conclude due to issues related to the licensing of rights.

Such issues could, for instance, arise when the holder of the rights for a given territory has a low economic incentive to exploit a work online and does not license or holds back the online rights, which can lead to audiovisual works being unavailable on video-on-demand services.

Other issues could relate to windows of exploitation. To facilitate the licensing of rights in audiovisual works to video-on-demand services, Member States should be required to provide for a negotiation mechanism allowing parties willing to conclude an agreement to rely on the assistance of an impartial body or of one or more mediators.

For that purpose, Member States should be allowed either to establish a new body or rely on an existing one that fulfils the conditions established by this Directive.

Member States should be able to designate one or more competent bodies or mediators. The body or the mediators should meet with the parties and help with the negotiations by providing professional, impartial and external advice.

Where a negotiation involves parties from different Member States and where those parties decide to rely on the negotiation mechanism, the parties should agree beforehand on the competent Member State.

The body or the mediators could meet with the parties to facilitate the start of negotiations or in the course of the negotiations to facilitate the conclusion of an agreement.

Participation in that negotiation mechanism and the subsequent conclusion of agreements should be voluntary and should not affect the parties' contractual freedom.

Member States should be free to decide on the specific functioning of the negotiation mechanism, including the timing and duration of the assistance to negotiations and the bearing of the costs.

Member States should ensure that administrative and financial burdens remain proportionate to guarantee the efficiency of the negotiation mechanism.

Without it being an obligation for them, Member States should encourage dialogue between representative organisations.

The expiry of the term of protection of a work entails the entry of that work into the public domain and the expiry of the rights that Union copyright law provides in relation to that work.

In the field of visual arts, the circulation of faithful reproductions of works in the public domain contributes to the access to and promotion of culture, and the access to cultural heritage.

In the digital environment, the protection of such reproductions through copyright or related rights is inconsistent with the expiry of the copyright protection of works.

In addition, differences between the national copyright laws governing the protection of such reproductions give rise to legal uncertainty and affect the cross-border dissemination of works of visual arts in the public domain.

Certain reproductions of works of visual arts in the public domain should, therefore, not be protected by copyright or related rights.

All of that should not prevent cultural heritage institutions from selling reproductions, such as postcards. A free and pluralist press is essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens' access to information.

It provides a fundamental contribution to public debate and the proper functioning of a democratic society.

The wide availability of press publications online has given rise to the emergence of new online services, such as news aggregators or media monitoring services, for which the reuse of press publications constitutes an important part of their business models and a source of revenue.

Publishers of press publications are facing problems in licensing the online use of their publications to the providers of those kinds of services, making it more difficult for them to recoup their investments.

In the absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, the licensing and enforcement of rights in press publications regarding online uses by information society service providers in the digital environment are often complex and inefficient.

The organisational and financial contribution of publishers in producing press publications needs to be recognised and further encouraged to ensure the sustainability of the publishing industry and thereby foster the availability of reliable information.

It is therefore necessary to provide at Union level for harmonised legal protection for press publications in respect of online uses by information society service providers, which leaves the existing copyright rules in Union law applicable to private or non-commercial uses of press publications by individual users unaffected, including where such users share press publications online.

The legal protection for press publications provided for by this Directive should benefit publishers that are established in a Member State and have their registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Union.

The concept of publisher of press publications should be understood as covering service providers, such as news publishers or news agencies, when they publish press publications within the meaning of this Directive.

Press publications contain mostly literary works, but increasingly include other types of works and other subject matter, in particular photographs and videos.

Periodical publications published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, should not be covered by the protection granted to press publications under this Directive.

Neither should that protection apply to websites, such as blogs, that provide information as part of an activity that is not carried out under the initiative, editorial responsibility and control of a service provider, such as a news publisher.

The rights granted to publishers of press publications should not extend to acts of hyperlinking.

They should also not extend to mere facts reported in press publications. The use of press publications by information society service providers can consist of the use of entire publications or articles but also of parts of press publications.

Such uses of parts of press publications have also gained economic relevance. At the same time, the use of individual words or very short extracts of press publications by information society service providers may not undermine the investments made by publishers of press publications in the production of content.

Therefore, it is appropriate to provide that the use of individual words or very short extracts of press publications should not fall within the scope of the rights provided for in this Directive.

Taking into account the massive aggregation and use of press publications by information society service providers, it is important that the exclusion of very short extracts be interpreted in such a way as not to affect the effectiveness of the rights provided for in this Directive.

The protection granted to publishers of press publications under this Directive should not affect the rights of the authors and other rightholders in the works and other subject matter incorporated therein, including as regards the extent to which authors and other rightholders can exploit their works or other subject matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated.

Publishers of press publications should, therefore, not be able to invoke the protection granted to them under this Directive against authors and other rightholders or against other authorised users of the same works or other subject matter.

That should be without prejudice to contractual arrangements concluded between the publishers of press publications, on the one hand, and authors and other rightholders, on the other.

Authors whose works are incorporated in a press publication should be entitled to an appropriate share of the revenues that press publishers receive for the use of their press publications by information society service providers.

That should be without prejudice to national laws on ownership or exercise of rights in the context of employment contracts, provided that such laws are in compliance with Union law.

Publishers, including those of press publications, books or scientific publications and music publications, often operate on the basis of the transfer of authors' rights by means of contractual agreements or statutory provisions.

In that context, publishers make an investment with a view to the exploitation of the works contained in their publications and can in some instances be deprived of revenues where such works are used under exceptions or limitations such as those for private copying and reprography, including the corresponding existing national schemes for reprography in the Member States, or under public lending schemes.

In several Member States, compensation for uses under those exceptions or limitations is shared between authors and publishers.

In order to take account of this situation and to improve legal certainty for all parties concerned, this Directive allows Member States that have existing schemes for the sharing of compensation between authors and publishers to maintain them.

