Hi all, To all the veterans of the last EU copyright reform: It’s time to warm up again, the Commission is starting a review of the 2019 copyright directive. The Court of Justice has redefined the definition of systemic risk under the DSA. And Czechia and Estonia have come out as skeptics of a social media ban for children.
=== Copyright: CDSM Review === The review of the 2019 Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive (CDSM) is gathering pace. The statutory review trigger kicks in next month, and the Commission has been moving on multiple fronts. Still, this is very early stages and an actual legislative proposal is likely years away. — Five EU member states have written to Brussels <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UIYY9A5nyXu1ah0WQFJucO6bI77ZglC4/view?usp=sharing> to push for a review of the bloc's copyright rules with regards to AI. This is consistent with the direction signalled last month by Emmanuelle du Chalard, head of copyright at the European Commission, at an event <https://www.aepo-artis.org/aepo-artis-wraps-up-successful-conference-on-7-years-of-the-cdsm-directive/> organised by AEPO-ARTIS. She confirmed that evidence is being gathered for the CDSM review, that a study comparing impact across countries is underway. — Indeed, the Commission has now launched the targeted public consultation <https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/16354-Targeted-initiative-for-a-better-copyright-environment-for-European-creativity-and-innovation> on four specific issues: challenges resulting from AI and market developments; online piracy of live events; sound recordings; and the scope of the scientific research exception. The consultation closes 25 June 2026. Wikimedia Europe will respond. In parallel there is a EU wide survey <https://horizons.confirmit.eu/wix/p181452076573.aspx> underway to contribute to the aforementioned study. We will also submit answers. — Of particular relevance to us is the scientific research exception <https://wikimedia.brussels/why-wikimedia-supports-secondary-publication-rights-for-publicly-funded-research/>, which is directly linked to open access to knowledge. The questions about AI training are also of interest to our work and projects. They connect to the ongoing debate about text and data mining exceptions flagged in last month's report on the Parliament's AI and copyright own-initiative report. The consultation further allows other issues to be raised, so we might namecheck a few exceptions and limitations :) === Open Source Strategy === The European Commission appears to have quietly dropped the open source strategy from its upcoming tech sovereignty package <https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/eu-tech-sovereignty>, though it is unclear whether the strategy was scrapped altogether, delayed or folded into another initiative. The Commission has not commented. Cloud provider Nextcloud argued that only open source software "prevents dependencies on individual providers and allows independent security audits," and called for procurement reform as a minimum. — The package is expected to be presented on 2 June and many drafts are circulating in Brussels. The overarching question for our movement is whether the EU will structurally move to more open source software and content and what kind of tech investments will be prioritised. Imagine the package as a cluster of legislative proposals on procurement rules, cloud and AI infrastructure as well as strategic documents. === Age Verification === The political temperature remains high, but some cracks in the consensus are starting to show. — Greece notified the Commission <https://technical-regulation-information-system.ec.europa.eu/en/notification/27928> of its draft law introducing a social media ban for minors. This follows the anonymity ban proposal reported last month. Portugal has a bill in the making <https://www.parlamento.pt/ActividadeParlamentar/Paginas/DetalheIniciativa.aspx?BID=356058>, though we assess that it doesn’t scope Wikimedia projects in its current version. The UK has launched a national consultation <https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/growing-up-in-the-online-world-a-national-consultatio> on children and online life. — On the other end, Czechia stands out as a dissenting voice. The government publicly opposes strict social media bans for children, says it is focused on freedom of speech and concerned about overblocking. Estonia is also very sceptical of a social media ban. — Somewhere in the middle is Germany's position that calls for beefed-up protection of minors, though Berlin continues to prefer waiting for an EU-level framework before acting nationally on age verification. — The French law, as we noted last month, explicitly excludes online encyclopedias and educational resources (and even open source code repositories) from its scope. We are monitoring each national development carefully to ensure Wikimedia projects aren’t in scope, and engage where necessary. === Blurry Images on Commons === A small but useful development. Wikimedia Commons is introducing a content descriptor system <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Wikimedia_Commons_content_descriptor_is_now_a_thing!