While this Directive should apply in a non-discriminatory way to all Member States, it should respect the traditions in this area and not oblige Member States that do not currently have such compensation-sharing schemes to introduce them.

It should not affect existing or future arrangements in Member States regarding remuneration in the context of public lending.

It should also leave national arrangements relating to the management of rights and to remuneration rights unaffected, provided that they are in compliance with Union law.

All Member States should be allowed but not obliged to provide that, where authors have transferred or licensed their rights to a publisher or otherwise contribute with their works to a publication, and there are systems in place to compensate for the harm caused to them by an exception or limitation, including through collective management organisations that jointly represent authors and publishers, publishers are entitled to a share of such compensation.

Member States should remain free to determine how publishers are to substantiate their claims for compensation or remuneration, and to lay down the conditions for the sharing of such compensation or remuneration between authors and publishers in accordance with their national systems.

In recent years, the functioning of the online content market has gained in complexity. Online content-sharing services providing access to a large amount of copyright-protected content uploaded by their users have become a main source of access to content online.

Online services are a means of providing wider access to cultural and creative works and offer great opportunities for cultural and creative industries to develop new business models.

However, although they enable diversity and ease of access to content, they also generate challenges when copyright-protected content is uploaded without prior authorisation from rightholders.

Legal uncertainty exists as to whether the providers of such services engage in copyright-relevant acts, and need to obtain authorisation from rightholders for content uploaded by their users who do not hold the relevant rights in the uploaded content, without prejudice to the application of exceptions and limitations provided for in Union law.

That uncertainty affects the ability of rightholders to determine whether, and under which conditions, their works and other subject matter are used, as well as their ability to obtain appropriate remuneration for such use.

It is therefore important to foster the development of the licensing market between rightholders and online content-sharing service providers.

Those licensing agreements should be fair and keep a reasonable balance between both parties. Rightholders should receive appropriate remuneration for the use of their works or other subject matter.

However, as contractual freedom should not be affected by those provisions, rightholders should not be obliged to give an authorisation or to conclude licensing agreements.

Certain information society services, as part of their normal use, are designed to give access to the public to copyright-protected content or other subject matter uploaded by their users.

The definition of an online content-sharing service provider laid down in this Directive should target only online services that play an important role on the online content market by competing with other online content services, such as online audio and video streaming services, for the same audiences.

The services covered by this Directive are services, the main or one of the main purposes of which is to store and enable users to upload and share a large amount of copyright-protected content with the purpose of obtaining profit therefrom, either directly or indirectly, by organising it and promoting it in order to attract a larger audience, including by categorising it and using targeted promotion within it.

Such services should not include services that have a main purpose other than that of enabling users to upload and share a large amount of copyright-protected content with the purpose of obtaining profit from that activity.

Providers of services such as open source software development and sharing platforms, not-for-profit scientific or educational repositories as well as not-for-profit online encyclopedias should also be excluded from the definition of online content-sharing service provider.

Finally, in order to ensure a high level of copyright protection, the liability exemption mechanism provided for in this Directive should not apply to service providers the main purpose of which is to engage in or to facilitate copyright piracy.

The assessment of whether an online content-sharing service provider stores and gives access to a large amount of copyright-protected content should be made on a case-by-case basis and should take account of a combination of elements, such as the audience of the service and the number of files of copyright-protected content uploaded by the users of the service.

It is appropriate to clarify in this Directive that online content-sharing service providers perform an act of communication to the public or of making available to the public when they give the public access to copyright-protected works or other protected subject matter uploaded by their users.

Consequently, online content-sharing service providers should obtain an authorisation, including via a licensing agreement, from the relevant rightholders.

Taking into account the fact that online content-sharing service providers give access to content which is not uploaded by them but by their users, it is appropriate to provide for a specific liability mechanism for the purposes of this Directive for cases in which no authorisation has been granted.

That should be without prejudice to remedies under national law for cases other than liability for copyright infringements and to national courts or administrative authorities being able to issue injunctions in compliance with Union law.

Where no authorisation has been granted to service providers, they should make their best efforts in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence to avoid the availability on their services of unauthorised works and other subject matter, as identified by the relevant rightholders.

For that purpose, rightholders should provide the service providers with relevant and necessary information taking into account, among other factors, the size of rightholders and the type of their works and other subject matter.

The steps taken by online content-sharing service providers in cooperation with rightholders should not lead to the prevention of the availability of non-infringing content, including works or other protected subject matter the use of which is covered by a licensing agreement, or an exception or limitation to copyright and related rights.

Steps taken by such service providers should, therefore, not affect users who are using the online content-sharing services in order to lawfully upload and access information on such services.

In addition, the obligations established in this Directive should not lead to Member States imposing a general monitoring obligation. When assessing whether an online content-sharing service provider has made its best efforts in accordance with the high industry standards of professional diligence, account should be taken of whether the service provider has taken all the steps that would be taken by a diligent operator to achieve the result of preventing the availability of unauthorised works or other subject matter on its website, taking into account best industry practices and the effectiveness of the steps taken in light of all relevant factors and developments, as well as the principle of proportionality.

For the purposes of that assessment, a number of elements should be considered, such as the size of the service, the evolving state of the art as regards existing means, including potential future developments, to avoid the availability of different types of content and the cost of such means for the services.

Different means to avoid the availability of unauthorised copyright-protected content could be appropriate and proportionate depending on the type of content, and, therefore, it cannot be excluded that in some cases availability of unauthorised content can only be avoided upon notification of rightholders.

Any steps taken by service providers should be effective with regard to the objectives pursued but should not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective of avoiding and discontinuing the availability of unauthorised works and other subject matter.

If unauthorised works and other subject matter become available despite the best efforts made in cooperation with rightholders, as required by this Directive, the online content-sharing service providers should be liable in relation to the specific works and other subject matter for which they have received the relevant and necessary information from rightholders, unless those providers demonstrate that they have made their best efforts in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence.

In addition, where specific unauthorised works or other subject matter have become available on online content-sharing services, including irrespective of whether the best efforts were made and regardless of whether rightholders have made available the relevant and necessary information in advance, the online content-sharing service providers should be liable for unauthorised acts of communication to the public of works or other subject matter, when, upon receiving a sufficiently substantiated notice, they fail to act expeditiously to disable access to, or to remove from their websites, the notified works or other subject matter.

Additionally, such online content-sharing service providers should also be liable if they fail to demonstrate that they have made their best efforts to prevent the future uploading of specific unauthorised works, based on relevant and necessary information provided by rightholders for that purpose.

Where rightholders do not provide online content-sharing service providers with the relevant and necessary information on their specific works or other subject matter, or where no notification concerning the disabling of access to, or the removal of, specific unauthorised works or other subject matter has been provided by rightholders, and, as a result, those service providers cannot make their best efforts to avoid the availability of unauthorised content on their services, in accordance with high industry standards of professional diligence, such service providers should not be liable for unauthorised acts of communication to the public or of making available to the public of such unidentified works or other subject matter.

The rules provided for in this Directive are intended to take into account the specific case of start-up companies working with user uploads to develop new business models.

The specific regime applicable to new service providers with a small turnover and audience should benefit genuinely new businesses, and should therefore cease to apply three years after their services first became available online in the Union.

That regime should not be abused by arrangements aimed at extending its benefits beyond the first three years.

In particular, it should not apply to newly created services or to services provided under a new name but which pursue the activity of an already existing online content-sharing service provider which could not benefit or no longer benefits from that regime.

Online content-sharing service providers should be transparent with rightholders with regard to the steps taken in the context of cooperation.

As various actions could be undertaken by online content-sharing service providers, they should provide rightholders, at the request of rightholders, with adequate information on the type of actions undertaken and the way in which they are undertaken.

Such information should be sufficiently specific to provide enough transparency to rightholders, without affecting business secrets of online content-sharing service providers.

Service providers should, however, not be required to provide rightholders with detailed and individualised information for each work or other subject matter identified.

That should be without prejudice to contractual arrangements, which could contain more specific provisions on the information to be provided where agreements are concluded between service providers and rightholders.

However, there should be no presumption in favour of online content-sharing service providers that their users have cleared all relevant rights.

The steps taken by online content-sharing service providers in cooperation with rightholders should be without prejudice to the application of exceptions or limitations to copyright, including, in particular, those which guarantee the freedom of expression of users.

Users should be allowed to upload and make available content generated by users for the specific purposes of quotation, criticism, review, caricature, parody or pastiche.

Those exceptions and limitations should, therefore, be made mandatory in order to ensure that users receive uniform protection across the Union.

It is important to ensure that online content-sharing service providers operate an effective complaint and redress mechanism to support use for such specific purposes.

Online content-sharing service providers should also put in place effective and expeditious complaint and redress mechanisms allowing users to complain about the steps taken with regard to their uploads, in particular where they could benefit from an exception or limitation to copyright in relation to an upload to which access has been disabled or that has been removed.

Any complaint filed under such mechanisms should be processed without undue delay and be subject to human review.

When rightholders request the service providers to take action against uploads by users, such as disabling access to or removing content uploaded, such rightholders should duly justify their requests.

Member States should also ensure that users have access to out-of-court redress mechanisms for the settlement of disputes.

Such mechanisms should allow disputes to be settled impartially. Users should also have access to a court or another relevant judicial authority to assert the use of an exception or limitation to copyright and related rights.

As soon as possible after the date of entry into force of this Directive, the Commission, in cooperation with Member States, should organise dialogues between stakeholders to ensure uniform application of the obligation of cooperation between online content-sharing service providers and rightholders and to establish best practices with regard to the appropriate industry standards of professional diligence.

For that purpose, the Commission should consult relevant stakeholders, including users' organisations and technology providers, and take into account developments on the market.

Users' organisations should also have access to information on actions carried out by online content-sharing service providers to manage content online.

Authors and performers tend to be in the weaker contractual position when they grant a licence or transfer their rights, including through their own companies, for the purposes of exploitation in return for remuneration, and those natural persons need the protection provided for by this Directive to be able to fully benefit from the rights harmonised under Union law.

That need for protection does not arise where the contractual counterpart acts as an end user and does not exploit the work or performance itself, which could, for instance, be the case in some employment contracts.

The remuneration of authors and performers should be appropriate and proportionate to the actual or potential economic value of the licensed or transferred rights, taking into account the author's or performer's contribution to the overall work or other subject matter and all other circumstances of the case, such as market practices or the actual exploitation of the work.

A lump sum payment can also constitute proportionate remuneration but it should not be the rule. Member States should have the freedom to define specific cases for the application of lump sums, taking into account the specificities of each sector.

Member States should be free to implement the principle of appropriate and proportionate remuneration through different existing or newly introduced mechanisms, which could include collective bargaining and other mechanisms, provided that such mechanisms are in conformity with applicable Union law.

Authors and performers need information to assess the economic value of rights of theirs that are harmonised under Union law.

This is especially the case where natural persons grant a licence or a transfer of rights for the purposes of exploitation in return for remuneration.

That need does not arise where the exploitation has ceased, or where the author or performer has granted a licence to the general public without remuneration.

As authors and performers tend to be in the weaker contractual position when they grant licences or transfer their rights, they need information to assess the continued economic value of their rights, compared to the remuneration received for their licence or transfer, but they often face a lack of transparency.

Therefore, the sharing of adequate and accurate information by their contractual counterparts or their successors in title is important for the transparency and balance in the system governing the remuneration of authors and performers.

That information should be up-to-date to allow access to recent data, relevant to the exploitation of the work or performance, and comprehensive in a way that it covers all sources of revenues relevant to the case, including, where applicable, merchandising revenues.