> that, among other things, enables the selective blurring of sensitive images. This is relevant to our policy work: as age verification and minor protection discussions increasingly focus on image-based harm. Having a documented, functional content moderation mechanism on Commons is something we can point to in conversations with regulators. === CSAM === Talks on the permanent Child Sexual Abuse Material Regulation, dubbed “chatcontrol” by critics, continue. Very slowly. Negotiators met in May and made progress on several elements of the proposal, but the central and most contested question — detection orders and scanning of personal messages — was not on the agenda. There is one political trilogue left before the summer, scheduled for 29 June, with the Cypriot Presidency still hoping for a breakthrough on that date. === DSA: CJEU Reinterprets Systemic Risks === A significant development for anyone following DSA enforcement. In November 2025, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in Amazon v. European Commission <https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=306323>, and the DSA Observatory has now published a thorough analysis <https://dsa-observatory.eu/2026/05/06/what-makes-a-risk-systemic-the-cjeus-first-interpretation-of-systemic-risks-under-the-digital-services-act/>of what it means for the concept of systemic risks under the DSA. — The core holding is this: systemic risks under the DSA are about large-scale societal impact. A risk is systemic if it could "affect a significant part of the population of the European Union." The Court also implied — though did not state outright — that the list of systemic risks in Article 34(1) of the DSA is exhaustive rather than open-ended. — Why it matters for Wikimedia: The Wikimedia Foundation does have to go through an annual DSA's systemic risk exercise for Wikipedia. A narrower, scale-and-impact-based definition could mean that the WMF can be more proportionate and more focused in this work. === Digital Omnibus === The Digital Omnibus (covering the GDPR, NIS2, Data Act and others) is inching. The deadline for tabling amendments in the relevant parliamentary committees is 15 July. Compromise amendments are expected to be forged between October and December. A final committee vote is pencilled in for February 2027. Civil society groups continue to press that simplification must not come at the expense of fundamental rights protections, particularly on GDPR. Industry would like more than just a few symbolic steps. Wikimedia Europe follows the process and reiterates its position <https://wikimedia.brussels/editorial-wmeu-on-the-digital-omnibus-the-russmedia-decision/> where appropriate, including sharing amendment proposals with relevant lawmakers. === EU Democracy Shield === The Commission opened a targeted stakeholder consultation <https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/democracy-eu-citizenship-anti-corruption/democracy-and-electoral-rights/targeted-stakeholder-consultation-european-democracy-shield-work-strands-safety-politics-ai_en> on the European Democracy Shield, a non legislative initiative aiming at safeguarding democracy in Europe. There were three specific strands: Safety in politics, AI in electoral processes and anti-SLAPPs. We submitted our positions with regard to the use of AI in elections <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMEU_Contribution_Democracy_Shield_Targeted_Consultation_AI.pdf> and on how to address the phenomenon SLAPPs <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMEU_Democracy_Shield_Targeted_Consultation_SLAPPs.pdf>. === DEM-Debate ==== The last deliverable of the DEM-Debate research project, which looked at information integrity on Wikipedia during the last European Parliament elections, has been recently finalised: The Recommendations Report containing a set of policy recommendations for lawmakers. Some recommendations suggest targeted interventions on the DSA given its future review by the end of 2027. Others draw inspiration from the Wikipedia model and offer broader solutions that may inform future policy-making on platform regulation. You may read the full report <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c0oYidLZH29j1zwW4L6YETRHJ8PvJk0d/view?usp=sharing> and the executive summary <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mBRyluTxX-aK4HNxjM28qUo2QMEPoqCW/view?usp=sharing> . === Anti-SLAPP === On the 7th of May, the deadline to transpose the anti-SLAPP Directive expired and only a few member states managed to adopt it on time. There is a good overview <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/NIM/?uri=CELEX:32024L1069> of the process and adopted measures. Most countries took a minimalistic approach and did not adopt laws introducing comprehensive protections against SLAPPs. — On the topic of SLAPPs, WMEU and WMDE organised a workshop at CPDP <https://www.cpdpconferences.org/workshops/a-perfect-slapp-how-the-do-paco-case-highlights-contradictions-between-dsa-gdpr-and-freedom-of-speech>, particularly focused on the Do Paço case. It was a great opportunity to explain the Wikipedia model and highlight some contradictions between the implementation of GDPR and the freedom of expression. The presentation <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CPDP_Workshop_Presentation_May_2026.pdf> is accessible on Commons. ===END=== -- Wikimedia Europe ivzw
_______________________________________________ Publicpolicy mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