As long as exploitation is ongoing, contractual counterparts of authors and performers should provide information available to them on all modes of exploitation and on all relevant revenues worldwide with a regularity that is appropriate in the relevant sector, but at least annually.

The information should be provided in a manner that is comprehensible to the author or performer and it should allow the effective assessment of the economic value of the rights in question.

The transparency obligation should nevertheless apply only where copyright relevant rights are concerned.

In order to ensure that exploitation-related information is duly provided to authors and performers also in cases where the rights have been sub-licensed to other parties who exploit the rights, this Directive entitles authors and performers to request additional relevant information on the exploitation of the rights, in cases where the first contractual counterpart has provided the information available to them, but that information is not sufficient to assess the economic value of their rights.

That request should be made either directly to sub-licensees or through the contractual counterparts of authors and performers.

Authors and performers, and their contractual counterparts, should be able to agree to keep the shared information confidential, but authors and performers should always be able to use the shared information for the purpose of exercising their rights under this Directive.

Member States should have the option, in compliance with Union law, to provide for further measures to ensure transparency for authors and performers.

When implementing the transparency obligation provided for in this Directive, Member States should take into account the specificities of different content sectors, such as those of the music sector, the audiovisual sector and the publishing sector, and all relevant stakeholders should be involved when deciding on such sector-specific obligations.

Where relevant, the significance of the contribution of authors and performers to the overall work or performance should also be considered.

Collective bargaining should be considered as an option for the relevant stakeholders to reach an agreement regarding transparency.

Such agreements should ensure that authors and performers have the same level of transparency as or a higher level of transparency than the minimum requirements provided for in this Directive.

To enable the adaptation of existing reporting practices to the transparency obligation, a transitional period should be provided for.

However, individually negotiated agreements concluded between rightholders and those of their contractual counterparts who act in their own interest should be subject to the transparency obligation provided for in this Directive.

Certain contracts for the exploitation of rights harmonised at Union level are of long duration, offering few opportunities for authors and performers to renegotiate them with their contractual counterparts or their successors in title in the event that the economic value of the rights turns out to be significantly higher than initially estimated.

Accordingly, without prejudice to the law applicable to contracts in Member States, a remuneration adjustment mechanism should be provided for as regards cases where the remuneration originally agreed under a licence or a transfer of rights clearly becomes disproportionately low compared to the relevant revenues derived from the subsequent exploitation of the work or fixation of the performance by the contractual counterpart of the author or performer.

All revenues relevant to the case in question, including, where applicable, merchandising revenues, should be taken into account for the assessment of whether the remuneration is disproportionately low.

The assessment of the situation should take account of the specific circumstances of each case, including the contribution of the author or performer, as well as of the specificities and remuneration practices in the different content sectors, and whether the contract is based on a collective bargaining agreement.

Representatives of authors and performers duly mandated in accordance with national law in compliance with Union law, should be able to provide assistance to one or more authors or performers in relation to requests for the adjustment of the contracts, also taking into account the interests of other authors or performers where relevant.

Those representatives should protect the identity of the represented authors and performers for as long as that is possible. Where the parties do not agree on the adjustment of the remuneration, the author or performer should be entitled to bring a claim before a court or other competent authority.

Authors and performers are often reluctant to enforce their rights against their contractual partners before a court or tribunal. Member States should therefore provide for an alternative dispute resolution procedure that addresses claims by authors and performers, or by their representatives on their behalf, related to obligations of transparency and the contract adjustment mechanism.

For that purpose, Member States should be able to either establish a new body or mechanism, or rely on an existing one that fulfils the conditions established by this Directive, irrespective of whether those bodies or mechanisms are industry-led or public, including when part of the national judiciary system.

Member States should have flexibility in deciding how the costs of the dispute resolution procedure are to be allocated.

Such alternative dispute resolution procedure should be without prejudice to the right of parties to assert and defend their rights by bringing an action before a court.

When authors and performers license or transfer their rights, they expect their work or performance to be exploited.

However, it could be the case that works or performances that have been licensed or transferred are not exploited at all. Where those rights have been transferred on an exclusive basis, authors and performers cannot turn to another partner to exploit their works or performances.

In such a case, and after a reasonable period of time has elapsed, authors and performers should be able to benefit from a mechanism for the revocation of rights allowing them to transfer or license their rights to another person.

As exploitation of works or performances can vary depending on the sectors, specific provisions could be laid down at national level in order to take into account the specificities of the sectors, such as the audiovisual sector, or of the works or performances, in particular providing for time frames for the right of revocation.

In order to protect the legitimate interests of licensees and transferees of rights and to prevent abuses, and taking into account that a certain amount of time is needed before a work or performance is actually exploited, authors and performers should be able to exercise the right of revocation in accordance with certain procedural requirements and only after a certain period of time following the conclusion of the licence or of the transfer agreement.

Member States should be allowed to regulate the exercise of the right of revocation in the case of works or performances involving more than one author or performer, taking into account the relative importance of the individual contributions.

The provisions regarding transparency, contract adjustment mechanisms and alternative dispute resolution procedures laid down in this Directive should be of a mandatory nature, and parties should not be able to derogate from those provisions, whether in contracts between authors, performers and their contractual counterparts, or in agreements between those counterparts and third parties, such as non-disclosure agreements.

Nothing in this Directive should be interpreted as preventing holders of exclusive rights under Union copyright law from authorising the use of their works or other subject matter for free, including through non-exclusive free licences for the benefit of any users.

Since the objective of this Directive, namely the modernisation of certain aspects of the Union copyright framework to take account of technological developments and new channels of distribution of protected content in the internal market, cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States but can rather, by reason of their scale, effects and cross-border dimension, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 TEU.

In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter. Accordingly, this Directive should be interpreted and applied in accordance with those rights and principles.

With regard to this Directive, the legislator considers the transmission of such documents to be justified,. This Directive lays down rules which aim to harmonise further Union law applicable to copyright and related rights in the framework of the internal market, taking into account, in particular, digital and cross-border uses of protected content.

It also lays down rules on exceptions and limitations to copyright and related rights, on the facilitation of licences, as well as rules which aim to ensure a well-functioning marketplace for the exploitation of works and other subject matter.

Periodicals that are published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, are not press publications for the purposes of this Directive;.

Copies of works or other subject matter made in compliance with paragraph 1 shall be stored with an appropriate level of security and may be retained for the purposes of scientific research, including for the verification of research results.

Rightholders shall be allowed to apply measures to ensure the security and integrity of the networks and databases where the works or other subject matter are hosted.

Such measures shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective. Member States shall encourage rightholders, research organisations and cultural heritage institutions to define commonly agreed best practices concerning the application of the obligation and of the measures referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 respectively.

Reproductions and extractions made pursuant to paragraph 1 may be retained for as long as is necessary for the purposes of text and data mining.

The exception or limitation provided for in paragraph 1 shall apply on condition that the use of works and other subject matter referred to in that paragraph has not been expressly reserved by their rightholders in an appropriate manner, such as machine-readable means in the case of content made publicly available online.

This Article shall not affect the application of Article 3 of this Directive. Use of works and other subject matter in digital and cross-border teaching activities.

Notwithstanding Article 7 1 , Member States may provide that the exception or limitation adopted pursuant to paragraph 1 does not apply or does not apply as regards specific uses or types of works or other subject matter, such as material that is primarily intended for the educational market or sheet music, to the extent that suitable licences authorising the acts referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article and covering the needs and specificities of educational establishments are easily available on the market.

Member States that decide to avail of the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the licences authorising the acts referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article are available and visible in an appropriate manner for educational establishments.

The use of works and other subject matter for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching through secure electronic environments undertaken in compliance with the provisions of national law adopted pursuant to this Article shall be deemed to occur solely in the Member State where the educational establishment is established.

Member States may provide for fair compensation for rightholders for the use of their works or other subject matter pursuant to paragraph 1.

Any contractual provision contrary to the exceptions provided for in Articles 3, 5 and 6 shall be unenforceable. Out-of-commerce works and other subject matter.

Use of out-of-commerce works and other subject matter by cultural heritage institutions. Member States shall provide that a collective management organisation, in accordance with its mandates from rightholders, may conclude a non-exclusive licence for non-commercial purposes with a cultural heritage institution for the reproduction, distribution, communication to the public or making available to the public of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter that are permanently in the collection of the institution, irrespective of whether all rightholders covered by the licence have mandated the collective management organisation, on condition that:.

Member States shall provide that the exception or limitation provided for in paragraph 2 only applies to types of works or other subject matter for which no collective management organisation that fulfils the condition set out in point a of paragraph 1 exists.

Member States shall provide that all rightholders may, at any time, easily and effectively, exclude their works or other subject matter from the licensing mechanism set out in paragraph 1 or from the application of the exception or limitation provided for in paragraph 2, either in general or in specific cases, including after the conclusion of a licence or after the beginning of the use concerned.

A work or other subject matter shall be deemed to be out of commerce when it can be presumed in good faith that the whole work or other subject matter is not available to the public through customary channels of commerce, after a reasonable effort has been made to determine whether it is available to the public.

Member States may provide for specific requirements, such as a cut-off date, to determine whether works and other subject matter can be licensed in accordance with paragraph 1 or used under the exception or limitation provided for in paragraph 2.

Such requirements shall not extend beyond what is necessary and reasonable, and shall not preclude being able to determine that a set of works or other subject matter as a whole is out of commerce, when it is reasonable to presume that all works or other subject matter are out of commerce.

Member States shall provide that the licences referred to in paragraph 1 are to be sought from a collective management organisation that is representative for the Member State where the cultural heritage institution is established.

This Article shall not apply to sets of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter if, on the basis of the reasonable effort referred to in paragraph 5, there is evidence that such sets predominantly consist of:.

By way of derogation from the first subparagraph, this Article shall apply where the collective management organisation is sufficiently representative, within the meaning of point a of paragraph 1, of rightholders of the relevant third country.

Member States shall ensure that licences granted in accordance with Article 8 may allow the use of out-of-commerce works or other subject matter by cultural heritage institutions in any Member State.

The uses of works and other subject matter under the exception or limitation provided for in Article 8 2 shall be deemed to occur solely in the Member State where the cultural heritage institution undertaking that use is established.

Member States shall provide that, if necessary for the general awareness of rightholders, additional appropriate publicity measures are taken regarding the ability of collective management organisations to license works or other subject matter in accordance with Article 8, the licences granted, the uses under the exception or limitation provided for in Article 8 2 and the options available to rightholders as referred to in Article 8 4.

The appropriate publicity measures referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph shall be taken in the Member State where the licence is sought in accordance with Article 8 1 or, for uses under the exception or limitation provided for in Article 8 2 , in the Member State where the cultural heritage institution is established.

If there is evidence, such as the origin of the works or other subject matter, to suggest that the awareness of rightholders could be more efficiently raised in other Member States or third countries, such publicity measures shall also cover those Member States and third countries.

Member States shall consult rightholders, collective management organisations and cultural heritage institutions in each sector before establishing specific requirements pursuant to Article 8 5 , and shall encourage regular dialogue between representative users' and rightholders' organisations, including collective management organisations, and any other relevant stakeholder organisations, on a sector-specific basis, to foster the relevance and usability of the licensing mechanisms set out in Article 8 1 and to ensure that the safeguards for rightholders referred to in this Chapter are effective.

Measures to facilitate collective licensing. Member States shall ensure that the licensing mechanism referred to in paragraph 1 is only applied within well-defined areas of use, where obtaining authorisations from rightholders on an individual basis is typically onerous and impractical to a degree that makes the required licensing transaction unlikely, due to the nature of the use or of the types of works or other subject matter concerned, and shall ensure that such licensing mechanism safeguards the legitimate interests of rightholders.

For the purposes of paragraph 1, Member States shall provide for the following safeguards:. Publicity measures shall be effective without the need to inform each rightholder individually.

This Article does not affect the application of collective licensing mechanisms with an extended effect in accordance with other provisions of Union law, including provisions that allow exceptions or limitations.

Where a Member State provides in its national law for a licensing mechanism in accordance with this Article, that Member State shall inform the Commission about the scope of the corresponding national provisions, about the purposes and types of licences that may be introduced under those provisions, about the contact details of organisations issuing licences in accordance with that licensing mechanism, and about the means by which information on the licensing and on the options available to rightholders as referred to in point c of paragraph 3 can be obtained.

The Commission shall publish that information. That report shall be accompanied, if appropriate, by a legislative proposal, including as regards the cross-border effect of such national mechanisms.

Access to and availability of audiovisual works on video-on-demand platforms. Member States shall ensure that parties facing difficulties related to the licensing of rights when seeking to conclude an agreement for the purpose of making available audiovisual works on video-on-demand services may rely on the assistance of an impartial body or of mediators.

The impartial body established or designated by a Member State for the purpose of this Article and mediators shall provide assistance to the parties with their negotiations and help the parties reach agreements, including, where appropriate, by submitting proposals to them.

Where Member States have chosen to rely on mediation, the notification to the Commission shall at least include, when available, the source where relevant information on the mediators entrusted can be found.

Works of visual art in the public domain. Member States shall provide that, when the term of protection of a work of visual art has expired, any material resulting from an act of reproduction of that work is not subject to copyright or related rights, unless the material resulting from that act of reproduction is original in the sense that it is the author's own intellectual creation.

Rights in publications. The rights provided for in the first subparagraph shall not apply to private or non-commercial uses of press publications by individual users.

The protection granted under the first subparagraph shall not apply to acts of hyperlinking. The rights provided for in the first subparagraph shall not apply in respect of the use of individual words or very short extracts of a press publication.

The rights provided for in paragraph 1 shall leave intact and shall in no way affect any rights provided for in Union law to authors and other rightholders, in respect of the works and other subject matter incorporated in a press publication.

The rights provided for in paragraph 1 shall not be invoked against those authors and other rightholders and, in particular, shall not deprive them of their right to exploit their works and other subject matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated.

Member States should lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and should take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented.

The penalties provided for should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. The evaluation should provide the basis for an assessment of possible further measures, including the setting of Union-wide reduction targets for and beyond, and an assessment whether, in view of monitoring of marine litter in the Union, the Annex listing single-use plastic products needs to be reviewed and whether the scope of this Directive can be broadened to other single-use products.

In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Directive, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission in respect of the methodology for the calculation and verification of the annual consumption of single-use plastic products for which consumption reduction objectives have been set, the rules for the calculation and verification of the attainment of the targets on minimum recycled content for single-use plastic beverage bottles, the specifications for the marking to be affixed on certain single-use plastic products, the methodology for the calculation and verification of the collection targets of single-use plastic products for which separate collection targets have been set and the format for the reporting of data and information on the implementation of this Directive.

It is appropriate to allow Member States to choose to implement certain provisions of this Directive by means of agreements between the competent authorities and the economic sectors concerned, provided that certain requirements are met.

The fight against litter is a shared effort between competent authorities, producers and consumers. Public authorities, including the Union institutions, should lead by example.

Since the objectives of this Directive, namely to prevent and to reduce the impact of certain single-use plastic products, products made from oxo-degradable plastic and fishing gear containing plastic on the environment and on human health, and to promote the transition to a circular economy, including the fostering of innovative and sustainable business models, products and materials, thus also contributing to the efficient functioning of the internal market, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the scale and effects of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union.

In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives,.

The objectives of this Directive are to prevent and reduce the impact of certain plastic products on the environment, in particular the aquatic environment, and on human health, as well as to promote the transition to a circular economy with innovative and sustainable business models, products and materials, thus also contributing to the efficient functioning of the internal market.

This Directive applies to the single-use plastic products listed in the Annex, to products made from oxo-degradable plastic and to fishing gear containing plastic.

Those measures shall achieve a measurable quantitative reduction in the consumption of the single-use plastic products listed in Part A of the Annex on the territory of the Member State by compared to By 3 July , Member States shall prepare a description of the measures which they have adopted pursuant to the first subparagraph, notify the description to the Commission and make it publicly available.

Member States shall integrate the measures set out in the description into the plans or programmes referred to in Article 11 upon the first subsequent update of those plans or programmes in accordance with the relevant legislative acts of the Union governing those plans or programmes, or into any other programmes drawn up specifically for that purpose.

The measures may include national consumption reduction targets, measures ensuring that re-usable alternatives to the single-use plastic products listed in Part A of the Annex are made available at the point of sale to the final consumer, economic instruments such as instruments ensuring that those single-use plastic products are not provided free of charge at the point of sale to the final consumer and agreements as referred to in Article 17 3.

The measures may vary depending on the environmental impact of those single-use plastic products over their life cycle, including when they become litter.

Measures adopted pursuant to this paragraph shall be proportionate and non-discriminatory.

In order to comply with the first subparagraph of this paragraph, each Member State shall monitor the single-use plastic products listed in Part A of the Annex placed on the market and the reduction measures taken and shall report on progress made to the Commission in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article and Article 13 1 with a view to the establishment of binding quantitative Union targets for consumption reduction.

By 3 January , the Commission shall adopt an implementing act laying down the methodology for the calculation and verification of the ambitious and sustained reduction in the consumption of the single-use plastic products listed in Part A of the Annex.

That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 16 2.

Member States shall prohibit the placing on the market of the single-use plastic products listed in Part B of the Annex and of products made from oxo-degradable plastic.

For the purposes of this Article, metal caps or lids with plastic seals shall not be considered to be made of plastic. By 3 October , the Commission shall request the European standardisation organisations to develop harmonised standards relating to the requirement referred to in paragraph 1.

Those standards shall in particular address the need to ensure the necessary strength, reliability and safety of beverage container closures, including those for carbonated drinks.

From the date of publication of the references to harmonised standards referred to in paragraph 3 in the Official Journal of the European Union , single-use plastic products referred to in paragraph 1 which are in conformity with those standards or parts thereof shall be presumed to be in conformity with the requirement laid down in paragraph 1.

By 1 January , the Commission shall adopt implementing acts laying down the rules for the calculation and verification of the targets established in the first subparagraph of this paragraph.

Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 16 2.

Member States shall ensure that each single-use plastic product listed in Part D of the Annex placed on the market bears a conspicuous, clearly legible and indelible marking on its packaging or on the product itself informing consumers of the following:.

The harmonised marking specifications shall be established by the Commission in accordance with paragraph 2.

By 3 July , the Commission shall adopt an implementing act establishing harmonised specifications for the marking referred to in paragraph 1 that:.

Where multiple sales units are grouped at the point of purchase, each sales unit shall bear a marking on its packaging. With regard to the single-use plastic products listed in Section III of Part E of the Annex to this Directive, Member States shall ensure that the producers cover, in addition, the costs of waste collection for those products that are discarded in public collection systems, including the infrastructure and its operation, and the subsequent transport and treatment of that waste.

The costs may include the setting up of specific infrastructure for the waste collection for those products, such as appropriate waste receptacles in common litter hotspots.

The costs to be covered referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 shall not exceed the costs that are necessary to provide the services referred to therein in a cost-efficient way and shall be established in a transparent way between the actors concerned.

The costs of cleaning up litter shall be limited to activities undertaken by public authorities or on their behalf. The calculation methodology shall be developed in a way that allows for the costs of cleaning up litter to be established in a proportionate way.

To minimise administrative costs, Member States may determine financial contributions towards the costs of cleaning up litter by setting appropriate multiannual fixed amounts.

The Commission shall publish guidelines for criteria, in consultation with Member States, on the costs of cleaning up litter referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3.

Member States shall define in a clear way the roles and responsibilities of all relevant actors involved. Each Member State shall allow the producers established in another Member State and placing products on its market to appoint a legal or natural person established on its territory as an authorised representative for the purposes of fulfilling the obligations of a producer related to extended producer responsibility schemes on its territory.

Each Member State shall ensure that a producer established on its territory, which sells single-use plastic products listed in Part E of the Annex and fishing gear containing plastic in another Member State in which it is not established, appoints an authorised representative in that other Member State.

The authorised representative shall be the person responsible for fulfilling the obligations of that producer pursuant to this Directive on the territory of that other Member State.

Member States shall monitor fishing gear containing plastic placed on the market of the Member State as well as waste fishing gear containing plastic collected and shall report to the Commission in accordance with Article 13 1 of this Directive with a view to the establishment of binding quantitative Union collection targets.

The producers shall also cover the costs of the awareness raising measures referred to in Article 10 regarding fishing gear containing plastic.

The requirements laid down in this paragraph supplement the requirements applicable to waste from fishing vessels in Union law on port reception facilities.

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure the separate collection for recycling:.

Single-use plastic products listed in Part F of the Annex placed on the market in a Member State may be deemed to be equal to the amount of waste generated from such products, including as litter, in the same year in that Member State.

The Commission shall facilitate the exchange of information and sharing of best practices among Member States on the appropriate measures to meet the targets laid down in paragraph 1, inter alia, on deposit-refund schemes.

The Commission shall make the results of such exchange of information and sharing of best practices publicly available.

By 3 July , the Commission shall adopt an implementing act laying down the methodology for the calculation and verification of the separate collection targets laid down in paragraph 1 of this Article.

Member States shall take measures to inform consumers and to incentivise responsible consumer behaviour, in order to reduce litter from products covered by this Directive, and shall take measures to inform consumers of the single-use plastic products listed in Part G of the Annex and users of fishing gear containing plastic about the following:.

The measures that Member States take to transpose and implement Articles 4 to 9 of this Directive shall comply with Union food law to ensure that food hygiene and food safety are not compromised.

Member States shall encourage the use of sustainable alternatives to single-use plastic where possible for materials intended to come into contact with food.

In order to determine whether a food container is to be considered as a single-use plastic product for the purposes of this Directive, in addition to the criteria listed in the Annex as regards food containers, its tendency to become litter, due to its volume or size, in particular single-serve portions, shall play a decisive role.

By 3 July , the Commission shall publish guidelines, in consultation with Member States, including examples of what is to be considered a single-use plastic product for the purposes of this Directive, as appropriate.

Member States shall, for each calendar year, report to the Commission the following:. Member States shall report the data and information electronically within 18 months of the end of the reporting year for which they were collected.

The data and information shall be reported in the format established by the Commission in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Article.

The first reporting period shall be the calendar year , with the exception of points e and f of the first subparagraph for which the first reporting period shall be the calendar year The data and information reported by Member States in accordance with this Article shall be accompanied by a quality check report.

The data and information shall be reported in the format established by the Commission in accordance with paragraph 4. The Commission shall review the data and information reported in accordance with this Article and publish a report on the results of its review.

The report shall assess the organisation of the collection of the data and information, the sources of data and information and the methodology used in Member States as well as the completeness, reliability, timeliness and consistency of that data and information.

The assessment may include specific recommendations for improvement. By 3 January , the Commission shall adopt implementing acts laying down the format for reporting data and information in accordance with points a and b of paragraph 1 and with paragraph 2 of this Article.

By 3 July , the Commission shall adopt implementing acts laying down the format for reporting data in accordance with points c and d of paragraph 1 and with paragraph 2 of this Article.

By 1 January , the Commission shall adopt implementing acts laying down the format for reporting data and information in accordance with points e and f of paragraph 1 and with paragraph 2 of this Article.

Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented.

The penalties provided for shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Member States shall, by 3 July , notify the Commission of those rules and those measures and shall notify it of any subsequent amendment affecting them.

The Commission shall carry out an evaluation of this Directive by 3 July The evaluation shall be based on the information available in accordance with Article Member States shall provide the Commission with any additional information necessary for the purposes of the evaluation and the preparation of the report referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article.

The Commission shall submit a report on the main findings of the evaluation carried out in accordance with paragraph 1 to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee.

The report shall be accompanied by a legislative proposal, if appropriate. That proposal shall, if appropriate, set binding quantitative consumption reduction targets and set binding collection rates for waste fishing gear.

As part of the evaluation carried out pursuant to paragraph 1, the Commission shall review the measures taken under this Directive as regards single-use plastic products listed in Section III of Part E of the Annex and shall submit a report on the main findings.

The report shall also consider the options for binding measures for the reduction of the post-consumption waste of single-use plastic products listed in Section III of Part E of the Annex, including the possibility of setting binding collection rates for that post-consumption waste.

The report shall, if appropriate, be accompanied by a legislative proposal. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 3 July They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof.

Article 8 by 31 December but, in relation to extended producer responsibility schemes established before 4 July and in relation to single-use plastic products listed in Section III of Part E of the Annex, by 5 January When Member States adopt the measures referred to in this paragraph, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such a reference on the occasion of their official publication.

The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main measures of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.

Provided that the waste management targets and objectives set out in Articles 4 and 8 are achieved, Member States may transpose the provisions set out in Articles 4 1 and 8 1 and 8 , except as regards single-use plastic products listed in Section III of Part E of the Annex, by means of agreements between the competent authorities and the economic sectors concerned.

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Single-use plastic products covered by Article 4 on consumption reduction. Single-use plastic products covered by Article 5 on restrictions on placing on the market.

Single-use plastic products covered by Article 6 1 to 4 on product requirements. Beverage containers with a capacity of up to three litres, i.

Single-use plastic products covered by Article 7 on marking requirements. Single-use plastic products covered by Article 8 2 on extended producer responsibility.

Single-use plastic products covered by Article 8 3 on extended producer responsibility. Other single-use plastic products covered by Article 8 3 on extended producer responsibility.

Tobacco products with filters and filters marketed for use in combination with tobacco products. Single-use plastic products covered by Article 9 on separate collection and by Article 6 5 on product requirements.

Beverage bottles with a capacity of up to three litres, including their caps and lids, but not:. Single-use plastic products covered by Article 10 on awareness raising.

Skip to main content. This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website. EU case-law Case-law Digital reports Directory of case-law.

Quick search. Need more search options? Use the Advanced search. Help Print this page. Expand all Collapse all.

Title and reference. Languages, formats and link to OJ. Official Journal. To see if this document has been published in an e-OJ with legal value, click on the icon above For OJs published before 1st July , only the paper version has legal value.

Multilingual display. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives, HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: Article 1 Objectives The objectives of this Directive are to prevent and reduce the impact of certain plastic products on the environment, in particular the aquatic environment, and on human health, as well as to promote the transition to a circular economy with innovative and sustainable business models, products and materials, thus also contributing to the efficient functioning of the internal market.

Article 2 Scope 1. Article 4 Consumption reduction 1. Article 5 Restrictions on placing on the market Member States shall prohibit the placing on the market of the single-use plastic products listed in Part B of the Annex and of products made from oxo-degradable plastic.

Article 6 Product requirements 1. Article 7 Marking requirements 1. Member States shall ensure that each single-use plastic product listed in Part D of the Annex placed on the market bears a conspicuous, clearly legible and indelible marking on its packaging or on the product itself informing consumers of the following: a appropriate waste management options for the product or waste disposal means to be avoided for that product, in line with the waste hierarchy; and b the presence of plastics in the product and the resulting negative impact of littering or other inappropriate means of waste disposal of the product on the environment.

By 3 July , the Commission shall adopt an implementing act establishing harmonised specifications for the marking referred to in paragraph 1 that: a provide that the marking of single-use plastic products listed in points 1 , 2 and 3 of Part D of the Annex shall be placed on the sales and grouped packaging of those products.

Article 8 Extended producer responsibility 1. Article 9 Separate collection 1. In order to achieve that objective, Member States may inter alia: a establish deposit-refund schemes; b establish separate collection targets for relevant extended producer responsibility schemes.

Article 12 Specifications and guidelines on single-use plastic products In order to determine whether a food container is to be considered as a single-use plastic product for the purposes of this Directive, in addition to the criteria listed in the Annex as regards food containers, its tendency to become litter, due to its volume or size, in particular single-serve portions, shall play a decisive role.

Article 13 Information systems and reporting 1. Article 14 Penalties Member States shall lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of national provisions adopted pursuant to this Directive and shall take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented.

Article 15 Evaluation and review 1. Article 16 Committee procedure 1.

Single 2019 Mehr charts

Für Samra ist es der dritte Nummer-eins-Erfolg. Martin Garrix feat. Robbie Williams. Dieser erreicht zum Luciano [DE] La haine Urban. Zu ihrem jährigen Bandbestehen erreicht die Band zum ersten Mal Platz hannes und der stream der deutschen Albumcharts. Loredana feat.

Single 2019 Video

SECRET CHAPTER - Blaze (Lyric Video) // Official Single 2019 // Crime Records single 2019 single 2019